Search

The man who is often called the father of Saudi Arabia’s chemical industry is neither a chemist nor a chemical engineer. But Abdul Aziz Al-Zamil not only helped make state-owned Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC) the world’s fourth-largest chemical maker, he also had a major hand in establishing and championing private chemical enterprises in the oil-rich desert kingdom. Al-Zamil was just 34 years old in 1976 when the country’s Ministry of Industry & Electricity created SABIC and put him in charge as its first chief executive officer. Since then, Al-Zamil tells C&EN, his experiences have taught him the importance of sound government policies, strong business partnerships, and private enterprise. But he feels Saudi Arabia still has a way to go on its journey toward industrialization. Al-Zamil graduated in 1968 from the University of Southern California with a master’s degree in industrial engineering. Soon after, he joined the Saudi Ministry of ...

IN the closing days of 1954 the Rubber Disposal Commission announced the successful culmination of its arduous task—the sale of the Government-owned synthetic rubber industry to private enterprise. The remaining duty is the submission of the commission's report to the Congress for its approval. After submission of the report, which is expected in early January, the Congress has 60 days in which to accept or reject the findings of the commission. Although the prices of the individual plants will not be revealed until the submission of the report, well-founded rumor says that the prices were excellent. This would effectively stop any loose talk about a "giveaway" program. There are only three plants not sold, the huge copolymer plant at Institute, W. Va., that has not been modernized, the up-to-date copolymer plant at Baytown, Tex., and the alcohol butadiene plant at Louisville, Ky. However, Publicker Industries of Philadelphia, the world's largest fermentation alcohol producers, ...

"It is the possibility of success in the marketplace, attributable to superior performance, that provides the incentive on which the proper functioning of our competitive economy rests. If a firm that has engaged in the risks and expenses of research and development were required to share with its rivals the benefits of those endeavors, this incentive would likely be vitiated." If that sounds like the standard Chamber of Commerce description of how private enterprise is supposed to work, it isn't. It's actually one of the major findings by the chief judge of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City when the court reversed most of a lower court's findings in one of the largest private antitrust cases in U.S. history—Berkey Photo vs. Eastman Kodak. But beyond the Kodak case and an important regulatory case—the Federal Trade Commission's administrative action against Du Pont's allegedly illegal dominance of the titanium dioxide pigments market—a ...

Private enterprise once again has its eyes on uranium enrichment. Since its inception, enriching uranium in the U.S. into fuel-grade material has been—and still is—a government monopoly. Past attempts to bring private industry into the uranium enrichment business failed. But now, John W. LaFond, executive vice president of American Enrichment Co. (AEC), thinks the time and circumstances are right. AEC, a joint venture that includes Boeing, E. F. Hutton, and Ebasco, an engineering-construction company, was formed last year specifically to make a pitch for private uranium enrichment. Speaking at the recent annual conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum in Washington, D.C., LaFond said that AEC has arrived at an almost perfect juxtaposition of "astrological privatization signs." He believes that, since the Department of Energy has abandoned and written off its proposed gas centrifuge enrichment plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, barriers to private entry into the business have been significantly lowered. In additi...

The worlds of industry and academia came together again last month in Philadelphia in another try at hammering the round pegs of private enterprise into the square holes of academic integrity. The affair, titled "Partners in the Research Enterprise" was funded by Smith-Kline Beckman Corp. Universities have been staging forums for debate over the issue during recent months. But this was the most ambitious effort to date at laying out the problems and opportunities posed by the current surge of corporate interest in campus research. The corporate/university intertie is nothing new: University researchers began forming electronic companies more than 30 years ago, Du Pont and Notre Dame collaborated in the development of neoprene in the 1930s, and professors have been doing industrial consulting for generations. But the scope of it all has ballooned. As Du Pont executive vice president William G. Simeral commented at the meeting, 'There have been dramatic alterations in the social, ...

IN the closing days of 1954 the Rubber Disposal Commission announced the successful culmination of its arduous task—the sale of the Government-owned synthetic rubber industry to private enterprise....

At a meeting last month at Princeton, students and businessmen debated the merits of the corporation and the private enterprise system as practiced in this country. As would be expected, nothing much was settled. But at least one intriguing statement came out of the discussion. Harvard senior Mark Gerzon is quoted by the New York Times as saying: "The moon is quite exciting for people with full stomachs. More earthly values concern me. I want to change the direction this country is going and that is why I will not go into business." In other words, Mr. Gerzon is questioning our national priorities. And he is apparently questioning the ability of U.S. business to contribute in the way he desires to any shifts necessary in our priorities. Those are legitimate, if currently fashionable, questions. Perhaps, though, Mr. Gerzon is taking an overly simplistic view of things. A number of elements go to make up this ...

THERE appears to be no question that atomic power for industrial purposes is technically feasible. Such being the case, why are there no atomic power plants? One obvious answer is the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the private ownership or control of fissionable materials. A second factor, and one which is of great concern, is cost. Even without the restrictions imposed by law, all indications are that power could only be produced from atomic energy at such a high cost as to make it uneconomic with respect to conventional sources of power in this country. Whether improvements in technology can reduce costs remains to be seen. With the passage of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress made atomic energy a government monopoly. The question has often been raised as to whether the time is ripe to lower the barriers and let private enterprise enter the field. With questions of national security involved, the answer to the ...