Our View of the 2015 WW ban on Methyl BromideThe use of Methyl Bromide as a fumigant has been at is...

1. Business :: Our View of the 2015 WW ban on Methyl
Bromide
Our View of the 2015 WW ban on Methyl Bromide
The use of Methyl Bromide as a fumigant has been at issue ever since the ban at the Montreal
Protocol. Developed countries were to have targeted to stop it?s use by year 2005, and developing
countries by 2015. In the intervening period the UN and member countries sought to find
alternatives.
To date Methyl Bromide has been replaced in some applications with other solutions, however
nothing has been found to be as affective for some crops and cargo. As recently as the end of 2009,
the UN Technical Economic Assessment Panel has not found a complete solution for the replacement
of Methyl Bromide.
Reports of the TEAP can be found at: http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/TEAP_Reports/index.shtml
Some industries, particularly in the US, have argued that the Methyl Bromide ban for developed
countries was a flawed decision designed to gain competitive advantage in world markets. "When
the U.S. attempts to suggest changes to make the Protocol better, developing nations rise in protest.
Why? Because the Protocol allows them an additional 10 years to comply with it, an advantage of
huge economic value. Those countries, the U.S' agricultural competitors, have made it abundantly
clear that their first objective is maintaining an ill-gotten economic advantage, not in fine-tuning a
treaty to address an environmental goal." Testimony ofJames A. Bair, Vice President North American
Millers' Association before the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality
In the intervening period since the Montreal Protocol was signed, developed countries have
continued to use Methyl Bromide under an approved UN "critical use exemption" (CUE). The criteria
for the exemption initially appeared in UN Decision IX/6.
In that Decision, the Parties agreed that ??a use of methyl bromide should qualify as ?critical? only if
the nominating Party determines that:
(I) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would
result in a significant market disruption; and
(ii) there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user
that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and public health and are suitable to the
crops and circumstances of the nomination.?
The United States is one of the largest users of this exemption clause. Annual statistics are gathered
by the UN on global use of Methyl Bromide in developed countries only.
In a few exceptions countries such as Belgium have gone beyond this clause and made recapture of
Methyl Bromide compulsory in any CUE applications. As we all are aware several companies have
developed a carbon based solution for recapture of methyl bromide that achieves 80% reduction
levels.
At the outset of the Montreal Protocol ban, our system demonstrated, through independent studies

2. and field installations that the use of their patented system was the only product in the world that
could attain up to 99.9% recovery rates of methyl bromide, and make the methyl bromide available
for re-use. This remains so today.
The search for a Methyl Bromide replacement has gone on for 15 years and hundreds of millions of
dollars has been spent by the UN and member countries, without finding a fully satisfactory solution.
The full commercialization of our system for recapture and reuse of methyl bromide in fumigation
applications was impacted by the hope of some technological breakthrough in the search for
alternatives and the wide use particularly in the US of CUEs.
With the intent of the Montreal Protocol being bypassed in some countries by the wide use of
exemptions, Aljoud moved on to commercialize its product in a parallel process to recover many
other gases used in the industry, where a much stronger legislative framework and requirement was
in place.
Bio-security, invasive species, and the spread of pathogens in world trade has become of increasing
concern, and the inclusion of developing countries in the Montreal Protocol ban of Methyl Bromide
scheduled for 2015 is an issue for many countries. The availability of CUEs to developed countries
after 2015 has not been addressed by the UN, however it would seem unlikely that member
developing countries would not demand a level playing field to the US, and other CUE users in world
trade in a post 2015 world.
For these reasons, our company views the pending "2015 ban" as an opportunity and not a threat to
the use of our patented technology.
We believe that both commercial and political interests may become aligned in many countries as
2015 draws closer without a world wide solution to the venting of methyl bromide into the
atmosphere. The opportunities may be richer in the developing world that may now need to seek
effective solutions that continue to keep their products open to world markets and still meet the
spirit of the Montreal Protocol.
We would not be surprised to see some industries in the developed world try and use nationals trade
barriers against competitors in developing countries who continue to use and vent Methyl Bromide,
in order to gain commercial advantage, as they have long held that they have been disadvantaged in
the world market place.
Our company is reviewing our strategic position in light of the developing political and commercial
?drivers? that we believe will change the landscape for our WW rights and needs and our patented
process, as the only one in the world capable of achieving near 100% MB recovery and also reuse it
again and again.
We are looking for strategic partners who have the right contacts and share our vision.
Nathan Hunter
CEO
Aljoud Company
www.aljoudco.net