CONFIDENTIAL
2
-
2.
Apart from being invited to tender by way of premium the tenderers were required to provide certain information with their tenders, they were also asked whether they would enter into a contractual obligation to reduce the time allowed, i.e., 18 months, for bringing the plant into operation and were invited on an optional basis to enter into a contractual obligation regarding sales price of the product. On this latter point neither company would assent. Du Pont agreed however to undertake to have their plant producing 12 months after possession of the lot.
3.
Both companies provided, more or less, the information requested and I wish to comment on this information as follows, dealing first with that of I.C.I. Ltd. (ceo Annex 'E').
Information Supplied by Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd.
4.
Suitability and Acceptability of Product. In para. a.1 the company points out that only in the initial stages will the formulation of the explosive manufactured be similiar to that which they have so far marketed in Hong Kong. They also stato that they consider it essential that they be permitted to very formulations to allow for development of future technology. This stance reflects the fact that I.C.I. are, for the present, dependant upon the patented technology of the U.S.A. company Ireco Chemicals of Salt Lake City. It also seems to indicate that they intend, as soon as they are able, to break away from this company and produce their own formulation.
5.
Hong Kong's present consumption of cartridged explosive, dynamite and watergel, is about 1,000 tonnes per year and can, based on projection of existing con-- sumption trends, be expected to increase only slightly over the next five years to 1,200 tonnes. The rated production capacity given of 2,500 tonnes for I.C.I.'s plant, assuming they were to supply the whole of the market would be approximately 2 times Hong Kong's needs. This surplus would presumably be exported.