Updated Wednesday July 28th 2010
UPDATE
OFFER REJECTED
Whilst we would never usually make public the terms and
conditions of any negotiations without permission we feel that in this instance
it is important to highlight one of the reasons that large fish suppliers need
to move on and pull themselves out of the dark ages. Burying their heads in the
seaweed will not make this new technology go away, it's here to stay.
Having been threatened with legal action if we reveal the
company concerned, who for their own reasons would rather not repeat in public
the terms they offered us, we will have to refer to them as ‘X’.
Mafia would be a more apt title but we do not wish to be
offensive.
Following a one month consultation period we have rejected
an offer from ‘X’ to run a joint research project with a view to granting ‘X’
European rights to our sea fish production units, primarily because of the
derisory support they offered and the fact that this industry in general seems
to have been high-jacked by the relatively small number of companies who have
far too much control over the market to the point where they can seriously
damage both the industry and the fish themselves. Basically the deal was as
follows:
In return for further research into alternate species,
namely Sea Bass and Halibut to be conducted over the next year ‘X’ have offered
just £5k per month support, a derisory figure that would not even cover basic
analysis. They also insisted on a 4 month review with an option of withdrawing
their funds, ridiculous in itself as anyone with any knowledge of research and
fish in particular will realise that no meaningful assessment of both viability
and welfare could possibly be reached over such a short time scale.
‘X’ argued that the units may not be
commercially viable which can only be a negotiating stance or delaying tactic
rather than fact. An optimised unit can produce in excess of 90 tonnes per year
with an approximate cost per tonne, to include feed and fingerling stock, of
£1400. Agreed one has to add Capital expenditure, power, labour etc but even
when these are factored in, the cost per tonne over the lifespan of the system
is well under £3k, a figure also put forward by ‘x’ themselves. When higher end
species are equated such as Sea Bass and possibly Halibut, (with a little more
research maybe other species as well), the argument that the units
may not be
commercially viable is a ridiculous one. Factor in the obvious sustainability
issues, fish welfare and the need to reduce our dependency on the fast dwindling
ocean stocks and we can only conclude that ‘X’ has other objectives, we are
after all a serious threat to their current business format.
Astonishingly we would also have been expected to invest
£90k ourselves in a new research facility dedicated to the species that ‘X’
specify and give them access to the technology we have developed, much of which
is not protected as yet by patents etc.
It is not difficult to see why we rejected their kind offer
of support despite their obvious influence and market share.
We do not of course wish to condemn ‘X’ as we can only
assume that other large companies involved in the industry would take a similar
stance given that the ‘X’ website like many others is full of claims about their
commitment to sustainability etc and we have to assume that they are sincere.
Perhaps the term sustainability relates to profit rather than fish stocks? Who
knows, the fact remains that we have wasted a month and must now move on.
Since the news of our success spread across the world a few
weeks ago we have a myriad of offers coming in on a daily
basis from Australia and the Far East to the USA and Canada but basically
they give us five options.
1) We move Diobas Ltd away
from the UK and base our company where we have been offered more than ample
support. Not our preferred option as we have worked hard to keep this new
technology here.
2) We sell the company in its
entirety. Very lucrative but fraught with potential problems in that we fear the
technology will never see the light of day, there are too many companies out
there that have money invested in other areas who would be severely damaged if
our units became common place. As we feel a very strong moral obligation to make
sure this technology is made available the option of selling out would be a very
difficult pill to swallow, whatever the price offered.
3) Sell off the individual
technologies most of which have far reaching implications, from our
revolutionary particle fractionators to pump drives and the Ciren Neural Trigger
programs. All were developed to cope with the demands of putting sea fish into a
freshwater environment rather than as separate entities, but each have a whole
range of potential applications. This is not ideal by any means but perhaps an
option we should consider as licensing rights to use the technology as a whole
within the production units could perhaps be retained.
4)
We travel that well trampled path cunningly designed by politicians and civil
servants to frustrate, confuse and ultimately induce a visit from the men in
white coats . . . i.e an application for Grant Funding. This seems to be a route
doomed to failure unless you are a member of the right golf club, are a large
company that doesn’t need the money anyway or stand on one leg whilst engaging
in a secret handshake. This may only apply to English funding applications
however as it would appear that Wales, Scotland and Ireland are much more
amenable and innovative as are many other countries, or so we are told.
5)
This is an interesting one that has been suggested several times. We could issue
sole rights to a company or individual for a particular country on a license
basis. It would raise the capital we need to finance our research into other
species but there is a danger that the purchaser would simply hang on to the
license rights without actually building any units for the simple reason that
those rights would obviously rocket in value as the technology became common
place and the desire for units increased. This would be completely unacceptable
as our research was never about profit alone, if it were we would never have
embarked on such a revolutionary approach to aquaculture and instead would have
taken a much safer path if our only objective was to retire to the Bahamas on
completion of the program. It is vitally important for everyone that this
technology is readily available and exploited to its maximum potential not just
used for profit alone.
Either way the experience with ‘X’ has shown us that we
need to move very cautiously and pick our partners with great care. To progress
the project into a variety of species we need funds, it’s as simple as that. Diobas has never taken any
grants or third party funding, we have never had any help from any corporation,
banks or governments, we do not even have an overdraft facility let alone any
borrowing . Neither do we have any debts and enjoy being transparent in our
negotiations, perhaps this is where the ‘X’ deal went wrong. We were just too
honest about the support we need to go forward.
In summary there appears to be more sharks on land than
there are in the sea and perhaps, as we are essentially a research based company
not commercially skilled negotiators, we rather naively believed the profit from
our technology should be evenly shared between our partners, ourselves and of
course the dwindling fish stocks themselves.
So, watch this space, we will keep you all informed and a
very big thanks for all the emails of support and congratulations we have
received. This remarkable new technology will not go away. Sooner or later it
will become the norm and until then we are happy to talk
to anyone who has a serious proposal, the
only conditions being that
all discussions are transparent, each party is honest about its objectives and
that we all earn very well from the deal with the proviso that the fish
themselves benefit as well.
Fish welfare and profit
can go hand in hand.
The consumer wants it, we all
have a duty of care to ensure that the fish get it, and the oceans desperately
need it.
Surely that
shouldn’t be too difficult,
Diobas has the technology and we
all have the power of speech.
Our new 2.8 million ltr facility under construction in Singapore
Click below for our latest Oroborus Module
SM
