CHAR Technologies Closes $6 Million Private Placement

,

CHAR Technologies Ltd. (TSX Venture Exchange: YES) recently announced it has raised CDN$6,000,000 in a non-brokered placement.

CHAR Technologies is an Ontario-based cleantech development and services company, specializing in high temperature pyrolysis, converting woody materials and organic waste into renewable gases and biocarbon.

Andrew White, CEO, CHAR Technologies Ltd.

“We were very pleased with the overwhelming interest and exceptional investor support in the offering which had substantial demand beyond the placement size. We had significant institutional participation and interest,” said Andrew White, CEO. “The proceeds will not only strengthen our financial position but will also enable us to capitalize on the growing number of opportunities emerging in the Clean Tech sector for our products and technologies.”

CHAR intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering primarily for working capital needs with anticipated contracts, project development activities and investment in technology initiatives.

About CHAR Technologies

CHAR Technologies Ltd. is a cleantech development and services company, specializing in high temperature pyrolysis, converting woody materials and organic waste into renewable gases (renewable natural gas and green hydrogen) and biocarbon (activated charcoal “SulfaCHAR” and solid biofuel “CleanFyre”). Additional services include custom equipment for industrial water treatment, and providing services in environmental compliance, environmental management, site investigation and remediation, engineering and resource efficiency.

Can more recycling be a bad thing? Why including more materials in the recycling bin will do more harm economically, environmentally and socially

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D., Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

In a recent review of New York State’s proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation, I was taken aback by the sheer number of materials that were included (more than 30 individual materials in all) – it included everything from the conventional (newsprint, magazines, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans) to the obscure (Multi-layered and flexible packaging made out multi resin products like LLDPE, PCV and PS), and even things we know not to be recyclable (BPA, Compostable Plastics, Polycarbonate and Lexan).

While surprising, I can’t say that it was entirely unexpected. New York State is merely following the lead of jurisdictions such as Ontario, which have decided to adopt the “Kitchen Sink” model towards printed paper and packaging recycling, and attempt to recycle everything, everywhere, in order to make recycling simpler for households.

It’s an extremely easy story to sell to the public, more recycling is obviously good, and the companies who produce the packaging will need to figure out a way to recycle it effectively. While the latter comment touches on the topic of extended producer responsibility, which is not what this article is about. Rather, I want to remind readers that not all recycling is created equal, and the “Kitchen Sink” approach being proposed by New York State (and other jurisdictions), is not sustainable, and unequivocally does more harm than good – economically, environmentally and even socially.

The endogeneity hypothesis  

Whenever I refer to the “endogeneity hypothesis”, I am often met with blank stares. In its simplest terms, endogeneity (in this specific context) refers to when variables within a system are interrelated – the existence of variable A, impacts variable B, which in turn, affects variable C. This is a gross oversimplification of a rather complex issue, but I do so to illustrate a broader point: What we decide to accept in our recycling bin will not only influence our ability to recovery these materials economically, but also affect the recycling performance of individual materials that make up the recycling program.

What policy makers and advocates of the “Kitchen Sink” approach fail to recognize is that waste management infrastructure (including the development of downstream processing and end use applications) was largely designed around “core materials” – These materials, which are characterized by high levels of recyclability, stable revenue, strong end market demand and are accepted in most municipal recycling programs: Newsprint, Other Paper (Magazines, Office Paper etc.), Corrugated Cardboard, Boxboard, Gable Top Cartons, PET bottles, HDPE bottles, Aluminum Cans, Steel Cans, and Glass* (glass cullet is generally not considered a core material due to poor end market demand). While the proliferation of light weight and composite packaging has spurred innovation in the waste management sector, it would be a gross overstatement to say that these materials are readily recyclable. Recycling of flexible plastic and composite plastic packaging in particular are still in its most nascent form – research for this article could only find a handful of pilot projects (across North America) where recyclers are accepting composite and flexible packaging to be tested for chemical recycling and waste to fuel.

But what does any of that have to do with the “endogeneity hypothesis”? For every additional “non-core” material added to the recycling program, not only do the costs of the entire program go up, the costs of managing individual materials within the program go up. Materials that are difficult to sort and/or recycle have an adverse impact on all other materials being managed within the same system – this is particularly true of single stream recycling systems. The more materials accepted by a program, the greater the number of types of materials inbound into a material recycling facility. If a MRF is not configured or cannot be readily retrofitted to efficiently sort materials that fall outside of the “core material” categories, it increases both the sort time and cost of managing *all* materials, irrespective of whether it is newsprint or a multi-laminate plastic.

In essence, the decision to attempt to recycle everything not only radically increases the costs of a recycling system that was never intended to capture these materials, but it poses an externality on the materials that were already being recycled. It makes the cost for all participants within the system more expensive, a somewhat perverse outcome given that we are trying to encourage producers who use readily recyclable packaging.

What are we trying to achieve again?

When writing these articles, this is a question that I often return to – largely because I don’t think a clear answer has emerged. Based on what I am seeing in the latest legislative developments in both Canada and the United States, it appears as though increasing recycling rates may be the end goal. It’s a “Do good, feel good” activity that people can readily get behind – I agree with half of that statement.

It certainly is a feel good activity, but whether it “does good” is highly questionable. I have repeated time and time again that not all recycling is created equal – decision makers are not oblivious to this, as there was a time when certain municipalities were considering *contracting*the list of accepted materials due to the issues that it posed within the recycling system.

So why the sudden 180 degree turn – in fairness, one part of that is consumer driven. Telling households not to recycle is walking back on years of environmental messaging, and can serve as a significant source of confusion/contradiction. The second part has to do with “who pays for the system”. Municipalities were very interested in booting materials out of the Blue Box when they paid for half of the cost. However, under a 100% EPR system, the same people who wanted me to find out how to get LDPE film and Polystyrene out of the program, are now calling for producers to pay their fair share for keeping materials out of landfill.

Not all recycling is created equal

While I obviously have very strong feelings about the appropriateness of EPR for PP&P, and the efficacy of recycling in general, I want to leave you with the following. One is a tool that I had developed several years ago that allowed users to enter in either a goal recycling rate, or a goal carbon abatement target, and the model would automatically find the lowest cost way to achieve it by prioritizing the recovery of specific materials. The data is a bit outdated (2018), but the overall finding remains unchanged – it isn’t how much we recycle that matters, it’s what we recycle. The “optimized” scenario actually found that maximum carbon abatement was achieved by recycling *less* (in absolute tonnes) than what we do today, and at a lower cost. There is a decoupling of recycling rate performance and environmental impacts – no longer is recycling directly correlated with carbon abatement.

Beyond this tool, I also want to provide a material evaluation matrix that looks at the characteristics of each material being considered in the New York State EPR program. Please note that I have grouped all the sub-categories (i.e. flexible PET, flexible PP, Flexible PS) into one container category (flexible packaging). As best I could, I tried to mirror the proposed list to the ones we use in Ontario – the reason for that is that I wanted to give actual data for what the quantities and costs of recycling are in a program that has already implemented EPR.

The criteria I used to evaluate materials are based on:

·        recovery rate,

·        revenue received (using Ontario price sheet)

·        cost of recycling, (using the SO Pay in Model)

·        Is the material accepted in most programs?

·        Is there available recycling infrastructure?

·        Is there end market demand?

·        Carbon abated per tonne recycled (by material) (EcoInvent)

·        Carbon impacts per tonne landfilled (by material) and  (EcoInvent)

·        Money spent on recycling to abate one tonne of carbon (by material).

I have always felt that the last metric is the most important – how much would you have to spend recycling something in order to abate one tonne of carbon? If you refer to the second worksheet (“Cost of Carbon”) it quickly becomes apparent that some materials make virtually no sense to recover given how much you have to spend to achieve a given environmental goal, i.e. $1856.14/TCO2e for plastic laminates.

It is critical that decision makers use data and evidence to guide their decisions, and not rely on emotionally or politically driven narratives. Jurisdictions are tripping over each other trying to push forward with EPR legislation for packaging waste, but it is of paramount importance that we proceed with caution and question the approach we are taking and explore potential alternatives. Producers also need to understand that EPR systems prioritizing recycling based outcomes is likely to have many adverse impacts that need to be better understood. Now more than ever, producers cannot resign themselves to playing a passive role in legislative discussions.

Recycling is a wonderful thing, but it is not the only tool in our tool box. In fact, it should be one of our last resorts when we cannot find ways to achieve waste reduction (i.e. package light weighting) or adopting systems that make reuse easier.

There will be many people that disagree, but I encourage you all to look at the data, and see what conclusions you reach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circular economy approach at Emerald Energy from Waste

, , ,

Written by John Nicholson, Navdeep Randev, and Anastasia Jagdeo

Circular Economy

There has been much discussion on the term “circular economy” and the need for individuals, organizations, and governments to think in terms of circular economy.  In essence, a circular economy is one in which waste is essentially eliminated.  Prior to the modern age, humans were part of the circular economy that exists in nature.

As we may have learned in high school science class, there are cycles in nature including those for carbon, water, and nitrogen.  The industrial revolution broke away from natural cycles and created a linear approach to materials and energy management – products were manufactured, served their useful purpose, and then disposed of in a landfill.  The circular economy approach attempts to create a circle again through the 3Rs and the 4th R.

In Europe and in other forward-thinking jurisdictions around the world, energy-from-waste is considered the Fourth “R” after the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).  The fourth “R” represents the recovery of energy from waste.

Circular Economics applied in Waste Management

Since 1992, the Emerald Energy-from-Waste (EFW) facility has quietly and unassumingly been part of the 4th R – recovering the energy from municipal solid waste.  The facility, originally knowns as Peel Resource Recovery Inc. is situated in an industrial area in north Mississauga, Ontario.  In all of its years of operation, there has been nary an odour, noise, or other nuisance complaint formerly brought against the facility.  Visitors tend to be amazed when they tour the facility which ends at the emissions stack.  Their preconceived notion is that they would see smoke from the stack.  In fact, the emissions are invisible on a warm day.  On cold days, the visible emissions are water vapour.

For the first twenty years of its operation, the facility’s main source of waste was from the Region of Peel.  More recently, it has received waste from several municipalities as well as U-Pak Disposal Ltd., a related company.  The facility also specializes in disposing of special waste including contraband seized by various police departments and Canadian Border Services at nearby Pearson Airport.

The facility runs 24-hours a day, 7 day per week.  It has a total of five two-unit gasifiers/combustion modules that work in parallel to process 500 tonnes per day of solid waste.

The heat generated from the combustion of waste at the facility is used to turn water into steam.  Some the steam is piped to a neighbouring cardboard recycling facility to meet their process needs.  The remaining steam is used to generate about 10 MW of electricity.  The facility itself consumes about 2 MW and its sells the remainder to the local power utility.

Unfortunately, the electricity generated from the Emerald EFW is not considered renewable under Ontario rules and hence does not receive the premium pricing other forms of the renewable energy receive.  There are jurisdictions around the world where EFW is considered a renewable energy source and is priced at a premium.

The volume of waste coming into the facility is reduced by 90 percent through the EFW process and is in the form of either bottom ash or fly ash.  The bottom ash is disposed of in a landfill, although the facility has been and continues to look for other uses for it such as an additive to asphalt or in building materials.  The facility is working with McMaster University researchers on developing a high-value use for the bottom ash.

The fly ash, by regulation, is considered hazardous and is managed at a hazardous waste landfill.

Expansion Plans

The facility is currently in the planning stages of an expansion which would involve the addition of more combustion units and an upgrade of its air pollution control system.  The plans also include an alternative use of the energy recovered from the waste – the production of hydrogen fuel for the trucks that bring waste to the facility.

The facility is working with researchers at the University of Waterloo and a partner in the automotive industry to work out the details of hydrogen generation and use as a fuel for the trucks the off-load waste at the facility on a daily basis.  Preliminary economics and environmental analysis indicate that this is a much more effective use of the heat obtained from the EFW facility.

The Emerald EFW is a shining example of EFW done right in Canada.  It has been an underappreciated harbinger what can be accomplished at municipalities throughout the country.

Two Founders of Waste Management Companies on Top 10 List of Canadian Cleantech Entrepreneurs

,

Luna Yu converts waste into game-changing products

According to Second Harvest, a staggering 58 percent of all food produced in Canada is lost or wasted, representing 56.6 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Luna Yu founded her cleantech company to do something about it. Started at the University of Toronto and accelerated by the Women in Cleantech Challenge, Yu’s Genecis converts food waste into biodegradable plastics and other materials. The startup uses bacteria to break down food waste into short-chain carbons, and then another type of bacteria to eat those carbons and convert them into a polymer called PHA. Unlike other types of compostable goods (like oil-based plastic cups), Genecis’s products can be composted within a month, and degrade within a year should they end up in the ocean.

What’s next: Recently crowned the Extreme Tech Challenge’s global winner in the Cleantech and Energy Category, Genecis is scaling up by courting new clients looking to replace existing product lines. “We used the lockdown as an opportunity to reflect on what matters most and empathize with customers,” says Yu. “I’m really proud of how our team excelled in this period of change.”

Brandon Moffatt transforms trash into energy

“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” has been taken quite literally by London, Ont.–based StormFisher. Started in 2006 by three founders — Brandon Moffatt, Chris Guillon and Pearce Fallis — StormFisher’s biogas facility now converts more than 100,000 tonnes of organic waste each year into renewable energy, organic fertilizers and feedstock. With a focus on sustainable organics and power-to-gas projects, the company has started on several large-scale developments in Canada and the U.S. They use surplus renewable electricity at off-peak hours and produce low-carbon fuels for natural gas utilities and large corporations that are seeking to lower their carbon intensities or are in pursuit of carbon neutrality.

What’s next: “We are focused on the development of low-carbon energy infrastructure to produce various forms of renewable natural gas,” says Moffatt. StormFisher was also recently awarded a contract for a new green bin program in Stratford in which the organic waste will be used to create renewable gas at their facility.

Study on EPR’s effect on packaging prices: What you can and can’t do with data

, ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Co-Investigator: “The Waste Wiki” – Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

I’m actually really glad that Jodi Tomchyshyn London found and shared the following study by RRS: Impact of EPR for PPP on Price of Consumer Packaged Goods.

In short, after undertaking a fairly comprehensive examination of jurisdictions across Canada (both with and without EPR legislation), the study concluded that EPR policy has no affect on packaging prices.

The University had an opportunity to review this study as part of some technical advice that we were providing to the state of Oregon (specifically surrounding the impacts of EPR). The RRS study directly contravened our own findings, and as a result, we wanted to better understand why.

I want to preface this by saying that the intent of this post is not to criticize or undermine the work that RRS has done. It was well researched, and I applaud them for wading into such a messy and controversial topic and attempting to provide some clarity. However, the point I do want to make in this post is helping stakeholders understand what they can and cannot do with data. Jodi had made a really good point about understanding the context surrounding data – we need to understand how that information was collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented. I couldn’t agree more…. which is why I sometimes cringe when I see the conclusions that people arrive at, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what you can do with data.

Going back to the RRS study, regardless of how you feel about EPR and its potential impacts, it is critical that stakeholders understand that the RRS study has some methodological deficiencies, and as a result, leads to erroneous conclusions that cannot be supported by the data. This isn’t a question of opinion – given the way the study was designed, it is not possible for RRS to make any statements regarding the effect of EPR policy on packaging prices. Comparing costs across jurisdictions (even for like products and retailers) is not likely to yield any meaningful inferences with respect to the impact of EPR policies. There are literally hundreds of variables that affect the price of goods across localities (even for the same product and retailer). Demographics, infrastructure, relative purchasing power, proximity to markets, density of competing retailers etc. all effect price. In order for RRS to make the statements they did, they would have to control for all of these factors using statistical techniques such as multivariate regression to specifically isolate the effects of EPR on packaging prices. Given that many of these explanatory variables are collinear, they would also need establish controls for interdependency among explanatory variables.

While the above description may be a tad technical, the best way to look at it is that we are trying to compare identical systems, where the only variable being changed is the presence or absence of EPR programs. All other variables that can potentially impact a product’s price need to be controlled for. As far as I can tell, RRS made no attempts to control for interdependent variables and arrived at a conclusion that cannot be substantiated empirically. The only observation that can be made is that product prices differ from province to province, but provides no insight as to why they differ.

Given that my perspective may be seen as biased given that the university developed an alternative model, I would *strongly* encourage you to have a third party expert with a background in statistics and study design to review the RRS methodology. I am absolutely positive that they would reach an identical conclusion.

This is what is so potentially dangerous about attempting to interpret data without having a sound knowledge of how that data was collected and what you can do with it. In my career, I have countless anecdotes of stakeholders from all walks of life who draw the wrong conclusions, imply causality or infer relationships that simply aren’t there. When a misinterpretation of data leads to policy and legislation, the results can be catastrophic.

In the very first presentation I ever gave on the Waste Wiki, one of the slides says “Data without consideration of context or design does not tell us very much”. That message rings true more than ever today.

____________________________

About the Author

Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior.

Inspiring Advice at the Women in Waste Webinar

,

The Ontario Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA Ontario) and the City of Toronto recently hosted a webinar entitled Women in Waste.  The purpose of the webinar was to showcase inspiring women in the Ontario waste industry.

Featured speakers for the event included the Betsy Varghese (Waste Management Technical Group Strategist at Dillon Consulting), Charlotte Ueta (Project Director, Business Transformation EPR, City of Toronto), Daina Conley (Manager, Community Recycling Centre Operations, Region of Peel) and Sherry Brotherston (Operations Team Lead, Halton Region).  The moderator for the webinar was Eileen Chen (Household Hazardous Waste Operator, Region of Peel).

During the webinar, each featured speaker shared their experiences in various sub-sectors of waste management and discussed the challenges they faced in male dominated work places. The women shared their daily life routines and their motivations.  The discussed who their mentors were and how they were able to overcome the challenges they faced.

One motivation shared by the majority of the panelists was the excitement of working in an industry that is constantly changing.  They shared their passions on working in an industry where their contributions help improve the environment.  They also described the great feeling they get when they are working on a project that results in environmental improvements.

Each panelist agreed that having a trusting and supportive mentor helped them grow their passion in the industry.  One panelist talked of a mentor that helped put wings to her dreams and provided her with opportunities to expand her abilities.  Another panelist added that her mentor’s communication style and guidance on different approaches to difficult situations was magical and fueled her passion.  To this day panelists still network with their mentors in the industry.

Another key point raised in the webinar was balance between work and personal life.  Panelists admitted that family commitments made for challenging times are work and that they had to say no work opportunities on occasion.  One panelist described the initial difficulty of working late-night shifts after coming back from maternity leave but soon adapted to it.

Panelists acknowledged that it important as professionals to recognize that no person can do it all and that it is important to acknowledge one’s own feelings and to be kind to yourself and appreciate your best efforts.

For each panelist in the webinar, overcoming the obstacles of work in the waste industry wasn’t easy.  Each relied on the help and advice of their network and mentors.  It helped that they have a passion of the industry and are confident in what they can contribute to the sector.  Getting recognized for a doing a great job certainly helps build confidence and motivation for further success.

Panelists acknowledged that the waste industry profession is not seen by the general public as glamorous work.  It can be messy and require hands-on attention.  However, it is also an industry that needs professionals to work on policies and procedures, budget and plan, and to manage and lead.  The profession needs scientist, engineers, researchers, and planners.  In all facets of the waste industry, women can be found that have made great contributions.

The mission of Women in Waste is to promote the synergic involvement of all genders in the sector and appreciation of their work.

Private Company Developing new Organics Processing Facility in Toronto

, ,

Coronation Organics Processing, Inc. is in the processing of developing a state-of-the-art, organics recycling and bioenergy facility to be located in Toronto.  When constructed, the facility will have  state-of-the-art de-packaging equipment capable of processing over 30 tonnes per hour of mixed packaged organics for recycling.

From food manufacturing, greenhouse and packing shed organics, grocery store and restaurant food green-box collection, the facility will be able to divert organic material from landfill and recycle it into renewable energy and organic fertilizer is an environmentally sound solution for the treatment of organic waste streams.

Facility Design

As proposed by the company, the Design and Operation (D&O) Report details the design and operation of the proposed Coronation Organics Processing Centre and Anaerobic Digester.
The facility consists of two parts, an Organics Processing Centre (OPC) and Anaerobic Digester System. The facility is designed to work together to process and transfer organic residues for the generation of renewable natural gas and organic fertilizer (digestate). The OPC is designed to be able to provide clean organics for the anaerobic digester system or for export from site. The anaerobic digester system uses the clean organics to generate renewable natural gas for injection into the existing natural gas grid and digestate for export from site for use as an organic fertilizer.

Facility Description

The Facility is currently permitted via ECA Number 4568-AJTR84 is held by Optimum Environmental Corp.  The existing permit includes construction and demolition (C&D) and organics processing on the same permit but as the operation of these two processes is different and that they operate independently of
one another, it is requested that the Permit be split into two separate ECA Permits.
The only shared equipment between the two facilities will be fencing and gates, the weigh-scales that are used to weigh trucks as they enter and exit the property and the roads on the site. All other activities are separate.
The Organics Processing Centre (OPC) is designed to process up to 1240 metric tons per day of organics. Of this material, the anaerobic digester system can process up to 620 metric tons/day.  Any organic material that is processed through the OPC that is not used as feedstock to the anaerobic digester will be exported from the site to other operating anaerobic digester facilities or other appropriately permitted facilities.
The anaerobic digester system will use processed organic residuals from IC&I and SSO material to produce renewable natural gas (RNG) for injection into the natural gas grid and digestate for use on agricultural land.

 

Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy: Towards a Wasteless Future or a Wasteful Planet?

, , , , ,

Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy: Towards a Wasteless Future or a Wasteful Planet?
Written by Antonis Mavropoulos and Anders Waage Nilsen
Publishing September 2020

HOW THE MARRIAGE OF INDUSTRY 4.0 AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY CAN RADICALLY TRANSFORM WASTE MANAGEMENT—AND OUR WORLD

Do we really have to make a choice between a wasteless and nonproductive world or a wasteful and ultimately self-destructive one? Futurist and world-renowned waste management scientist Antonis Mavropoulos and sustainable business developer and digital strategist Anders Waage Nilsen respond with a ringing and optimistic “No!” They explore the Earth-changing potential of a happy (and wasteless) marriage between Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy that could—with properly reshaped waste management practices—deliver transformative environmental, health, and societal benefits. This book is about the possibility of a brand-new world and the challenges to achieve it.

The fourth industrial revolution has given us innovations including robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D-printing, and biotech. By using these technologies to advance the Circular Economy—where industry produces more durable materials and runs on its own byproducts—the waste management industry will become a central element of a more sustainable world and can ensure its own, but well beyond business as usual, future. Mavropoulos and Nilsen look at how this can be achieved—a wasteless world will require more waste management—and examine obstacles and opportunities such as demographics, urbanization, global warming, and the environmental strain caused by the rise of the global middle class.

  • Explore the new prevention, reduction, and elimination methods transforming waste management
  • Comprehend and capitalize on the business implications for the sector
  • Understand the theory via practical examples and case studies
  • Appreciate the social benefits of the new approach

Waste-management has always been vital for the protection of health and the environment. Now it can become a crucial role model in showing how Industry 4.0 and the Circular Economy can converge to ensure flourishing, sustainable—and much brighter—future.

Source: Wiley Publishers

Stats Canada’s latest Survey on Waste Management in Canada

,

Statistics Canada recently released its data from its latest survey on waste management in Canada. The survey was for the 2018 calendar year.  The previous survey covered 2016.

The data shows that almost 26 million tonnes of non-hazardous waste went to private and public waste disposal facilities in Canada in 2018, an increase of about 3% since 2016.  Disposal of non-residential waste amounted to almost 14.9 million tonnes, representing 58% of all waste disposed, while waste from Canadian households accounted for the remaining 42% (10.8 million tonnes).

StatsCan cautions that the data is preliminary. Complete data on waste disposal and diversion for 2018, as well as financial data for the same year, will be released at a later date.

Waste management industry surveys are completed by businesses and municipal government bodies involved in waste management activities. These surveys collect information on the quantity of waste that is disposed of in—or diverted from—landfills. Financial and employment information is also collected.

Peter Hargreave of Policy Integrity Inc. noted that although only a small year over year increase – it is interesting to see the percentage of residential waste disposed in Canada steadily grow as compared to non-residential.

Analysis by Peter Hargreave, Policy Integrity Inc., of Stats Can’s data

GFL Environmental Announces US$835 million Acquisition of Assets and Expansion of U.S. Footprint

, ,

GFL Environmental Inc. (NYSE andTSX: GFL) (“GFL” or the “Company”), a Canadian-headquartered environmental services company, recently announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to purchase a portfolio of vertically integrated solid waste collection, transfer, recycling and disposal assets (the “Acquisition”) for an aggregate purchase price of US$835 million.

The assets to be acquired by the Company, which include 32 collection operations, 36 transfer stations and 18 landfills supported by 380 collection vehicles across 10 U.S. states, represent substantially all of the divestiture assets expected to result from the previously announced acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. (“ADS”) by a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (“WM” and such transaction, the “WM-ADS Transaction”). The acquired assets are expected to generate annualized revenue of approximately US$345 million.

Strategic Benefits of the Acquisition

The acquired assets are expected to support GFL’s continued organic growth extending its reach into new and adjacent markets and forming a base to pursue synergistic tuck-in acquisitions. GFL expects that the Acquisition will significantly expand its U.S. footprint while creating an opportunity to realize meaningful synergies and earnings accretion. The Acquisition is expected to:

  • Expand GFL’s Geographical Reach. The Acquisition provides GFL with an attractive opportunity to extend its geographical reach into the U.S. Midwest, through a network of vertically integrated assets with a strong regional market presence in the State of Wisconsin.
  • Provide a Complementary Asset Network. The Acquisition brings a high-quality, complementary asset network and customer base to GFL’s existing operations in the States of MichiganGeorgiaAlabama and Pennsylvania.
  • Improve Operating Margins. WM and GFL will enter into a reciprocal 5-year disposal arrangement that will provide the Company with competitive, stable and predictable pricing and disposal terms.
  • Create Long Term Shareholder Value. The Acquisition reinforces the Company’s goal of creating long term equity value for shareholders. The high-quality portfolio of acquired assets coupled with the experienced management team joining GFL are expected to be immediately accretive to free cash flow and provide opportunities for the Company to continue to pursue its growth strategy.

“Even during these unprecedented times, we continue to successfully execute on our growth strategy of pursuing strategic and accretive acquisitions.  This transaction presents GFL with a unique opportunity to significantly expand our U.S. footprint through the acquisition of a high quality, vertically integrated set of assets in both our existing and adjacent fast growing U.S. markets,” said Patrick Dovigi, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of GFL. “We are excited to welcome over 900 employees of WM and ADS to the GFL family and are confident that we will continue to offer excellent customer service to our expanded customer base.”

Timing and Approvals

The Acquisition is subject to certain customary closing conditions, including approval by the U.S. Department of Justice and the closing of the WM-ADS Transaction. The Acquisition is not subject to any financing conditions. Closing is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2020, following the WM-ADS Transaction.

Financing of the Acquisition

GFL is well positioned to fund the Acquisition with its strong balance sheet and proven access to capital markets. The Company currently anticipates funding the Acquisition using a combination of capacity under its revolving credit facility and cash on hand but will evaluate other longer-term strategic and opportunistic financing opportunities as they present themselves.  Following completion of the Acquisition, GFL expects to maintain its current credit rating profile and leverage within previously stated ranges.