Sector News

Monsanto weighs fresh Syngenta takeover bid

November 18, 2015
Chemical Value Chain

Monsanto is weighing whether to launch another attempt to take over Swiss agrochemicals giant Syngenta, after the Swiss company snubbed an offer from a Chinese group, the Bloomberg financial news agency reported on Wednesday.

Syngenta turned down a $47-billion bid from Monsanto in August and has reportedly backed away from a $41.6-billion offer from China National Chemical (ChemChina).

Syngenta and ChemChina were said to still be in talks, but Monsanto’s chief operating officer Brett Begemann told reporters that the failure of those two sides to strike a deal had spurred Monsanto to rethink another offer.

“If you are asking me are we having conversations inside of Monsanto, well of course we are,” Bloomberg quoted Begemann as saying.

Source: The Local Switzerland

comments closed

Related News

September 25, 2022

France and Sweden both launch ‘first of a kind’ hydrogen facilities

Chemical Value Chain

France has launched an offshore green hydrogen production platform at the country’s Port of Saint-Nazaire this week, along with its first offshore wind farm. The hydrogen plant, which its operators say is the world’s first facility of its type, coincides with the launch of another “first of its kind” facility in Sweden dedicated to storing hydrogen in an underground lined rock cavern (LRC).

September 25, 2022

NextChem announces €194-million grant for waste-to-hydrogen project in Rome

Chemical Value Chain

The project sets up the Hydrogen Valley in Rome, the first industrial-scale technological hub for the development of the national supply chain for the production, transport, storage and use of hydrogen for the decarbonization of industrial processes and for sustainable mobility.

September 25, 2022

The problem with hydrogen

Chemical Value Chain

At first glance, hydrogen seems to be the perfect solution to our energy needs. It doesn’t produce any carbon dioxide when used. It can store energy for long periods of time. It doesn’t leave behind hazardous waste materials, like nuclear does. And it doesn’t require large swathes of land to be flooded, like hydroelectricity. Seems too good to be true. So…what’s the catch?