Day 056 - 28 Nov 94 - Page 52


     
     1        of paper.
     2
     3   Q.   So I can, say can I, that if one is dealing in tonnage
     4        rather than square metres of carton board on the one hand
     5        or paper on the other, if one is working in tonnage, the
     6        figures of tonnage pulp required are going to be pretty
     7        similar, are they?
     8        A.  Fairly similar, excluding the recycling element we
     9        talked about.
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  In other words, if 1,000 tonnes of office paper,
    12        you know, standard paper like this, was needed, would it be
    13        near the same figures of 1,590 tonnes of pulpwood plus 180
    14        tonnes of sawmill residue, would it be roughly the same to
    15        produce this kind of quality paper as opposed to that kind
    16        of quality?
    17        A.  Mr. Morris, I have to say that that would be a question
    18        better addressed to Mr. Bateman simply because he is a
    19        papermaker and I am not.   My only view would be on this
    20        matter is that you have to take into account that if a
    21        proportion of hardwood pulp is involved, then you have got
    22        a denser basic material and, therefore, the input tonnage
    23        would produce less in terms of output product.
    24
    25   Q.   Again, in point 1 on page 4 you said for "Every saleable
    26        1,000 tonnes of carton board".  I know you are not the
    27        paper production person, but presumably material is lost in
    28        the process.  Is that correct?
    29        A.  Yes.
    30
    31   Q.   In the production process.  Have you included that in your
    32        figures?
    33        A.  Yes, I have given you an input figure.
    34
    35   Q.   I see, the input figure produced 1,000 tonnes of carton
    36        board.  We could probably be here all day trying to work it
    37        out exactly.  You were going to say something a bit earlier
    38        on when you moved on to something else about sawmill
    39        residues.  I do not know what you were going to say.  Were
    40        you going to say something to the effect of residues could
    41        be characterised as "recycled"?  Is that what you were
    42        going to say?
    43        A.  This is something which I gather that in the world of
    44        recycling waste material is taken into account, and
    45        sometimes in calculating the percentage of recycled
    46        material that waste material includes otherwise burned
    47        material such as the residue from sawmills.  This is
    48        something I do not know because I gather this sometimes
    49        varies as to what is included as recycled and what is not.
    50 
    51   Q.   I think that is all I have to ask on the figures for the 
    52        moment anyway.  If we go back to page 3 under Sweden and 
    53        Finland, in the middle of the page you talk about the
    54        increase in softwood stocks.  Has the area of hardwoods
    55        decreased in those countries, in Sweden and Finland?
    56        A.  No.  The area of hardwoods in recent years in Finland,
    57        on which I do have some information, has actually
    58        increased, although there was a time in the postwar period
    59        when they cut extremely heavily into their Finnish birch
    60        stocks as part of their reparation programmes with Russia,

Prev Next Index