Neither JCI or ENS are in the lead recycling business. JCI did have a modest smelting op in China that it recently closed after pressure from the Chinese government over pollution. As the Vernon closure proved, Exide makes most of its money in batteries on the Pb side. It's competition makes money on the battery side.
Now the interesting work-in-progress. At the end of this month the last operating primary lead smelter in the U.S. will be closing due to EPA pressure. Doe Run's Herculaneum, Missouri smelter sits on top of the world's largest lead reserve and will be closed. That leaves only secondary smelters like Exide's to provide domestically sourced raw materials for batteries... both lead for grids and connectors/terminals and lead/oxide for active material. Lead is heavy (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) and thus expensive to ship. It is also the material of choice for armaments, ammunition and ordnance and the bullets required by law enforcement, sportsmen and other NRA aficionados.
How will the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Departmnent react to an EPA initiative that leaves our defense vulnerable to much less accessible overseas sources of PB, only a fraction of which are available from either Canada and Mexico in North America? This question transcends any simple court-answered question regarding Exide's liquidity or ratio of assets to liabilities.
How the P-o-R and the BK Court address this is the key to knowing Exide's future, IMO. The competitive matrix is an important but not dominant factor in the valuation process. Remember that much of the off-balance-sheet liability risk reposes solely in the smelting area. If that were separated, Exide would look a whole lot healthier as a going concern.
GLTA.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
