If Jupiter isn't building its own facility, chances are it can find one to retrofit.
   "Most of the big pharmas are finding they have excess facilities," says Brooks. The surplus is a single result of twin trends: merger and acquisition, and offshoring. The importance of that excess is exacerbated by a complimentary trend: a growing focus on corporate cost control.
   "If you have too many facilities, you need to think about which ones to keep and which to get rid of," says Brooks. "It's a form of site selection. The interesting wrinkle is that a lot of these facilities are very expensive because of all the tenant improvements, so we're having discussions with people who are concerned about large write-offs. New purchasers may not want to use all of those interior improvements. It's particularly relevant for API [active primary ingredient] or vaccines, where they were very costly, very highly tailored to that particular thing being produced. Companies are discovering it's hard to recoup those costs … it's cause for a great deal of concern."
   Equipment movement is an option, but Brooks says it can get counter-productive in short order.
   "You're in Kalamazoo or La Jolla and your new plant is in India, and you probably want to start with new technology," he says. "Add all of that into this new environment of cost control, and it's a Hobson's choice: You will have to close a facility, but in order to close, you'll have to write off these tenant improvements. Think of a typical facility, with 100,000 sq. ft. [9,290 sq. m.] of space. If you're going to lose a good part of the value of those improvements, it's tens of millions of dollars, and it can be nine digits without stretching the imagination too much."
   Some have been successful in selling surplus assets to another pharmaceutical interest, sometimes an outsourced production contractor. But such moves have two obstacles: 1) "Nobody wants to move into somebody's old facility," says Brooks, and 2) Why would the facility make business sense for that contractor if it didn't for the original user?
   Sometimes the motivating factor is simple restructuring, as in the case of Merck's new plan, announced in November 2005, which involves cutting 7,000 jobs and closing five plants. Part of the upshot is the company's marketing of three manufacturing sites – one in Riverside, Pa.,

With expanded production of Exubera, Pfizer's Terre Haute, Ind., campus will have seen $330 million in capital investment since 1999.

one in Albany, Ga., and a third outside London, England – through CB Richard Ellis Group.
   In Pfizer's case, the goal is $4 billion in cost cuts costs by 2008, which analysts have said represents a 12-percent decrease in global expenses. But that doesn't mean the company is skimping on domestic investment.
   Pursuant to its successful acquisition of worldwide rights to Sanofi-Aventis' inhaled insulin product Exubera, Pfizer is creating more than 450 new jobs at its Terre Haute, Ind., complex to manufacture the complete Exubera line, as Pfizer helps to combat the growing problem of diabetes in the U.S., where nearly 21 million suffer from its complications.
   Construction actually began on the Terre Haute Exubera facility back in 1999, and has included about $160 million of investment to date at the 58-year-old, 2,000-acre (809-hectare) site. The investment total now will climb by another $170 million by 2009. The project will see $8.5 million in tax credits and $450,000 in training grants from the Indiana Economic Development Corp., in addition to $6.2 million in property tax abatement and $3.2 million in net tax increment bond proceeds from Vigo County.
   In the meantime, buildings continue to rise at the company's new complex in Chesterfield, Mo., where ground was broken in November 2005 for a $190-million research facility. The new 330,000-sq.-ft. (30,657-sq.-m.) building will allow for the relocation of 250 employees, bringing the campus employment to just over 1,000.