No. 3 on this list is Alexey Miller, who has run the Russian natural gas giant Gazprom since 2001. Two rungs lower is Mukesh Ambani of Indian energy and chemicals conglomerate Reliance Industries. Both Miller and Ambani finished ahead of the CEOs of Amazon.com, eBay and Google.

At No. 12 is Bill Greehey, who retired a few years ago from Valero Energy, one of the world’s largest independent oil refiners.  Also in the top 25 were the heads of Canadian fertilizer producer Potash Corp. (14), Brazilian steel giant Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (15), Russian miner Norilsk Nickel (22), U.S. oil and gas explorer EOG Resources (23) and British natural gas producer BG Group (25).

The infrastructure sector also fares well – a couple of utilities are in the top 25 (Finland’s Fortum and U.S.-based TXU) along with Japanese heavy equipment maker Komatsu.

So how were the top CEOs picked? Market cap growth during the CEO’s tenure was one metric, along with total shareholder returns adjusted both by country (to account for overall stock market performance) and by industry.

In Gazprom’s case, market cap has grown $101 billion during Miller’s tenure, and both adjusted return categories exceeded 2,000 percent. By comparison, Apple’s market cap growth is more than $150 billion under Jobs, and its adjusted return measures are both over 3,000 percent.

There is one key caveat: only CEOs that took over after 1995 and before 2007 were considered, whether or not they were still at the helm in 2009. HBR says this was to ensure that it had adequate and accurate data to work with, but it eliminated Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and a bunch of others who might have put up some pretty good numbers.

Click here for a slide show of Harvard Business Review’s top 100 CEOs.

By clicking the link, you will be directed to a third-party Web site. U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this website and is not responsible for its content. The securities identified in the article were selected for inclusion by the Harvard Business Review and may or may not be held by portfolios managed by U.S. Global Investors, Inc., whose holdings may change daily.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. The following securities mentioned in this article were held by one or more of U.S. Global Investors family of funds as of September 30, 2009: Apple Inc., Gazprom OAO, Amazon.com Inc., Valero Energy Corp.#09-886

But how much do you really know about oil?

Take our interactive quiz to test your knowledge of oil’s history, geopolitics and place in popular culture.

Have fun and be sure to test your friends also.

Oil is down from its 2009 peak of $81 per barrel seen in October, but we remain constructive on energy stocks given the improving economy and positive seasonal factors heading into the new year.

As the 15-year chart above illustrates, much of the recent drop in the price of oil lately can be explained by commodity price weakness that typically occurs from October through December, and thus does not represent a cyclical downturn.

These seasonal factors include a reduction in driving during the fall and more moderate temperatures between the summer cooling and winter heating seasons. During the 15-year period, January has typically been the month in which the seasonal oil price trend starts back up again as markets prepare for the summer driving season.

It is interesting to note that, while crude oil prices are usually soft during this time of year, energy stocks begin to strengthen in December, offering nimble investors an opportunity to capitalize on favorable seasonal strength to come.

The chart below shows month-over-month performance trends for the S&P 500 Energy Index over the past 20 years through November 2009.

On average, these large energy stocks have gained 2 percent in December over the past two decades. After a dip in January, the index has charged forward with average month-over-month gains exceeding 2 percent in three of the next four months before a seasonal falloff beginning in June.

The line graph shows the frequency of positive returns in each month. Twelve of the past 20 Decembers (60 percent) have seen positive returns for the S&P Energy Index—in April and May, positive returns have occurred in 15 of the past 20 years, or 75 percent of the measures.

We believe supply and demand fundamentals for energy will tighten as the economic recovery takes hold next year, and that energy stocks will benefit.

Earlier this month the International Energy Agency raised its 2010 forecast for global oil demand, largely as a result of accelerating economic growth in China. OPEC is also expecting oil demand to increase.

It’s a different story on the supply side—the energy team at PIRA sees net global oil output actually declining in 2010, which would tighten spare capacity to less than 1.8 million barrels per day, roughly half of current levels, and likely exert an upward pressure on prices.

Brian Hicks and Evan Smith, co-managers of the U.S. Global Investors Global Resources Fund (PSPFX) contributed to this article.

Please consider carefully a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and other important information, obtain a fund prospectus by visiting usfunds.com or by calling 1-800-US-FUNDS (1-800-873-8637). Read it carefully before investing. Distributed by U.S. Global Brokerage, Inc.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. Because the Global Resources Fund concentrates its investments in a specific industry, the fund may be subject to greater risks and fluctuations than a portfolio representing a broader range of industries. Foreign and emerging market investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and less public disclosure, as well as economic and political risk. The S&P 500 Energy Index is a capitalization-weighted index that tracks the companies in the energy sector as a subset of the S&P 500.

Work began this week on what will be the world’s longest sea bridge to physically connect, and strengthen the economic ties between, mainland China and the thriving former colonies of Hong Kong and Macau.

The ambitious $10 billion project includes man-made islands, a 3-mile subsea tunnel and a 23.6 mile bridge. It is scheduled to be finished in 2016.

The exploding gaming industry in Macau (under Portugal’s control until 1999)
has made it the Las Vegas of the East – its GDP has tripled in the past decade. Hong Kong (a British colony until 1997) has long been the region’s financial center and the Pearl River Delta is a sprawling manufacturing hub.

The Delta region accounts for 40 percent of China’s GDP, but it has struggled during the global recession. Once completed, the bridge will provide Delta businesses with easier access to higher-end consumers in Hong Kong and Macau. Some trips that now take three hours would be trimmed to a mere 30 minutes.

According to Reuters, Hong Kong officials estimate the bridge should generate $6.6 billion in economic benefits within the first two decades of use.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor.

Last week, China’s National Bureau of Statistics released November numbers showing a 0.6 percent uptick in consumer prices and a 2.1 percent drop in producer prices compared to November 2008. 

Where does China’s inflation go in 2010?

CLSA offered a couple of numbers during a conference call this morning. Eric Fishwick, head of economic research, says inflation will reach 4.5 percent next year, but chief macro strategist Andy Rothman thinks it won’t go above 3 percent.

Who’s right? Who knows. But for what’s its worth, Rothman was closer to the mark when he predicted 8 percent GDP growth this year

Both could also be way off – a report from ISI Group this week speculates that consumer inflation could accelerate to more than 12 percent by mid-2010, while Morgan Stanley says around 8 percent.

We see China’s inflation remaining muted because of the controls Beijing has put into place on both lending and currency appreciation.

The government has built a buffer by undervaluing the renminbi, and future inflationary pressures will be eased by the gradual appreciation already announced.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of the most widely recognized price measures for tracking the price of a market basket of goods and services purchased by individuals.  The weights of components are based on consumer spending patterns. The Producer Price Index (PPI) measures prices received by producers at the first commercial sale.  The index measures goods at three stages of production: finished, intermediate and crude. #09-875

Like all major economies, China is preparing for its energy future to accommodate rapid growth and the movement of more and more Chinese to cities. The foundation of the nation’s electricity generation plan is coal, but with loud calls coming from around the world for China to cut its output of greenhouse gases, a significant portion of new power will be nuclear.

From an investment perspective, this shows massive potential opportunity both in terms of infrastructure and natural resources, including uranium. Some analysts say the price of uranium, while soft now, could double over the next couple of years in recognition of future market tightness.

China’s nuclear capacity is now less than 9,000 megawatts, but the country has more than a dozen more plants either under construction or in the planning stages – according to figures from the brokerage CLSA, the capacity could grow fivefold by 2015. The official target is 40,000 megawatts by 2020.

Such an ambitious program raises the question of how to fuel all of the new plants that China wants to bring online in the next decade. Where will all of the uranium come from to handle this new demand?

China is not alone in its nuclear plans. Two decades of languishing interest in nuclear power after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents has reversed, and now too many nuclear energy is viewed as a relatively “green” energy with greater cost-benefit potential than solar, wind and other alternatives. Of course, the long-term storage of radioactive waste remains a stubborn obstacle to fuller acceptance of nuclear power.

Earlier this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projected that global nuclear capacity would grow from about 370,000 megawatts (14 percent of world energy consumption) now to as much as 540,000 megawatts by 2020 and 810,000 megawatts by 2030. In dollar terms, capital expenditure on nuclear plants could total more than $500 billion over the next 20 years.

Roughly 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity are now being built on four continents, with China accounting for a quarter of that total, well ahead of #2 Russia and #3 South Korea. The chart above shows the global breakdown – even the United States is in expansion mode – and the chart below shows that China will be second only to the U.S. in terms of future capacity when projects at all phases are considered.

China has uranium reserves within its borders and it is aggressively lining up supplies in Central Asia, Africa and Australia to make up any shortfall. Government officials in Beijing say that more uranium mines are badly needed to satisfy future global demand for the resource – in China’s case, a Reuters story says the country can supply only a third of the 10,000 metric tons annually required to meet its 2020 nuclear capacity target.

The World Nuclear Association says the world’s measured uranium resources are sufficient to last 80 years at current usage rates, with the largest untapped deposits found in Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Canada. But just looking at China makes it clear that usage rates are soon to see a sizable increase. Like other resources, more uranium deposits may be economically viable at higher prices.

Uranium prices shot up to more than $135 per pound in 2007, after the first nuclear power projects began emerging, and are now around $45 per pound after a brisk supply response.

Some analysts see the price falling below $40 as new supplies from Asia and decommissioned Russia weapons come onto the market, but by 2011, price forecasts go up to $80 per pound as demand takes hold as the key price driver.

Portfolio manager Romeo Dator contributed to this article.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. Foreign and emerging market investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and less public disclosure, as well as economic and political risk. By investing in a specific geographic region, a regional fund’s returns and share price may be more volatile than those of a less concentrated portfolio.