Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Jack Lifton  

View Jack Lifton's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Need for a New Security in Rare Metals New Production [View article]

    I have received no remuneration wahtsoever from any Canadain mining company, nor do I, nor have I ever owned a share in any mining company upon which I comment..

    Thor Lake, now to be officially known as the Nechalacho REE Deposit was first mapped 30 years ago, but the development of Chinese rare earth mining made it uneconomical to develop until now. Additionally the importance of heavy rare earths, only now recognized as critical metals for high technology, has made deposits such as Nechalacho and Great Westerns' Benjamin and Douglas Rivers deposits in Saskatchewan very important.

    Also I think that both Thor Lake and certainly Mountain Pass are larger net deposits than Lynas Mt Weld district deposits. The problem with the high grades of Lynas is that they are predominantly of the light rare earths.

    If you want to see a truly high grade rare earth ore look at Steenkampskraal, a former AngloAmerican operation in the Republic of South Africa, now to be re-opened by Great Western. It has a significant amount of 17% grade ore , which is exceptionally rich in the heavy rare earths, and although this ore body is relatively small its grade and previous development will allow GWMG to bring it into production within 2 years. This will allow GWMG to vertically integrate so that it mines, refines, and produces metals and magnet and battery alloys within its own operations with its own materials.

    Lynas has already spent several hundred million dollars on development; it now needs north of 500 million more to bring it into (full?) production. This will take 3-5 years. This means that a debt of between 2/3 of and 1 billion dollars would have to be serviced from no revenues until 2012-2014. What private investor will accept a ROI that does not begin for 5 years and even then might be less than bank rates? If Lynas share price were to be used as an index of its "value" or "price" then this means that CNMC would have had to offer as much as i billion dollars for the company. if the American system of valuation is used this would mean that Lynas would be worth the total value of the metals in the ground, which would be several billion dollars. Such sums can never be repaid unless rare earth prices soar. Institutional investors no longer are making such bets. I believe that CNMC withdrew because the bank of China refused to finance the deal at the new price not becasue of Australian government opposition.

    By contrast even at today's prices GWMG could deliver $500,000,000 of rare earth "oxides" from Steenkampskraal in the next 7 years. The investment for re-opening the mine and building a concentration and separation plant and a metals production by molten salt electrolysis plant could be less than 150,000,000. Payback could begin in 3 years, because the production of magnet and battery alloy could bring the value of the Steenkampskraal output to more than 750,000,000 giving GWMG suffcient margin to repay the debt with a high rate of return.

    Avalon is in a very much better positon than Lynas also. In the short term it may not beat GWMG to market, but Avalon has a huge ore body and will be a producer of rare earths for generations.

    On Sep 26 12:50 AM ddot wrote:

    > Jack
    > Lynas is an advanced project and even after this last setback it
    > will be one of the first producers of REE outside of China. It is
    > one of the richest REE mines in the world and has a team of people
    > that have been working behind the scenes for a few years now and
    > obviously now what they are doing!!!!!!!!!
    > Your comment about selling Lynas to buy North American stocks (who
    > have been on the scene for five minutes) is biased and shows that
    > you are obviously receiving remuneration of sorts from these companies
    > and for me you have lost your credability
    Sep 26, 2009. 08:33 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Need for a New Security in Rare Metals New Production [View article]

    As you know I am not a licensed investment advisor. For myself I would invest in both Canadian companies (I do not do that, and I never have, because I try to keep neutral). I would weight my investments to reflect where they are. For Avalon to go from $3.50 to $5 is a rise of 47%; for GWMG to go from $0.30 to $1 is a rise of 267%. I believe that both will happen.

    If I held Lynas I would sell it now and invest in the Canadian companies.

    That's what I would do hypothetically, of course.

    On Sep 24 03:35 PM Mayascribe wrote:

    > Jack: A few questions--
    > i) What do you think the chances of Canada nationalizing Great Western
    > and Avalon, for national security reasons?
    > ii) If you were to put 20K into Great Western and Avalon, what percentage
    > would you put into each stock.
    > iii) Would put any of the hypothetical money into Lynas?
    > iiii) Is there any other REE company that you would consider investing
    > in?
    > Thanks, Jack. You know what I'm up to..."vulturing" around.
    > Great, great article.
    Sep 24, 2009. 03:47 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Need for a New Security in Rare Metals New Production [View article]
    No useful REE is rarer than platinum; the world production of platinum in 2008 was around 200 metric tons. You are however correct in questioning why REEs are so cheap. I have come to believe that unless the prices of REEs rise sharply there will be no incentive at all for institutional investors, because at current costs only one or two (Canadian) REE mining ventures could ever produce a return on the very large investment necessary today to bring a mine into production.

    I believe that this is the simple reason-although, perhaps, not the only one- that CNMC walked away from Lynas today. I also believe it is the main reason that Goldman-Sachs seems to have left the rare earth space after making some serious investments.

    Vertical integration by REE producers is now a minimum necessary, but maybe not sufficient, condition for success by a rare earth producer.Mine to market or mine to magnet adds critical value, and if the REE prices increase it will make the vertically integrated producers sure winners.

    On Sep 24 11:07 AM Skaiste wrote:

    > Tell me if I'm wrong, but where is the logic behind recent REE mining
    > stocks run up? Rhenium cost around $193 per troy ounce. Many REE
    > are rarer than platinum, but are much cheaper in price. If platinum
    > or other PGM mining is barely profitable at these price levels, how
    > REE company is expecting to make profits? No wonder many where on
    > the brink of collapse, until Chinese stepped up.
    Sep 24, 2009. 03:13 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Need for a New Security in Rare Metals New Production [View article]

    I don't know of a dedicated site, but I have been asked recently to be the chairman of a board of editorial advisors for a new Internet rare earth information center. I will let you know when and if it comes into existence-ithe decision will be taken very soon as I understand.

    Sep 21, 2009. 11:31 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Toyota Tests and Rejects Lithium-Ion Batteries for the Prius [View article]

    You wrote:

    I wouldn't be so sure about Lithium carbonate supply issues, Galaxy resources estimate for a lithium carbonate plant is $50m (mine and concentrator is about $70m), and at that price it'll probably only take a year to build. I've watched this stock go from 40cents to $2 over a few months, but will wait till after their next round of capital raising to invest. note that the mine/concentrator is in Oz, but the Li Carbonate plant is in China.

    For any mine, if regulatory, infrastructure, and logistics issues have been resolved it will then then, if it has the money, place firm orders for equipment and begin construction. Most such projects in industrialized countries take two to three years to "begin" producing. It is common to ship "concentrates" off site for "refining." When such a "refinery" is in another country the times both to establish the logistics of such shipping and to be taken in establishing the regualtory compliance in the country hosting the refinery are a critical and potential choke point. Also NO TWO ORE CONCENTRATES ARE THE SAME, SO AN OFF_SITE REFINERY MUST PROVE IN AN ORE IT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO PROCESS! This takes time in an experienced refinery.

    China is not the easiest place to do business even for Chinese businessmen.

    There is no shortage at all of lithium. In fact it is today most likely in substantial surplus. China is establishing its own supply chain for strategic materials. In this case I have to assume that the Chinese refinery will sell to Chinese customers.

    This complicated situation will take many years to get underway.

    The idea that it will cost "only 50-70 million" and "take about a year" is ridiculous. No financial institution would accept a due diligence report with such a conclusion as competent. The statements are stock market hype and hooey.

    Lynas, by the way, is ready only to START constructing its mine and it has satisfied regulators that its metallurgy is proven well enough to start constructing its refinery. It is now, however, stopped dead by financial and regulatory issues, and each day of delay adds many days on the back end that cannot be made up. Lynas production with no financial or regulatory impediments in either Australia or Maylaysia is 2-3 years way.
    Sep 16, 2009. 09:57 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Toyota Tests and Rejects Lithium-Ion Batteries for the Prius [View article]

    As usual you were and are spot on. The lithium-ion battery will be developed to a mass market commercial product in the future. In the mean time its a prohibitively costly technology and so has limited uses, and since its durability and longevity have not been tested it can really only be used where there is full time maintenhance available. The military comes to mind as a user with full time maintenanace and their experience will be invaluable to the developers and end-users of the future just as it has been with other initially prohibitively expensive technologies.

    Please lets all get back to looking at and discussing what is do-able now.

    Jack Lifton
    International Lithium Alliance
    Sep 14, 2009. 10:31 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Introducing "On The Green Road." My talk at the Annual General Meeting of Great Western Minerals Group in Saskatoon, SK, on September 10, 2009 [View instapost]
    That's a very good question, and I'll try to answer it this week.

    On Sep 12 09:14 PM jimp wrote:

    > Mr. Lifton, excellent presentation. With your knowledge of rare earth
    > resources in north america, which company, Avalon or Great Western
    > has the more valuable portfolio in terms of quantity and quality
    > of rare earths?
    Sep 13, 2009. 12:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Introducing "On The Green Road." My talk at the Annual General Meeting of Great Western Minerals Group in Saskatoon, SK, on September 10, 2009 [View instapost]
    Why doesn't Toyota take your advice and switch over to AC induction motors? Why don't the wind turbine makers such as GE, Siemens, and Vesta simply switch to iron based permanent magnet generators? Why are all of the companies named above searching the world for neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium?

    The question you need to ask yourself is why were rare earth permanent magnets used in the first place if iron based magnets would have been economical? Rare earth permanent magnets have always been and will remain, always more expensive than iron based permanent magnets. The price differential must be worth the gains in efficiency and weight-reduction. As I have said before, many times, weight reduction in a motor vehcile means extended range, in a generator high above the ground less weight and more power from less weight means less structural support and less maintenance; in a civilian aircraft less power train weight for the same efficiency and power means more cargo or freight capacity and for a weapon it means more payload.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that car makers count ounces of reduction in weight/power to achieve, literally, thimbles of saved fuel.

    As for EVs i simple don't believe they will be a market factor for many years to come.

    On Sep 12 10:19 PM engstudent wrote:

    > Jack, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by brushless DC motors
    > being 'the most efficient' motors. It's my understanding that for
    > smaller motors DC is more efficient but for larger motors AC is more
    > efficient.
    > A Prius has, afaik, a 50kW motor and a 25kW generator - both DC permanent
    > magnet. What penalty, if any, would be incurred by changing to AC
    > induction?
    > You may be right that hybrids such as the Prius are more efficient
    > with DC but do you accept that for a full electric an AC induction
    > motor is more efficient? Would you also accept that AC induction
    > motors are an option for hybrids?
    > The same applies for wind turbines, a direct drive motor with direct
    > current excitation may have an average efficiency higher than a permanent
    > magnet excitation variety.
    > I think you overstate the importance of rare earths to certain aspects
    > of the Green Road and that you commit sins of omission by neglecting
    > to mention the alternatives which most of your audience are unaware
    > of.
    Sep 13, 2009. 12:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas? [View article]
    Mr. Orr,

    Experienced, Logical and coherent. There's no counter to your argument.

    Jack Lifton

    On Sep 09 09:28 AM AO wrote:

    > Natural gas manifesto; May the flame be light unto us!
    > Every “mcf” of United States natural gas that is produced and consumed
    > will not only benefit every citizen of our nation, it will also make
    > this world a better place and pay real and tangible dividends to
    > future generations.
    > Total world demand for oil will be reduced and the world price for
    > oil will be lower. Energy for developing nations will be less expensive.
    > The world’s ecological / environmental situation will be improved
    > due to lower “greenhouse gas” emissions.
    > Development of this nation’s natural gas provides real and absolute
    > stimulus to our economy and credit system. This type of tangible
    > absolute stimulus with its multiplier effect will produce significant
    > and ongoing dividends for our nation.
    > Not only will the United States’ economy be stimulated, the dollar
    > will be strengthened. Our nation’s deficits will be reduced more
    > quickly.
    > The United States will be less vulnerable to “financial coercion”
    > by foreign powers; the wealth now being transferred to oil producers
    > will remain in the United States and can be used to benefit this
    > nation’s future generations.
    > As the tangible benefits to the world and the United States are significant
    > and compelling, there must be a single historic legislative act that
    > articulates, memorializes, and provides gravitas to this monumental
    > undertaking to ensure the future of the American dream and our national
    > security.
    > To wit;
    > The United States of America Proclamation for Increased Energy Security
    > (US PIES); Natural Gas Act of 2009
    > To move as expeditiously and conclusively as possible to avoid any
    > further energy crises and in light of the now abundant supplies of
    > natural gas with which our nation is blessed, the Congress of the
    > United States of America hereby sets forth the Natural Gas Act of
    > 2009 to bridge this nation’s destiny to increased energy independence.
    > In that our national security and economy are threatened and may
    > be perilously further threatened and compromised by our nation’s
    > current over dependence on imported oil and the concomitant transfer
    > of our national wealth, it is imperative and essential our nation
    > move with purpose and urgency to employ our God given natural gas
    > resources and in so doing ensure the future strength and prosperity
    > of our nation by increasing our energy security by reducing our dependence
    > on foreign oil.
    > Elucidation: May God Almighty help forge these words with the flame
    > of His Truth and Wisdom.
    > Illumination: Let the guiding light for this nation’s energy future
    > be the glowing embers of the spirit of the Americans’ that have sacrificed
    > and continue to sacrifice for our freedom, security and liberty to
    > prosper. May these flames be light onto us.
    > The United States currently imports the majority of its oil from
    > overseas National Oil Companies (NOC’s). This debilitating situation
    > can be remedied.
    > Recent American technological breakthroughs, horizontal drilling
    > and multi-stage fracture stimulation of reservoirs, have made the
    > drilling and completing of natural gas wells much more efficient
    > and productive and vast new reserves new of natural gas accessible
    > here within our borders.
    > According to a recent study by Navigant Consulting Inc., the United
    > States now has an estimated 2,247 trillion cubic feet of natural
    > gas reserves, enough to last approximately 118 years at 2007 demand
    > levels.
    > In that the world’s ecological future and world peace may be threatened
    > by “global warming” and or having reached or in time soon reaching
    > “world peak oil production”, it is imperative and essential our nation
    > move with purpose and urgency to employ our God given natural gas
    > resources and in so doing ensure to the maximum extent of our ability
    > the energy security of the Untied Stats, the future world’s peace,
    > prosperity and environmental harmony.
    > Note; this would be an expanded version of the New Alternative Transportation
    > to Give Americans Solutions Act, that includes incentives for gas
    > fired power generation and natural gas producers.
    > I realize all the above is easy to write and will require great effort
    > and will not be unanimously embraced; however, there is much to be
    > gained if we act.
    > There is all too much to be lost, if we do not act.
    > It is our American spirit and energy that make this nation great.
    > This natural resource is no longer supply constrained. It is demand
    > constrained. U.S. gas supply increased by an unprecedented 8% in
    > 2008 compared to 2007. The aforementioned new technologies make further
    > substantial increases in our natural gas supply and consumption viable.
    > The development, distribution, and consumption of these abundant
    > natural gas reserves provide the currently sought economic stimulus
    > and creates powerful lasting long term dividends to this nation not
    > seen since the construction of the interstate high system in the
    > fifties or the WPA.
    > Natural gas is the fuel to power this nation’s economic resurgence
    > as the world’s largest and most dynamic economy.
    > Natural gas is the “fast lane bridge” to this nation’s reducing dependence
    > on imported oil.
    > Natural gas is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon fuel. Natural gas
    > emits 45% less carbon dioxide than coal and 30% less carbon dioxide
    > than oil. This transition fuel will provide the “time bridge” until
    > solar, hydro, wind-power, and cleaner coal technologies become more
    > available and cost effective.
    > New clean burning “natural gas” powered electric plants need to be
    > constructed to reduce “greenhouse gases.”
    > Natural gas is the fuel for this nation’s future prosperity and growth.
    > Increasing demand for natural gas will create tangible and lasting
    > economic benefits for this nation; tangible and real and long lasting
    > economic dividends and expeditious environmental benefits.
    > In line with the previously cited Navigant Consulting Inc. study,
    > if we immediately doubled our current annual consumption we would
    > have approximately sixty years to implement current “renewable” energy
    > technologies and other heretofore undiscovered new technologies.
    > Boone Pickens Plan has stated every thousand cubic of domestically
    > produced natural gas used for transportation could reduce the need
    > for eight gallons of imported gasoline.
    > 20,000,000,000,000 twenty trillion cubic feet per year =
    > 20,000,000,000 20 billion MCF per year =
    > 160,000,000,000 gallons of gasoline per year @ eight gallons per
    > MCF =
    > 3,809,523,810 barrels of gasoline per year =
    > 10,437,052 barrels of gasoline per day
    > NYMEX April natural gas futures are now under four dollars per million
    > cubic feet. In gross BTU parity terms before pipeline transportation
    > charges and taxes; eight gallons of gasoline can be purchased for
    > fewer than four dollars.
    > Assuming $55 per barrel of imported oil, then for every additional
    > trillion cubic feet of natural gas produced and utilized annually,
    > we can reduce payments for imported oil to produce gasoline by approximately
    > ten billion dollars per year.
    > Our nation currently consumes roughly 20 trillion cubic feet of gas
    > a year. So doubling are current consumption of natural gas would
    > reduce annual payments for imported oil by approximately $200 billion
    > per year. The U.S. dollar would be stronger. To continue as the world’s
    > leading nation, we need a strong dollar in this global economy.<br/>
    > In addition to this national savings, there would be tens of thousands
    > of good high paying careers created in this country.
    > Every “drilling rig” directly employees about 40 people; indirect
    > job creation can be expected to be 5 times the 40 direct jobs; or
    > 240 direct and indirect jobs per drilling rig.
    > Current drilling rigs can be expected to have a useful life of at
    > least 20 years.
    > Every one thousand additional drilling rigs would create 240,000
    > potential careers and the concomitant opportunities for advancement;
    > careers, not temporary employment. These careers, these jobs cannot
    > be transferred to other lesser developed countries.
    > Each new state of the art drilling rig required will cost about $
    > US 16 million
    > So, 1000 new rigs will provide an economic boost to machinery manufacturers,
    > steel fabricators and others equal to $US 16 billion.
    > Additional tens of thousands of new jobs and opportunities will be
    > created by expanding and revamping the nation’s natural gas pipe
    > line and local distribution infrastructure.
    > The American automotive industry can be revitalized by being incentivized
    > to manufacture compressed natural gas vehicles. In concert with the
    > auto manufacturers, the car dealerships and automotive aftermarket
    > industries should gear toward retrofitting existing vehicles with
    > natural gas fuel capability.
    > A natural gas refueling” infrastructure will need to be added to
    > the current refueling infrastructure; this will create further economic
    > activity.
    > Legislation should require all government vehicles to be powered
    > by natural gas.
    > United States industries such as steel, other metals, chemicals,
    > and fertilizer will become more competitive in U.S. markets and possibly
    > internationally. With lower fuel/power other U.S. industries will
    > have the opportunity to return as competitive forces in the global
    > market.
    > The misguided and wasteful “ethanol debacle” needs to be terminated
    > immediately. Productive agricultural land needs to be used to feed
    > the world’s hungry children. Natural gas should be used to fuel our
    > automobiles. The United States can feed the world’s hungry children.
    > The United States needs to move will all haste to capitalize the
    > new found abundance of this environmentally friendlier and plentiful
    > resource.
    > The future of North American natural gas requires the development
    > of unconventional resource basins, which require better economics
    > for E&amp;P companies.
    > • The basins require large scale drilling programs, advanced drilling
    > techniques and technologies, and large amounts reservoir stimulation.
    > • These basins include shale gas, tight sands, and coalbed methane
    > (
    > In the early 1980’s there were over 4,500 drilling rigs operating
    > drilling for oil and gas on land in the U.S.A. 4,500 rigs active
    > rigs is the all time high for this nation. Advanced technology produced
    > 2008’s unprecedented supply increase with the natural gas rig count
    > reaching a peak of 1,606 in late August
    > Right now, natural gas exploration and production companies are cutting
    > their capital budgets and suspending drilling operations at unprecedented
    > rate because the price of natural gas is too low.
    > The United States active drilling rig count has fallen precipitously
    > to under 900 rigs at this time; tens of thousands of jobs and careers
    > have been put on hold or lost.
    > An excerpt from the March 2009, Land Rig Newsletter Monthly Report
    > follows:
    > Small oil and gas operators are worried about changes to federal
    > tax law affecting the amortization of intangible drilling and completion
    > costs. Operators say they can withstand efforts to change the item
    > from an expense to amortization over three years, or even five. Get
    > beyond half a decade and the impact on drilling would be devastating
    > for the small, privately held companies who account for more than
    > 40 percent of rig activity.
    > There is an oversupply of natural gas in storage as we continue to
    > import foreign oil and dilute the U.S. dollar.
    > Increased natural gas consumption is the most logical, expedient
    > and beneficial means for keeping the USA moving forward as the world's
    > economic and international leader.
    > The greater the focus and effort put on powering our transportation
    > and electricity generation needs with this now abundant resource,
    > the sooner we, the USA, will move forward with tangible and lasting
    > economic dividends for our nation.
    > • Reduced imported oil for gasoline
    > • Reduced greenhouse gases from cleaner burning natural gas
    > • Real and lasting tangible economic growth in the United States
    > • Strengthening of the U.S. dollar
    > It is sinful in light of the blessed abundance of this natural resource
    > and national treasure, that we, the American people, currently send
    > our hard earned dollars overseas to those who, in too many instances,
    > oppose our best interest and even our existence.
    > Our nation’s currency is no longer backed by gold…
    > This all the more reason our energy security, economic prosperity
    > and freedom, and our environmental future should be backed by “U.S.
    > natural gas”.
    > Immediate and increasingly urgent economic, environmental, and national
    > security issues will be powered forward by increase usage of natural
    > gas.
    > The stifling national debt will be reduced and future generations'
    > "American dream" and way of life will be illuminated and preserved
    > by this value adding investment in America.
    > What is required to achieve this is the American peoples' supporting
    > this vision (why would we not) and leadership with the courage to
    > passionately ensure moving proactively forward with the vision.
    > I am very proud to work for
    > • an American company,
    > • a company registered in the United States,
    > • a company that pays its full United States taxes,
    > • a company that has recently invested billions of dollars in U.S,
    > manufactured drilling equipment and machinery,
    > • a company that created thousands of safe high paying American jobs,
    > • a company that has been in business for nearly 90 years creating
    > value and wealth for its shareholders and employees; a company I
    > pray that will be in business for many more generations,
    > • an industry that has invested hundreds of billions of dollar to
    > better the American peoples’ standard of living
    > • an industry that has provided millions of careers and hard earned
    > well deserved retirements for its employees
    > • that has and will protect and preserve this nation’s interest by
    > providing cost effective energy,
    > • an industry to which this nation can and must turn in this nations
    > great time of need; I pray this nation’s government will not turn
    > its back to this great industry in this great nation’s time of need.
    > My father, a World War 2 veteran, had only a sixth grade education,
    > but because of his work ethic and the opportunities in the great
    > American oil and gas industry he was able to retire with a good pension
    > and medical benefits from a major oil company. I am sure there are
    > hundreds of thousands of similar American “big oil” stories.
    > American “big oil” has led the effort throughout our history to bring
    > energy and a higher standard of living to the people of the world
    > while investing hundreds of billions of dollars and creating hundred
    > thousands of careers. Yes, “big oil” has profited, but not any more
    > so than other capital intensive and innovative enterprises. There
    > have been mistakes, but the benefits to this nation and the world
    > outweigh by order of magnitude the negatives.
    > Today, America’s much maligned “big oil” companies are faced with
    > severe and unfair restrictions, terms, and conditions leveled at
    > them by “national oil companies” that now control the vast majority
    > of the world’s oil and gas reserves. These national oil companies
    > in the large majority of the cases subsidize the cost of fuel and
    > energy for their internal economic industries.
    > The “national oil companies” are controlled by governments that choose
    > to artificially control prices, limit free enterprise, confiscate
    > American investments, and maintain the American addiction to foreign
    > oil and liquefied natural gas. There is great danger that U.S. natural
    > gas industry will be inundated by a deluge of imported LNG, if this
    > nation’s government does not act swiftly and decisively to counter
    > our nation’s increasing dependence on foreign sources of energy.
    > Today our nation’s economy is melting from the destructive heat of
    > criminal avarice.
    > Greed that seeks to gain at the imperilment of the innocent people
    > of this nation; premeditated greed and avarice that have stolen innocent
    > peoples’ dreams while decimating the value of years of hard work
    > and destroying hopes for higher education or golden years.
    > Meanwhile, the great American oil and gas industry that has once
    > again discovered and created new value through visionary investment,
    > innovation, technology, and plain old hard work finds itself being
    > slowly and painfully paralyzed while our government flounders about
    > attempting to bail the masters of greed out of their self-created
    > toxic morass.
    > By supporting natural gas development in the United States we can
    > begin to end the misguided and senseless dissolution of the "health
    > and wealth of this great nation’s and this planet's future".
    > The American dream is not a pipe dream! Wake up!
    > Our government needs to step boldly forward out of this toxic quagmire
    > and put forth the necessary legislation and tax incentives to stimulate
    > natural gas usage in this country! This is real economic stimulus.
    > This is absolutely imperative for the security and the well being
    > of future generations of this great nation.
    > We have to move forward purposefully with the development of the
    > God given resources we have to create value and wealth for this nation’s
    > people. Let’s get on with it!
    > We owe it to future generations! Exploiting and developing this nation’s
    > abundant natural gas supply is simply the common sense use of this
    > nation’s God given resources. To paraphrase the heroic passengers
    > of 11 September 2001, “Let’s roll with natural gas!”
    > May God speed and continue to bless this nation.
    > Alan Orr
    > Executive Vice President
    > Engineering &amp; Development
    > Helmerich &amp; Payne I.D.C.
    > Mr. Orr has worked over 33years at H&amp;P and prior to his current
    > position was Vice President and Chief Engineer from 1991 to 2005.
    > He holds a B.S. in General Engineering from the United States Military
    > Academy at West Point.
    > He has worked in H&amp;P’s U.S. and international divisions in both
    > operations and engineering assignments.
    > In field operations he has worked as roughneck, driller, toolpusher,
    > and superintendent and division operations manager. In engineering
    > assignments, he has worked as drilling engineer, project engineer,
    > and Chief Engineer.
    > As Executive Vice President Engineering &amp; Development he is responsible
    > for development of all H&amp;P engineering functions, technology,
    > new rig construction, and upgrade projects – both onshore and offshore.
    > Mr. Orr has pioneered numerous innovations and advances in the drilling
    > industry and holds several patents.
    > Recognizing his role as the principal architect of H&amp;P’s industry
    > changing FlexRig and other significant industry contributions, Mr.
    > Orr was the 2005 recipient of the International Association of Drilling
    > Contractors’ Contractor of the Year award. The prestigious Contractor
    > of the Year award, sponsored by Reed-Hycalog, was established in
    > 1988 to recognize an individual drilling contractor representative’s
    > outstanding lifetime achievements in technical innovation, safety,
    > and economic efficiency in the drilling industry. It is the only
    > award that exclusively honors drilling contractors.
    Sep 9, 2009. 09:36 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Is Congress Agnostic About Natural Gas? [View article]

    By "curious" I asume you mean "very interesting." This morning's Wall Street Journal has a story about OEM Japanese industry saying to its new "greener" government that it has done as much as it can without harming the economy to cut back on "grrenhouse" gas emissions. I suspect that Honda, which is quoted in the story, and Toyota, which is mentioned but not quoted, may quickly look at CNG even for just that 10% reduction. Of course oncer again this will leave America's zombie car companies, GM and the other one, in the dust. I don't know what Ford is doing, but I cannot remember a time when Ford did not offer a liquid propane fue option on its pickup trucks; this was for farmers who had LPG and didn't want to store gasoline and/or diesel also for their light duty vehicles. I also remember that the fuel option was (is$) available on some Ford cars.

    "What's past is prologue" is the way the Bard of Avon put it.

    On Sep 09 08:48 AM John Petersen wrote:

    > The biggest problem NG faces is that nobody understands that it's
    > different from its traditionally more important sister oil. My back
    > of the napkin performance figures for a CNG HEV are stunning. The
    > darned thing would be within 10% of an EV in terms of CO2 emissions
    > and at least 25% cheaper to buy. When you factor in the reality that
    > all of the fuel revenue would stay in North America instead of going
    > elsewhere the logic is undeniable. I find it particularly curious
    > that Toyota and Honda seem to be stepping away from the plug-in circus
    > and taking a hard look at natural gas.
    Sep 9, 2009. 09:32 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is The Rare Earth Supply Crisis Due to Peak Production Capability or Capacity? [View instapost]
    Note well, everyone, that by "capacity" I mean "validated resources and validated and inferred reserves." By "capability" I mean PP&E now in place and now in use.
    Sep 7, 2009. 08:57 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rare Earth Security of Supply Crisis in Simplified Form [View instapost]

    I don't understand either. Why doesn't Goldman-Sachs simply write a check from petty cash or use the interest on their Chairman's net worth (in G-S stock and options) to finance this? There must be an explanation, but it may involve money and profit trumping the interests of the United States from the point of view of the globalized G-S. I hope I'm wrong, But I don't have any other explanation. Perhaps though the Lynas deal was just a lousy deal for G-S. If so why don't they just say it?

    Please tell me what is "Phase 1?"


    Jack Lifton

    On Sep 06 08:29 AM jimp wrote:

    > Regarding Lynas Corp, the potential chinese buyer CNMC, will finance
    > them to phase 1 whether or not the deal is approved by the Australian
    > govt. That was part of the "deal" with CNMC. That gives Lynas Corp
    > funding to phase 1 while looking for alternative (non CNMC) sources
    > of funding.
    > I still don't understand if Rare earths are so important, why hasn't
    > a "western" bank, Australian billionaire,etc.. stepped forward to
    > finance Lynas Corp.?
    Sep 6, 2009. 05:54 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Postal Service Set to Lead the Way in Deploying Electric Fleet [View article]
    Thus endeth the lesson.
    Sep 6, 2009. 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Postal Service Set to Lead the Way in Deploying Electric Fleet [View article]

    I have edited your words of wisdom, and I am (almost) shamelessly appropriating the following lines:

    "... the numbers are absolutely mind-boggling....We are at the dawn of a new industrial revolution that will take decades to unfold. As long as people are spending somebody else's money, there will be immense pressure for extreme solutions. When it comes to spending their own money, the pressure will tend to affordable solutions. If I've learned anything over 69 years it's that the future is never as wonderful as I dream it could be or as bad as I fear it might be. I suppose that's just another way of saying that over the long term the consensus always gets it wrong. As investors, I think our focus has to be the intermediate steps that are almost certain to benefit as the future unfolds."

    You have just written the complete text for the Guido Sarducci School of Mamnagement's course on investing in high-tech (the overview).

    If anyone thinks you have it wrong let them explain their disagreement logically and with numerical data.

    For centuries the collective wealth was wasted by tyrants and thugs for the purpose of achieving their own glory and power over others. Mostly it was wasted on monuments and war. Today we have acheived a more democratic way to waste our wealth, governemnt funding of research adn development with a specific perdetermined goal. Canute couldn't stop the tides and the nineteenth century Missouri legislature could not make pi equal 22/7. The twenty-first century solons will not be able to bend discovery and creativity to their will; sadly, I suspect they will soon return to war and theft for their personal aggrandisement as they become bored with climate change and wealth redistribution that is simply against human nature everywhere.

    Enough with philosophy. How can we make short term money from other people's hopes and dreams?
    Sep 6, 2009. 11:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rare Earth Security of Supply Crisis in Simplified Form [View instapost]
    I think that Lynas is caught up in the political conflict between China and Australia, and I cannot see the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board allowing the Chinese to take control of Lynas. If I'm right then Lynas will not have the money to go forward. If the Chinese do get the opportunity to make an investment in Lynas but it is not for control I don't think they will do it. I do think such an offer will be made by the Australian government, and it will simply push the the further progress of Lynas into an indeterminate future time.

    As for Arafura I don't think it has completed its "metallurgy," so it is also a future delivery system.

    I really hope I'm wrong on both counts, but I do not have confidence in the near term progress of either of them right now.

    We need MolyCorp, Thorium Energy, Avalon Rare Metals, and Great Western Minerals Group more than ever for North American green technology independence and self-sufficiency.

    On Sep 05 11:52 AM calvo wrote:

    > Jack, wouldn't you think that two Australian players (Lynas and Arafura)
    > may be worthwhile investments too? Lynas seems to be the publicly-traded
    > non-Chinese company that's closest to production..
    Sep 5, 2009. 09:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment