adamnb

What Goldman Learned from a Trip to China

Correction: I think you got your pipelines mixed up. First off, it the pipeline to Siberia is with Gazprom, regarding nat. gas from Siberia, not oil. Second, the contract has not been signed but is being considered (there is a dispute over pricing). The Russians say it's a done deal, the Chinese say it's being considered. Third, there are two pipelines being considered, one from Iran through Pakistan (IPI pipeline) to the port of Gawar (destination China and possibly India). This is supported by Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and China but opposed by the US and Europe. Another line being proposed by the US and backed by Europe is from Turkmenistan's huge gas fields, crossing Afghanistan, Pakistan, destined for India
(TAPI pipeline), originally proposed years ago by Unocal (which later was acquired by Chevron, and prospective co-venturer, Halliburton.

Russia has been building an oil line, with a spur to China, Japan, and the Pacific (destined for SW Asia and US), and underwrote major financing for 20 years of supplies from Rosneft, the company that took over Yukos assets.


On Oct 23 08:35 AM Popham wrote:

> And yes, just last week Russia and China signed a contract (s) for
> pipelines from oil rich Siberia to China worth $3.5 billion.
> Demand for energy resources in the far east is high, which is another
> reason why the seven major oil companies want to run a pipeline from
> Siberia through 400+ miles of Afghan territory to Pakistani ports
> on the Arabian Sea and on to the Indian Ocean and oil-hungry countries
> of the far east. Surely, this level of competition will indeed<br/>drive
> up the cost of oil......$94/barrel? Maybe more.

Battery Investing for Beginners, Part 4

My compliments to all for this wonderful blog. Special thanks to John for his dedication. I've learned a great deal.

Battery Investing for Beginners

Good analysis. I'm interested in the whole area of battery recycling (reprocessing) and would appreciate any significant references to information that you may be willing to share.


On Sep 27 06:15 PM Douglas Korthof wrote:

> Lithium and nanotechnology *sounds* good; but it translates in my
> mind to the world "hogwash".
>
> Lithium batteries have a bright EV future, perhaps, but they are
> about 4 to 10 times as expensive as NiMH and over 20 times as expensive
> as lead. Concentrating all EV efforts on Lithium, like concentrating
> all efforts on fuel cells, simply removes the EV program from a mass-market
> to a niche-demonstration program, "no threat" to the current oil-auto
> companies, and no chance for large-scale production of batteries
> or for the kind of growth that some seem to be expecting..
>
> You are never going to build a mass-market for EVs or plug-in cars
> using virgin Lithium, it's always going to be a niche or demonstration
> market, maybe 500 or, gasp, even 5000, or, gurgle, 50,000 cars.
> The WORST thing is that there are already good batteries that will
> do the job; but no one is even looking at them.
>
> I have no doubt that a battery technology COULD be developed, if
> there were anyone who wanted to do so in the existing oil-auto companies!
>
>
> But so far, there is no interest in developing a battery recycling
> program, for example, needed for lowering costs. After the (curently
> 500) Tesla need new batteries, say after 60K miles, what's to be
> done with the old batteries? No one outside of, maybe, Tesla has
> a plan, and if they do, it's secret.
>
> If there's to be a fleet of EVs, really, then it must be understood
> to form an "urban mine" of spent batteries for reuse in making new
> batteries, using all the same materials and ever-improved methods.
>
>
> Like the Internal Combustion car business has been for the last 100
> years.
>
> EVs should be looked at as a source of "reforming" those batteries
> when they sunset; every metal is an artifact, except gold, it takes
> mining and refining. The re-use of old batteries, which have all
> the alloys and components needed, would be the way industry were
> headed, IF they were serious about a mass market EV; but of course,
> they are not serious.
>
> The steel industry dramatically lowered costs when they used scrap
> steel as the basis for processing, instead of virgin iron ore! Put
> a lot of legacy companies out of business, with their legacy bessemer
> furnaces!!
>
> Imagine, after 200K miles, when the NiMH batteries finally give up
> the ghost, they are brought to a reforming facility, all the rare
> earth metals, Ni, Ti, V, etc., fractionated and used directly to
> "refresh" the battery to new, using ever-more-successful techniques
> to prolong battery life, more robust batteries after each generation.
>
>
> Or, let's say, when the good lead PSB batteries finally fry, after
> 50K miles, the high-quality lead is reformed into new batteries.
> Or, when Tesla's Lithium batteries are finished, they are brought
> to a reforming facility to make new Lithium batteries, using the
> same materials in the old batteries. Currently, this is much more
> expensive with old batteries than with new Lithium ore from brines,
> dooming the idea of economical production.
>
> BTW, replacement and servicing of batteries ("logistical considerations")
> is something that NO one has looked at; replacing one battery on
> the EV1, RangerEV, Rav4-EV, etc., requires an expensive 4- to 8-hour
> process of "dropping the pack" that can only be done at the dealer
> and only with a $100K lift. Any competent M.E. would lose his lunch
> over that one!
>
> Practical considerations and lowering life-cycle cost; that's the
> way to make a battery EV industry.
>
> But it's not being done, nor looked at, by those Auto Alliance companies
> supposedly "racing" to "develop" EVs. Lutz, for example, pretends
> to think that GM can just "order" the batteries, and they will appear;
> and need have no concern for life-cycle cost.
>
> Obviously, any expectations of a burgeoning, ballooning market for
> high-quality batteries would require such infrastructure as logistical
> support and planning as well as sunset or scrap value; the lack of
> the latter seems to invalidate the former.

The Top 20 Russian Companies

I don't think Rosneft is listed in U.S. OTC, but is listed in London.

Upholding the Sanctity of Contracts: Is Gazprom Listening?

Another Russian bashing article by a no-nothing. It would be nice if just for once the western press printed an article that stated the Ukraine/Russian problem is mainly centered on Ukraine's refusal to paying the EC price for natural gas, maintaining it's right to be subsidized by Russia, as if it were still a satellite of Russia, while negotiating to join NATO.

Gazprom Shouldn't Be Written Off Just Yet

Stop the scare tactics. Western media is addicted to Russian-bashing, with most having little knowledge of the country. Gzp is already state majority owned, the state has no need to nationalize. Secondly, since the company went public, its investors have done extremely well, even after the onset of recession, up some 3000% to date, plus regular paid decent dividends. I'll bet that there are few investors in the company that have ever lost money.


On Aug 28 09:39 PM BPYHO wrote:

> Trying not to sound too presumptuous, but this article has very broad
> claims with little backup. Can we get this author to stop writing
> about Russia?
> #1 Gazprom will win any battle, they have the backing of the Kremlin,
> just look at all the deals that Western companies pumped buco bucks
> into only to get pushed out by Gazprom.
> #2 Anyone investing in Gazprom (or in anything Russian related besides
> RSX) should know their investment is about as safe as an investment
> right now in AIG (presently at 50$ for no apparent reason) At any
> given moment (even after posting record profits) the company could
> be nationalized completely wiping investors out.
> It doesn't matter though, please refer to point #1, in any battle
> over gas/oil deals in Russian territory Gazprom will win, there's
> no need to "get ready to rumble."

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

Eestor may even have what it says it has; it still will likely take many years to come to production.


On Aug 27 08:50 AM broschultz wrote:

> Wait a month or two and let's see what Eestor does. Everything you
> need to know about Zenn Motors:
> soundclick.com/share?s...

Natural Gas ETF Suspends New Shares: Are There Alternatives?

One etf alternative to UNG is Claymore Natural Gas Commodity Fund (GAS) that trades on the Toronto Exchange, trading at about 5 (Canadian).

Why I Am Long Active Power

John: I recall you listing your favorites in a prior article, but can't remember where. Could you redirect me or re-print the list again.

thanks,


On Aug 12 10:55 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Great summation ari5000. I'm convinced the storage sector will be
> huge and the upcoming IPO from A123 Systems will be a lot like the
> Netscape IPO in 1995, which launched the Internet financing boom.
> If I'm right about storage being the darling of Wall Street for
> the next couple years, every credible company in the sector is likely
> to benefit. I've spent a little over a year talking about the sector
> and the various technologies in an effort to help investors position
> their portfolios in advance. While I have a number of personal favorites
> and have explained why I like them, reasonable men can and do interpret
> the same information differently, which is why my articles consistently
> generate lengthy comment streams. My crystal ball is murky at best,
> but the next 12 to 24 months are looking like a lot of fun.

Crude Oil Supply and the Future: Putting Arguments in Proper Perspective

How about some evidence for that assertion, or are you just supposed to take it on your word?

On Aug 12 04:18 AM A Barrel Full wrote:

> Peak Oil is largely a political phenomenon, not a a geological one.
>

The Market Bubble Is About to Pop

Wow! I'd hate to be on the wrong side of an argument with you. I agree with your point on inconsistencies and false premise. The economy is always much stronger than any single sector, and when the economy goes down, so does everything else, and that includes commodities. By the way, I think he's a doctor of psychology. Explain a lot, no?


On Aug 13 12:08 AM gordo39 wrote:

> You fail to consider the potential effects of inflation/weak dollar
> on commodity prices. Inflation isnt solely caused by demand...what
> about a weak dollar? Do you know how much the money supply has grown
> since September 2008??

The Market Bubble Is About to Pop

I agree on the Baltic Dry Index, one of the best of tracking global growth.


On Aug 11 01:16 PM Jason Tillberg wrote:

> Watch the Baltic Dry Index.. it's tanking and no one seems to be
> taking notice, except Trader Mark. There goes your commodities boom.
>
>
> I'm leaning more and more toward a deflationary depression and we
> could be getting a big dollar rally .. very similar to last fall
> again.
>
> Banks are simply doomed.

The Market Bubble Is About to Pop

Right. Didn't you learn that lesson last summer when the equity markets crashed and commodity markets followed shortly thereafter.


On Aug 12 03:57 PM naidle wrote:

> So the stock market may crack again yet we should pile into commodities?
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to be a sideline sitter in the meantime?

The Market Bubble Is About to Pop

Compliments on an excellent and clear-headed analysis. Question:
Why not hedge the downside in commodities, i.e, examples like DUG.


On Aug 11 12:24 PM Suzanne H. wrote:

> Agreed, if the economy does badly, commodities are not going to be
> a place to hide. Commodities have barely retraced 38% of their move
> down, whereas the market has already and looks to be stalling there
> as did the Shanghai last week (can see charts legacyfunds.wordpress..../).
> I also believe we are in a deflationary environment not inflationary,
> and again the dollar may surprise everyone and move to the upside
> (although I agree some time from now, the $ is going to drop and
> commodities will rise). Commodities and emerging markets are going
> to decouple at some point, but it isn't now and much lower prices
> are far more probable vs. higher prices, so trade on technicals.
>
>
> My best guess and how my models are predicting this market to play
> out is a retracement to 950/920/870 (bear trap) area and then another
> rally to 1100 (equivalent to 50% retrace) to set up an even bigger
> bull trap before dropping to the march lows or lower. The more bearish
> option is we don't go higher than a 38% which is exactly where we
> closed friday so we are close to the start of the final leg of the
> bear market this month or next. Needless to say, this is not going
> to be an easy market to play any asset class, as I don't see the
> global markets decoupling -- some have definitely gone up more than
> others, but they all still rise and correct in tandem.

The Energy Markets According to Stupak

No comprende: Please explain following for the future's-market-challe...
"One such loophole provides a "bona fide hedge" exemption to over-the-counter energy swaps dealers who provide index fund and note managers potentially unlimited exposure to futures. In a swaps transaction, an index investor obtains a commodity return from an investment bank in exchange for a stream of interest payments, tied typically to the London InterBank Offered Rate (Libor). With a swap, the index trader doesn't go to the futures market itself, but the dealer selling the swap might, in order to hedge its resulting exposure. If a swap dealer can establish that a genuine risk is being hedged through futures, it's exempted from any speculative position limits imposed by the CFTC or the exchanges."