Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (13158)	1/10/2002 10:43:26 AM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

U.S. Launches a Criminal Probe of Enron Inquiry: A Justice Department task force will investigate potential illegal acts by the firm and its officers. Correspondence Correspondence Between Rep. Henry Waxman and Counsel to Vice President Cheney Regarding Meetings With Enron 12-4 Letter from Waxman to Cheney 1-3 Response to Waxman from Cheney's Office 1-8 Follow-up letter from Waxman to Cheney latimes.com

To: Moominoid who wrote (13158)	1/10/2002 10:57:07 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

>>This carbon mitigation...<< Carbon like in carbon [di/mon]oxide, I assume? What about NOx? Keep us (me) posted. dj

To: Moominoid who wrote (13158)	1/10/2002 4:14:04 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<<having many ratty little currencies in Europe was one of those minor but very irksome problems of life which added nothing to the quality of it>> <What's that make the Kiwi Dollar?! :)> The mouse. But remember in The Mouse That Roared how they had the Q bomb which would blow up everything? [I'm stretching memories and I suppose few have seen it.] Well, the Q is going to blow up all the currencies. Kabbbbooooooommmmmm!!! People thought the dot.bomb and the tech.wreck were big. Wait until they see what the Q does to the $, yen, shekel, kiwi, pound, rand, euro, rupee, yuan, pesos, real [now there's a funny name], rupiah, dinar, ringgit, zloty, ruble, riyal, won, baht, taka, franc [not the now extinct French version], pula, colon [hey, how about that one for a funny name - do they mean the end of the alimentary canal or colonisation?], and all the other expressions of nationalistic confiscatory power and control over people which are going to go the way of the moa and dodo when people break free. Mqurice PS: I got those from It. I don't know all the names myself.

To: Moominoid who wrote (13158)	1/10/2002 5:02:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<This carbon mitigation initiative has got $US2 million a year funding for 10 years from BP and Ford (Motors not the foundation). Looks very interesting, these guys are serious about investigating this stuff.> Sure they are and it's in their interests to do so. That was the line I was promoting flat out and I'm pleased to see they are doing it; that is, investigating environmental impacts and recommending to governments rules to protect people and keep things good. Suppose BP can get governments to require sequestration of carbon as carbon dioxide in lakes under the ocean. Well, that will mean a lot more carbon is produced and burned to handle the processing cost. That's good for BP. I'd come up with 400 metre deep lakes from power stations in 1987 [needs to be that deep to stay as a liquid]. I left BP and didn't do anything about it but saw Mitsubishi patented the idea in the early 1990s. To cool and compress the CO2 from power stations would require [if I remember my boe calculations] about 20% more energy. Initially I'd thought of dry ice storage under polystyrene and aluminium foil insulation, which would also be great for cool storage of products. But the liquid under the ocean seemed better. It also helps avoid being sued for $100 billion for wanton, criminal neglect and damage. For example, I believe it was criminally neglectful for governments to allow lead in petrol and companies could be sued for damaging peoples' brains by poisoning them with lead when they should have know it was harmful. BP is also in the business of technological development, so if high octane fuels are wanted for small, high compression engines, to improve efficiency, BP can supply and enjoy higher margins. If low aromatic fuels are wanted for emissions improvements, BP can do the investment and processing and charge higher margins for the better fuels. Today I bought some of my 98 octane petrol from Mobil and they are charging 8c a litre more than 91 octane. They are making a bundle at that price! Because of taxes, the consumer doesn't understand that huge profit - the ex-refinery cost is low and taxes are such a burden that most of what a consumer sees in the price is tax. The motorist sees $1 or 92c and thinks the price is not all that different [8%] for a much better product. But the ex-refinery difference is more like 20%. The extra actual cost to the refiner would be about 3 or 4c or nearer 10%. I don't have accurate numbers now, but you get the drift. So a technological improvement which improves efficiency avoids taxes. But Mobil is taking all the improvement in efficiency and more, in the product price. So they are making heaps of profit from it. But motorists still buy it because they like the extra pep in their engines [which these days have engine management systems, knock sensors and stuff which allows them to use lower or higher octane fuels]. With the 98, there is less CO2 and other pollution because the car goes further per kilogram of fuel. Those cost burdens do make other products competitive, such as wood, coal, nuclear power, insulation, avoidance, solar, fuel cells etc. But guess what! BP is a big solar system producer and has funded fusion research and other things. So if the pressure goes on oil, BP will be happy to sell solar. Happier, as they have a much bigger market share and fewer competitors can enter. Technology is driving the world very fast and the dot.bomb and tech.wrecks were judder bars on the road to nirvana. L <NYT reported yesterday (on p1) that Bush admin will also look at funding hydrogen power research and wind down the CAFE standards program (which has become a bit of a joke as SUVs are classed as trucks and are exempt from it).> My ex-boss in BP was doing research at Shell [where he then worked] in the early 1970s. He thought hydrogen was hot stuff. Personally, I think good old liquid fuels are best. Engine technologies can make them really clean and efficient. Diesel engines and crusty cars burning aromatic muck are the problem in cities. The long-run production cost of crude oil is low in many countries and we have decades to go before other fuels are competitive. Imagine if the Segway becomes ubiquitous for zipping around town. <Two quotes from my potential supervisor here: "They (Princeton faculty) all hate Bush - I like him" "I'd rather have Exxon running my life than most governments"> What don't they like about him I wonder. A lot of people got their noses in knots because he ditched the Kyoto protocols. Good riddance say I. He likes Uncle Green$pan and says he's done a great job. So do I. I really can't think of anything right now that has upset me [probably forgetfulness]. Which is pretty good going for a President of the USA. Clinton annoyed me first day on the job just about. BP and I suppose Exxon, are maligned multinationals. My experience with thousands of large and small companies, government businesses and individual businesses is that the big ones are the good guys [pretty bad in many ways, but a heck of a lot better than the others - sort of like democracy is terrible but it beats Stalin and Mao any day]. The little guys tip stuff down drains, do dangerous things, break rules, laws and people's lives. The big ones have to keep customers happy at the margin. Shell ran into a consumer boycott over their Nigerian actions [unfairly or not]. Governments don't have to keep the marginal people happy - they are fair game to be trampled. Big companies have important brands which cannot be damaged by maniacs in far-off corners of the globe. The safety of fuel tankers in Zimbabwe is controlled as it is in the USA. More difficult, admittedly, but important nonetheless. Staff are treated better in BP than in ratty little companies [unless the little company happens to be a good one, in which case it will soon be growing rapidly]. Big is better. The big ones have to watch what they do. Not that they always do a good job of that [Exxon Valdez, Texaco being sued for billions, putting lead in petrol and not promoting its removal to governments]. Of course, the very best companies are the small ones where the quality of management, owners and staff is great [such as QUALCOMM in the early days]. The big ones become bureaucratic. The government businesses are usually good at obeying the rules, but hopelessly run [meaning really inefficient and devoid of imagination]. Mqurice