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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/25/2002 10:11:07 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Respond to of 65232

JW, The NEM call in January was a joke; wouldn't you love to see CNBC interview the guy now? jpgill

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/26/2002 12:14:01 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

The mysterious bomb today in New York thetimes.co.uk

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/26/2002 4:06:35 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

S African Gold Output Seen Down In Q1: Increase Seen Q2, Q3 By Angus Macmillan Johannesburg, April 25 (OsterDowJones) - South Africa's gold output is expected to improve in the second and third quarters of 2002 after a production slide in the first quarter, analysts said Thursday. For the calendar year, output is expected to be slightly higher than last year's 393 metric tons, the lowest annual figure since the 1950s. Estimating first quarter production, Dave Davis, gold analyst at SCMB Securities, said it's likely to be lower than the 101,447 kilograms produced in the fourth quarter of 2001. Output was 98,103 kg in first quarter 2001. "The first quarter is traditionally plagued by public holidays and some mines experienced technical problems this time round," he said. "But the rest of the year is looking good as producers will take advantage of the higher gold price to mine ore that was not commercially attractive last year," said Davis. Evidence for his view on lower first quarter output came Thursday from January to March production data released by Durban Roodepoort Deep, the country's fourth largest gold producer. Its quarterly output fell to 7,752 kg from 8,369 kg in the fourth quarter of 2001, much of the slide due to technical problems. Another analyst said gold producers will raise their pay limits to increase ore production during the year, but this will dilute their grades. "As long as the gold price holds above $300 a troy ounce, they can do this, but this strategy is not sustainable if the price falls," said Nick Goodwin, gold analyst at S G Securities. Another factor increasing output from the second quarter of 2002 is the recent opening of Avgold's 350,000 oz-a-year Target mine. Meanwhile, gold enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting next week's release of quarterly production figures and profit reports from three of the world's premier producers AngloGold, Gold Fields and Harmony. Harmony's results are due April 29, AngloGold's on April 30, and Gold Fields on May 2. --- Angus Macmillan, OsterDowJones; +27-82-2107-307 futuresource.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/26/2002 5:30:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

Senate OKs Major Overhaul of Energy Policy Apr 25 2002 10:28PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Democratic-led Senate approved legislation on Thursday to carry out the first major overhaul of U.S. energy policy in a decade, with greater focus on alternative fuels and energy conservation. The Senate bill, which passed 88 to 11 and includes $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, differs greatly from energy legislation approved last year by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Senators rejected President Bush's proposal to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, the centerpiece of the White House's national energy plan. The House bill would allow drilling in the wildlife refuge area and has a $33 billion package of energy tax credits and subsidies, more than double the amount in the Senate legislation. The House bill also pushes more oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power with less attention to alternative fuels and conservation. Senate and House negotiators are expected to spend months trying to work out differences in the two energy bills. It remains unclear if lawmakers can agree this year on a final energy package that can be sent to the White House. The Bush administration has refused to say if it would veto a bill that did not give oil firms access to the Arctic refuge. Following the Senate vote, President Bush issued a statement saying each of the Senate and House bills had elements of his administration's national energy plan. "It is imperative that America increase its energy independence and I look forward to working with the conferees to ensure that we enact a balanced and comprehensive energy policy this year," Bush said. Republican Frank Murkowski of Alaska told his Senate colleagues the energy bill was "something we can be proud of." However, he admitted that reconciling the Senate and House bills would be a "difficult" process. Both chambers left untouched fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks that were first established in the mid-1970s, despite pleas from environmental groups and some Democrats for stricter mileage requirements to reduce oil use. GREEN GROUPS SLAM BILL Environmentalists and consumer groups criticized the Senate bill, arguing it protected outdated energy sources like oil and coal and did not do enough to encourage new energy supplies. Some expressed concern that the worst was yet to come. "There is a real danger that House and Senate negotiators may pick the worst provisions of each bill -- and that would be a disaster for consumers," said Adam Goldberg, a policy analyst at Consumers Union, "Congress should go back to the drawing board," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director in the national lobbying office for the State Public Interest Research Groups. The Senate bill would increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources like the sun and the wind to 10 percent by 2020 -- from the current 2 percent. Another provision would give billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees to build a pipeline to ship natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. The Senate's $14 billion tax package included incentives for energy-efficient homes and appliances, credits for technology to make coal burn more cleanly, and credits for shale oil and coalbed methane. Democrat Majority Whip Harry Reid of Nevada said the tax incentives contained in the bill were able to win its eventual passage -- pointing to oil production subsidies supported by Republicans and renewable energy credits pushed by Democrats. VEHICLE FUEL PLAN REJECTED The Senate spent six weeks debating energy legislation, with lawmakers working up to the last minute trying to modify the bill. During the final hours of debate, the Senate killed a bipartisan plan to reduce foreign oil imports by cutting the amount of oil used in U.S. cars and trucks by 1 million barrels per day by 2015. The Senate also rejected a move by California lawmakers to delay tough new requirements for more ethanol use. The bill calls for boosting the amount of corn-based ethanol blended into gasoline to 5 billion gallons annually by 2012 from the current 1.5 billion gallons a year Lawmakers killed an amendment from Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California to delay by one year, until 2005, the start date for the new ethanol mandate. She feared gasoline prices would rise if the state was not given more time to put refineries and storage facilities in place to handle the needed ethanol. OIL INDUSTRY GROUPS DIFFER The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association called the Senate bill a "great disappointment." The industry group said the measure's ethanol mandate will make it more difficult and costly for its members to provide the fuels and petrochemical products on which the U.S. economy and consumers depend. However, the American Petroleum Institute, which supports the administration's proposals, welcomed Senate passage of energy legislation and urged both houses of Congress to quickly agree on a "balanced bill" to submit to the president for his signature. A COMPROMISE ON GREENHOUSE GASES The Senate, in a separate action, adopted a compromise plan that is to date the only real attempt to address greenhouse gases since President Bush last year announced the United States will not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, an international attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries. The plan allows voluntary reporting of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for five years, then mandatory reporting if the registry fails to capture at least 60 percent of emissions. The Bush administration opposes mandatory reporting requirements because they could lead to eventual limits. The White House said the Kyoto treaty's emission-reduction requirements would be too costly to the American economy.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/26/2002 5:49:23 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

A New Swagger at G.M. Editorial / Op-Ed The New York Times April 26, 2002 nytimes.com It's always nice to record a success story, no matter how fleeting success might turn out to be. It is especially nice if the story occurs in Detroit, a cyclical city that seems to have more downs than ups. The success story belongs to General Motors, which after years of decline is now on an upswing — a tribute to uncharacteristically daring designs, a tighter cost structure and, so far as anyone knows, no accounting tricks. Leaving aside for the moment the deleterious environmental impact of G.M.'s S.U.V.'s and some of its newer creations — the improbable Cadillac pickup truck, for example — the company's products might finally begin to appeal to what the marketing people call a younger demographic. G.M. has been down so long that many people have forgotten that in the 1950's, the company controlled over 60 percent of the American market. Today its market share is 28 percent. Over the years G.M. has suffered from a defensive management strategy, terrible labor relations and stodgy, one-size-fits-all styling. There were times in the early 90's when you couldn't tell a Chevrolet from a Pontiac from an Oldsmobile from a Buick. Even Cadillac lost its old grandeur, surrendering up-market dominance to Lincoln. The net result was that first Chrysler, then Ford began to challenge G.M. in the showrooms and among investors. All three, of course, suffered from foreign competition. The main reason for G.M.'s comeback is better management. One key move was the decision by the C.E.O., Rick Wagoner, to hire Robert Lutz, a cigar-smoking iconoclast who favors love-'em-or-hate-'em cars that, one way or another, get a reaction. When he worked at Chrysler, Mr. Lutz championed the sporty Dodge Viper and the PT Cruiser, which looks like a 1930's gangster car. At G.M. he recently unveiled a curvaceous two-seat roadster, the Pontiac Solstice. "I see us as being in the art business," Mr. Lutz once told The Times's Danny Hakim. "Art, entertainment and mobile sculpture, which, coincidentally, also happens to provide transportation." Though commonly associated with the old school of management, John Smith, Mr. Wagoner's predecessor as chairman, also deserves credit for the turnaround. It was Mr. Smith who nurtured G.M.'s partnership with Toyota and, without apology, grafted Toyota's more efficient manufacturing system onto G.M.'s, with considerable cost savings. All this has brought happier days to G.M.'s headquarters. Investors are buying the stock and sales are up. G.M.'s 28 percent first-quarter market share compares with 20.7 for Ford and 13.6 for Chrysler. In February, for the first month in more than a decade, Chevrolet's models outsold Ford's comparable models. G.M. was the only one of the Big Three to show a profit last year. From an environmental standpoint — this is also true of G.M.'s competitors — the company's product mix is too heavily weighted toward huge, gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s, although Mr. Lutz has vowed to bring back the passenger car. Heavy rebates and zero percent financing — what Mr. Lutz calls "putting cash in the trunk" — have also played a big role, and it is not clear how long that strategy can be sustained. The big challenge now is to recapture market share from Asia and Europe.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50538)	4/26/2002 6:29:11 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

The Saudi message A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL 4/26/2002 boston.com THE SAUDI royal family was engaged in a certain amount of posturing when it had highly placed sources leak authoritative warnings about a rupture in Saudi-US relations during the run-up to Crown Prince Abdullah's visit yesterday with President Bush at his Texas ranch. The Saudi royals can hardly risk a break with their ultimate protectors in Washington. Their true intent - to show that they have the clout to persuade Bush to cease identifying the United States with the policies of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - was evident in their lobbying with old American friends. On Tuesday Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and veteran Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan lunched with former President George Bush, who in 1990 and 1991 saved them from Saddam Hussein. On Thursday, while Prince Abdullah was conversing with the current President Bush and his advisers, a Saudi Embassy spokesman denied a report in The New York Times that Riyadh was threatening to suspend oil exports to the United States, as Saddam has done. Despite the royal family's dependence on a partnership with Washington that dates back more than a half-century, it would be a mistake for the current administration to ignore the message of anxiety coming from the Saudi monarchy. The Saudi leaders are trying to warn the administration that day after day, their youthful, discontented population is watching awful images on Arab satellite television of Sharon's assault on Palestinian cities and refugee camps. Those images induce a deep anger - emotion that can easily be turned against the monarchy. The crux of the Saudi message is that if the administration wants to keep its royal friends in power, Bush must demonstrate that he is willing and able to rein in Sharon. Otherwise the Saudi royals will be exposed before their subjects not merely as rapacious, unrepresentative rulers but as dupes of their American allies. The Saudis certainly have the entree necessary to make their panic attack known at the highest levels of the American government. What is less certain is Bush's readiness to grasp the gravity of the threat to American as well as Saudi interests. In this instance, American interests as well as the genuine long-term interests of Israel and the Palestinians converge. There are dovish members of the Israeli Knesset who want Bush to stop Sharon from driving Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighbors toward an avalanche of regional instability. Bush needs to intervene forcefully in the Mideast, as his father did when preparing the Madrid peace conference of 1991. An American peace will have to be imposed on the region - not for the sake of the Saudi royals but for all the children of Palestinians and Israelis. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.