Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Silver Wheaton Buys Stake in Revett
Friday November 24, 12:14 pm ET
Silver Wheaton Purchases 17.3 Percent Stake in Revett Minerals Via Private Placement
NEW YORK (AP) -- Canadian silver miner Silver Wheaton Corp. said Friday it purchased 9.6 million units of Revett Minerals Inc. for $9.6 million in a private placement transaction.
Each unit includes 1 common share and a warrant to purchase 0.25 of a Revett share at a price of $1.20 per share over the next 30 months.
As a result of this transaction, Silver Wheaton owns 12.4 million common shares of Revett and warrants exercisable to acquire an additional 2.4 million shares, representing about a 17.3 percent stake on an undiluted basis.
Exercising the warrants would give Silver Wheaton a 19.9 percent stake in Spokane, Wash.-based Revett, which owns about two thirds of the Rock Creek Project and the Troy Mine located in northwest Montana. The company has made a public offering to raise funds to further develop its mineral projects.
Silver Wheaton said it purchased the units for investment purposes only.
Shares of Silver Wheaton Corp. rose 33 cents, or 3 percent, to $11.35 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061124/silver_wheaton_revett.html?.v=1
Politics: Rebuilding Civil Society - by John Michael Greer
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Last of a nine-part series.
My last two Archdruid Report posts argued that the American political system has wedged itself into the impossible position of trying to sustain an unsustainable empire, along with the even more unsustainable standards of living that the now-departing age of empire fooled Americans into seeing as their birthright. Like the bread and circuses of ancient Rome, the petroleum-fueled prosperity of 20th century America fostered a culture of entitlement in which most citizens believed that they deserved to get whatever they wanted without having to pay the full price for it. One consequence of this cultural shift has been the collapse of democratic politics in the United States.
It’s popular these days to blame this consequence on the machinations of some nefarious elite group or other, but the real responsibility lies elsewhere. Democracy takes work. Casting a ballot in elections once every year or so is not enough to keep it going, though even this minimal investment of time and effort is apparently too much for something like six-tenths of adult Americans. What makes a democratic system operate is personal involvement in the political process on the part of most citizens. Precinct organizations and caucuses, town meetings, and other political activities at the local level formed the indispensible foundation of democratic politics in the days when the United States was not yet an elective oligarchy.
These activities drew on a broader base of local community organizations – churches, civic societies, fraternal orders such as the Freemasons and the Grange, and many others – that rarely engaged in explicit political discussion and activism, but taught skills and made connections that inevitably found their way into a political context. These institutions of civil society created a context in which individuals could orient their lives to the politics of the day, and act in ways that could influence policy all the way up to the national level. People who wrestled with the nuts and bolts of the democratic process in community organizations needed no further education when time came for the precinct caucuses that chose candidates and evolved party platforms.
It’s often claimed by modern writers that these institutions of civil society thrived as they did because people didn’t have anything else to do with their time, but this says more about our own fantasies about the past than it does about historical reality. Most people a century ago worked longer hours than their descendants do today, and the popular media of their time was less technologically complex but no less widely distributed or eagerly sought than ours. The difference lay, rather, in prevailing attitudes. Alexis de Tocqueville famously described early 19th century America as a land of associations, where the needs of society were met, not by government programs or aristocratic largesse, but by voluntary organizations of common people. The civil society of pre-imperial America thrived because people recognized that the social and personal benefits they wanted could only be bought with the coin of their own time and money.
One example worth remembering is the way that fraternal orders, rather than government bureaucracies, provided the social safety net of 19th century America. The Odd Fellows, a fraternal order founded originally in Britain, launched this process shortly after its arrival in the United States in 1819. Odd Fellows lodges in Britain had the useful habit of taking up collections for members in need, especially to cover the living costs of those who had fallen sick – remember, this was long before employers offered sick pay – and to pay the burial costs of those who died. In the American branch of the order, this quickly evolved into a system of weekly assessments and defined benefits.
The way it worked was simple enough. Each member paid in weekly dues – 25 cents a week, roughly the equivalent of $20 a week today, was average – and the money went into a common fund. When a member in good standing became too sick to work, he received regular sick pay and, in most lodges, visits from a physician who received a fixed monthly sum from the lodge in exchange for providing care to all its members. When a member died, his funeral costs were covered by the lodge, and his dependents could count on the support of the lodge in hard cash as well as the less tangible currency of the nationwide Odd Fellows network. By 1900, as a result of this system Odd Fellowship was the largest fraternal order in the world. In that same year more than two thousand American fraternal orders had copied this model, and nearly half of all adult Americans – counting both genders and all ethnic groups, by the way – belonged to at least one fraternal order.
This effective and sustainable system, though, depended on the willingness of very large numbers of Americans to support their local lodges by attending meetings and paying weekly dues. Its equivalents throughout civil society had the same requirements, and with the coming of empire, these turned into a fatal vulnerability. As the profits of American empire made it possible for governments to buy the loyalty of the middle class with unearned largesse, the old system of voluntary organizations lost its support base and withered on the vine. {i]With it perished the local politics of precinct caucuses and town meetings. When participation in the political system stopped being seen as an opportunity to be heard, and turned into an annoyance to be shirked, America’s democracy mutated into today’s system of elective oligarchy.
What happened, in effect, was that most Americans made the consumer economy their model for political participation. A consumer’s role in the economic process is limited to choosing among a selection of lavishly advertised and colorfully marketed products provided by industry. In the same way, most Americans embraced a political system in which all they had to do was choose among a selection of lavishly advertised and colorfully marketed candidates provided by the major parties. It’s not accidental that when people today complain about the low caliber of candidates offered for their vote, their tone and language aren’t noticeably different from those they use when they complain about the low quality of consumer products offered for their purchase. Absent in both cases, too, is any recognition that there might be an alternative to choosing among products somebody else made for them.
Until this attitude changes, nothing will bring back democracy to America. No institutional change, however drastic, will create a democratic nation unless the people of that nation are willing to invest the time, effort, forbearance, and resources that a democratic system needs. Nor, it probably has to be said, will throwing one set of rascals out of office, and replacing them with another set of rascals more to one’s taste, have any noticeable effect on the character of the system as a whole. Until the American people come to the conclusion that the costs of democracy are less burdensome than the costs of doing without it, America will continue to have a government of the people in name only – not because some elite group has taken it away from the people, but because the people themselves have turned their backs on it.
Nor, I think, is there much hope that peak oil, global warming, or any other aspect of our current predicament will induce them to do otherwise. Combine any of these factors with the decline of American empire, and the result you get is a future in which Americans of all classes must get by with a great deal less wealth and leisure than they think they deserve. It seems unlikely that they will respond by giving up even more of their wealth and leisure to renew a dimly remembered democratic system that, despite its many other virtues, offers no hope of regaining these things.
Instead, my guess is that the focus of the next century or so of American politics will be attempts to hang onto as much of the prosperity of empire as possible. Not all these attempts may be as hamfisted as current American foreign policy might suggest, and people of other nations might do well to be wary of proposals for some sort of “world community” emanating from American soil, no matter how apparently liberal the language in which they are phrased. The American people have already faced a choice between democracy and the profits of empire, and we know which one they chose. The fact that they will end up with neither is one of the ironies of history, but I doubt many will see it that way.
What, though, can those who value democracy do within the constraints of a collapsing empire and a declining industrial civilization? The one workable strategy, it seems to me, is rebuilding the foundations of civil society that made American democracy work in the first place. Though it’s unfashionable (and politically incorrect) to suggest this, and doubtless new forms will also need to be evolved, I think that much value remains in the old institutions of American civil society, and in particular in the handful of surviving fraternal orders – the Freemasons, the Odd Fellows, the Grange, and their equivalents. Behind lodge doors, all but forgotten even by the retirees who keep the old lodges going, lies a rich history and a wealth of proven methods that weathered every challenge except that of unearned prosperity.
Those approaches could readily be put to use again. Equally, other dimensions of civil society wait to be rebuilt or reinvented. A great many of the common assumptions of our imperial age will have to go by the boards in this process, however. In particular, the notion of entitlement needs to be an early casualty of the approaching changes. The Odd Fellows and their many equivalents did not dispense charity; they provided a means for those willing to contribute to the common welfare to spread out the risks and share the benefits of life in an uncertain world. Those who did not help others did not get help in their own times of need. This may seem harsh, but in a time of unbending ecological limits, it’s also necessary.
The 19th century was such a time and, given the realities of peak oil, global warming, and the other elements of the predicament of industrial civilization, the 21st century will be no better – and it may be worse. The one question is whether enough people will embrace the challenge of rebuilding civil society in time to make a difference on a community scale, or whether – as in the decline of so many past empires – it will be left up to small groups on the fringes of society to embrace a path of mutual aid and preserve today’s legacies for the future.
Adriana Arranges $990,000 Private Placement
Thursday November 23, 9:30 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 23, 2006) - Adriana Resources Inc. (the "Company") (TSX VENTURE:ADI - News) announces it has arranged, subject to regulatory approval, a non-brokered private placement for proceeds of $990,000. The private placement consists of 1,100,000 flow through shares priced at $0.90 per share. The shares will be subject to hold periods in accordance with TSX Venture Exchange (the "Exchange") policies and applicable securities laws. No warrants were issued in connection with the financing. The Company will pay a finders fee of 4% in shares or 52,100 shares. Proceeds of the financing will be used for continued exploration of the Company's mineral properties in Nunavut and Quebec.
About Adriana Resources Inc.
Adriana Resources Inc. is a mineral exploration and development company with advanced and early staged mineral projects in Canada and Finland. The individuals comprising Adriana's Board have an impressive record in their previous associations in identifying and successfully developing mineral deposits through to production.
ON BEHALF OF ADRIANA RESOURCES INC.
Michael J. Beley, President
The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy of this release.
Contact:
Robert Ferguson
Adriana Resources Inc.
(604) 629-0250 or Toll Free: 1-877-629-0150
Ali Sinawi
Adriana Resources Inc.
(604) 629-0250 or Toll Free: 1-877-629-0150
(604) 629-0923 (FAX)
Website: www.adrianaresources.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Adriana Resources Inc.
Great Panther Increases Production at Mexican Silver Mines
Thursday November 23, 9:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 23, 2006 -- GREAT PANTHER RESOURCES LIMITED (TSX:GPR.TO - News) is pleased to announce that production continues to increase at both of its 100% owned silver mines in Mexico. At the Topia Silver-Lead-Zinc Mine in Durango the plant throughput has been increased from 120 to 160 tonnes per day with the commissioning of the second ball mill. Meanwhile, at the Guanajuato Mine Complex, the second ball mill has been operating intermittently as mill feed is gradually increased from the ongoing mine development. Total throughput at the Guanajuato plant has risen from 400 to 700 tonnes per day and will continue to increase into the New Year.
The third ball mill at Topia will be commissioned in early 2007 such that the plant capacity will continue to grow through next year. The original target of 200 tonnes per day should be attained in Q1 2007 with ultimate capacity anticipated to be in excess of 300 tonnes per day by late 2007/early 2008. The third mill at Guanajuato is currently being refurbished and it is anticipated that mine development will be sufficiently advanced by Q1 2007 to reach the full plant capacity of 1,200 tonnes per day later that quarter.
New underground development is also continuing at both mines. As announced on October 12, 2006, production from the Argentina vein at Topia is anticipated to begin in Q1 2007 and will build as high grade silver-lead-zinc mineralization is developed on multiple levels. At Guanajuato, new production has commenced from several stopes on the 345 level of the Rayas and Cata Mines, while mining continues in the San Vicente and Guanajuatito areas.
The 34-hole surface diamond drilling program has been completed at Guanajuato and final assay results from the Promontorio area near the southeast property boundary are pending. Drilling in the Guanajuatito and Animas areas have already identified significant silver-gold mineralization that is available for immediate development. All of the mineralized intercepts from the surface program at Guanajuato will be incorporated into the first NI43-101 compliant resource report, which is expected to be received in the first quarter of 2007.
A new, 5,000 metre surface drilling program, contracted to BDW Drilling of Mexico, has also begun at Topia. Previous surface drilling results, along with underground sampling, are being used to calculate the first NI43-101 compliant resource for the mine. Wardrop Engineering is expected to deliver this result to the Company within the next couple of weeks. In addition, Great Panther has purchased four new underground diamond drills - three for Guanajuato and one for Topia - that will be operated by the Company's own personnel rather than under contract. This should increase productivity in the definition of new resources at both of the mines.
Aspects of the Topia and Guanajuato Mines relating to mining and metallurgy are overseen by Ing. Francisco Ramos Sanchez, Vice-President of Operations for Great Panther and its wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, Minera Mexicana El Rosario, S.A. de C.V. (MMR). Robert F. Brown, P.Eng. and Vice-President of Exploration for Great Panther and MMR is designated as the Qualified Person for both mines under the meaning of NI 43-101, and has reviewed this news release.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
Robert A. Archer, President & CEO
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward-looking information within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario) (together, "forward-looking statements"). Such forward-looking statements may include but are not limited to the Company's plans for production at its Guanajuato and Topia Mines in Mexico, exploring its other properties in Mexico, the overall economic potential of its properties, the availability of adequate financing and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to be materially different. Such factors include, among others, risks and uncertainties relating to potential political risks involving the Company's operations in a foreign jurisdiction, uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses, physical risks inherent in mining operations, currency fluctuations, fluctuations in the price of silver, gold and base metals, completion of economic evaluations, changes in project parametres as plans continue to be refined, the inability or failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, and other risks and uncertainties, including those described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 and reports on Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov and Material Change Reports filed with the Canadian Securities Administrators and available at www.sedar.com.
SEC 20-F Statement Filed
Standard & Poor's Listed
Contact:
Contacts:
Great Panther Resources Limited
Brad Aelicks
(604) 685-6465
Great Panther Resources Limited
Don Mosher
(604) 685-6465
(604) 685-9744 (FAX)
Email: info@greatpanther.com
Website: http://www.greatpanther.com
Great Panther Increases Production at Mexican Silver Mines
Thursday November 23, 9:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 23, 2006 -- GREAT PANTHER RESOURCES LIMITED (TSX:GPR.TO - News) is pleased to announce that production continues to increase at both of its 100% owned silver mines in Mexico. At the Topia Silver-Lead-Zinc Mine in Durango the plant throughput has been increased from 120 to 160 tonnes per day with the commissioning of the second ball mill. Meanwhile, at the Guanajuato Mine Complex, the second ball mill has been operating intermittently as mill feed is gradually increased from the ongoing mine development. Total throughput at the Guanajuato plant has risen from 400 to 700 tonnes per day and will continue to increase into the New Year.
The third ball mill at Topia will be commissioned in early 2007 such that the plant capacity will continue to grow through next year. The original target of 200 tonnes per day should be attained in Q1 2007 with ultimate capacity anticipated to be in excess of 300 tonnes per day by late 2007/early 2008. The third mill at Guanajuato is currently being refurbished and it is anticipated that mine development will be sufficiently advanced by Q1 2007 to reach the full plant capacity of 1,200 tonnes per day later that quarter.
New underground development is also continuing at both mines. As announced on October 12, 2006, production from the Argentina vein at Topia is anticipated to begin in Q1 2007 and will build as high grade silver-lead-zinc mineralization is developed on multiple levels. At Guanajuato, new production has commenced from several stopes on the 345 level of the Rayas and Cata Mines, while mining continues in the San Vicente and Guanajuatito areas.
The 34-hole surface diamond drilling program has been completed at Guanajuato and final assay results from the Promontorio area near the southeast property boundary are pending. Drilling in the Guanajuatito and Animas areas have already identified significant silver-gold mineralization that is available for immediate development. All of the mineralized intercepts from the surface program at Guanajuato will be incorporated into the first NI43-101 compliant resource report, which is expected to be received in the first quarter of 2007.
A new, 5,000 metre surface drilling program, contracted to BDW Drilling of Mexico, has also begun at Topia. Previous surface drilling results, along with underground sampling, are being used to calculate the first NI43-101 compliant resource for the mine. Wardrop Engineering is expected to deliver this result to the Company within the next couple of weeks. In addition, Great Panther has purchased four new underground diamond drills - three for Guanajuato and one for Topia - that will be operated by the Company's own personnel rather than under contract. This should increase productivity in the definition of new resources at both of the mines.
Aspects of the Topia and Guanajuato Mines relating to mining and metallurgy are overseen by Ing. Francisco Ramos Sanchez, Vice-President of Operations for Great Panther and its wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, Minera Mexicana El Rosario, S.A. de C.V. (MMR). Robert F. Brown, P.Eng. and Vice-President of Exploration for Great Panther and MMR is designated as the Qualified Person for both mines under the meaning of NI 43-101, and has reviewed this news release.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
Robert A. Archer, President & CEO
This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward-looking information within the meaning of the Securities Act (Ontario) (together, "forward-looking statements"). Such forward-looking statements may include but are not limited to the Company's plans for production at its Guanajuato and Topia Mines in Mexico, exploring its other properties in Mexico, the overall economic potential of its properties, the availability of adequate financing and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements to be materially different. Such factors include, among others, risks and uncertainties relating to potential political risks involving the Company's operations in a foreign jurisdiction, uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses, physical risks inherent in mining operations, currency fluctuations, fluctuations in the price of silver, gold and base metals, completion of economic evaluations, changes in project parametres as plans continue to be refined, the inability or failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, and other risks and uncertainties, including those described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 and reports on Form 6-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov and Material Change Reports filed with the Canadian Securities Administrators and available at www.sedar.com.
SEC 20-F Statement Filed
Standard & Poor's Listed
Contact:
Contacts:
Great Panther Resources Limited
Brad Aelicks
(604) 685-6465
Great Panther Resources Limited
Don Mosher
(604) 685-6465
(604) 685-9744 (FAX)
Email: info@greatpanther.com
Website: http://www.greatpanther.com
UrAsia Energy annual financial results
Thursday November 23, 12:06 am ET
For the three months and year ended July 31, 2006
(All amounts are stated in United States dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated)
Trading Symbol (TSXV: UUU and AIM: UUU)
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/061123/urasia_energy_results.html?.v=1
UrAsia Energy annual financial results
Thursday November 23, 12:06 am ET
For the three months and year ended July 31, 2006
(All amounts are stated in United States dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated)
Trading Symbol (TSXV: UUU and AIM: UUU)
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/061123/urasia_energy_results.html?.v=1
Missy,
Thanks for the Patches song by Dickey Lee; that was the one I hadn't heard for a while.
The other Patches song by Clarence Carter was quite meaningful.
Saved both for replaying.
My neighbor just brought over the turkey; celebrating today, as she is a nurse and must work tomorrow. I will have leftovers for Thanksgiving.
Take care,
sumisu
Missy,
"I hope you're enjoying the thread."
LOL, what an understatement. Your thread takes my mind off of my investments, which can be tense at times.
You and your group provide a lot of songs and must have tremendous files.
There's one song titled "Patches" from a million year's ago. Would you happen to have that one?
Thanks,
sumisu
Missy,
Thanks a lot for Your Smile. Its beat and message transcends time and can affect all people equally, if that makes any sense.
I like Gerald Levert and Barry White a lot.
LOL, until I found your board, I never listened to the words of songs before. Maybe in retirement I have time to listen to songs carefully now.
Take care,
sumisu
Would anyone possibly have the song "Your Smile" by Gerald Levert?
Thanks,
sumisu
PS Have a Happy Thanksgiving tomorrow!
The Peak Oil Crisis: Picking the Peak
By Tom Whipple
Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Last week Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) who characterize themselves as "a leading advisor to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers," sent out a press release announcing that they had a new report on peak oil for sale. For some time now, CERA has been the leading debunker of the notion that world oil production might just peak in the near future, so their reports are always of interest.
They do not say oil production will never peak, it's just that they want you to believe that the peak won't come until 2030 and after that production will decline so gradually that there will be plenty of oil right on out through the rest of the 21st century.
The occasion of a "new" report on peak oil from CERA always creates a great stir amongst followers of the peak oil story. This time was no exception. CERA is, of course, a profit-making entity that is used to selling their analyses to major corporations and rich governments for big bucks, so $1000 was set as an appropriate amount for a 16-page report debunking a subject as important peak oil.
CERA, or at least their PR folks, realized that at this price, "WHY THE PEAK OIL THEORY FALLS DOWN" was unlikely to make the best seller list, so they thoughtfully provided a tightly written four page press release covering the main points of the study. This of course allowed the world's press to write stories about the gist of the report with having to pony-up the $1000.
The purpose here is not to critique the CERA report's shortcomings for within hours of the press release's issue, numerous voices from the Internet had torn the CERA report, its logic, and argumentation into a thousand intellectual shards.
In case you are interested, there was nothing new in the report that CERA has not said many times before. The heart of their argument is that their parent company has a secret database of the world's oil fields. After studying this database, depletion rates, and likely new sources of oil or oil-like hydrocarbons, they conclude that world oil production will continue growing right on up to 130 million b/d by 2030. After that, production will bounce along on their famous "undulating plateau" for decades giving us plenty of time for future generations to go out and find some other source of energy. You should be aware, however, that several other individuals and organizations have done similar analyses and have come to far more alarming conclusions.
Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong in an organization examining a problem as complex as peak oil and coming up with an optimistic judgment that we have 25 years of plenty ahead. They start to get out of line however when they mischaracterize what serious students of peak oil are really saying and follow this up with dubious assumptions that technological advances in the near future will turn all manner of carbon deposits into affordable fuels.
This all leads to the question of just what is going on here? Why is CERA putting out the same old claims -- this time wrapped in some name-calling about the inadequacies of the people who believe that peak oil is imminent? Why is CERA ignoring reams of solid evidence that world oil production is indeed approaching a peak and that there is unlikely to be any technological quick-fix? Why are they doing this now?
There just might be a clue buried in the rather strange first paragraph of CERA's press release. "The peak oil argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions."
We might just be on to something; widespread acceptance of imminent peaking of oil production is "distorting critical policy and investment decisions?" What policies and whose investment decisions?
CERA, of course, makes a good living by selling advice about the future of energy to corporations and governments that can afford very expensive reports and consulting fees. There is also no question that many investments decisions made in 2006 are going to look brilliant or dumb depending on whether oil is cheap and plentiful or expensive and scarce ten years from now.
Moreover, there is no secret about peak oil and the path to the peak. It is all over the Internet in as much detail as one would like to know. It is highly unlikely that planners for large corporations are unaware of the concepts behind peak oil and do not know that the price of oil has increased three or four fold in recent years. The price spikes of last summer coupled with the problems that Detroit has had selling large cars should be enough to focus most decision-makers’ attention.
CERA is clearly hanging its credibility and future on the idea that worldwide oil depletion is still a long ways off. It is a popular message and probably finds a good market in corporate board rooms where a massive paradigm shift is highly unwelcome news.
Events of the last year, however, should give those accepting this optimistic view cause for concern. It is not much of leap to believe that CERA is coming under heat from those who recognize that a bad call on peak oil will be devastating. This CERA report, which is obviously an attempt to defend their position, may be a sign that the message of peak oil may just be getting through to the corporate world.
The Long Case for Silver
http://gold.seekingalpha.com/article/20898
Credit Suisse: Copper Prices Should Rise On New Chinese Demand
http://gold.seekingalpha.com/article/20962
Credit Suisse: Copper Prices Should Rise On New Chinese Demand
http://gold.seekingalpha.com/article/20962
Freeport backs copper bet with Phelps bid
$26 billion deal expands Freeport's copper assets while prices are hot
By Laura Mandaro, MarketWatch
Last Update: 5:35 PM ET Nov 20, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/yh7gm9
nlightn,
The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming.......
Thanks for the posts. I noticed the author's name, F. William Engdahl, of these articles. He has extensive background on this topic as evidenced by his book "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order."
Jim Puplava interviewed him on 09 24 05 and he was very insightful. Here is the link:
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Engdahl.html
Thanks again,
sumisu
calgarylady,
Thanks for the update, especially about Kluane Drilling being on site.
Good luck to you,
sumisu
Denison and IUC Shareholders Vote Over 99% for Merger
By Gary Norris
20 Nov 2006 at 12:00 PM EST
TORONTO (CP) -- Shareholders of Denison Mines Inc. [TSX:DEN] and International Uranium Corp. [TSX:IUC] voted by over 99% Monday to approve a merger creating a company with the critical mass to thrive in the increasingly hot uranium market.
In two brief meetings, each attended by three dozen people who were largely insiders, investors endorsed the deal to put together an enterprise aiming at annual production of 5.5 million pounds of uranium oxide by 2010.
Denison owns 22.5% of the McClean Lake mill and 25% of the Midwest uranium project in Saskatchewan, both operated by the AREVA Group of France, and is active on other projects in the Athabasca Basin as well as in Mongolia and Australia.
IUC runs the only uranium mill currently operating in the United States, the White Mesa complex in Utah, and also has deposits in Mongolia and exploration projects in the Athabasca Basin.
Denison stockholders will exchange each of their shares for 2.88 International Uranium shares, and will own slightly less than half of the combined corporation immediately after the merger - but slightly more than half on a fully diluted basis, including options and warrants.
The new company is to be known as Denison Mines Ltd., trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol DML with a current combined market value of about C$1.5 billion.
Each company will bring five members to the combined board, including former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow from the Denison side.
The board will be chaired by Lukas Lundin, whose family owns 15% of International Uranium.
Denison chief executive officer Peter Farmer will be CEO of the new Denison Mines, while IUC's Ron Hochstein will be president and chief operating officer.
The share prices of both companies have increased by about half since the merger was announced in mid-September.
Lundin suggested after the meetings that this is partly due to investor recognition of the value of the deal, and partly to developments boosting the uranium market - notably the Oct. 23 disclosure by Cameco Corp. [TSX:CCO] of disastrous flooding at its Cigar Lake mine under construction in northern Saskatchewan.
''We're looking to get a bigger market capitalization in our companies,'' said Lundin, whose Swiss-headquartered Lundin Group has seven mining companies and five oil and gas companies worldwide.
''We're going to see the capitalization go up again once we get the whole company merged.''
The new Denison is poised to grow by acquisition as well as through exploration and increased production, Farmer told shareholders.
It faces none of the problems afflicting Cameco at the half-kilometre-deep Cigar Lake operation, he added.
He noted that McClean Lake is an open-pit mine, and said the combined company's U.S. mines are shallow - less than 200 metres - and ''dry as a bone.''
Cigar Lake's woes are driving up uranium prices by US$5 to $10 a pound, he said, but Denison and International Uranium regard $50 a pound as a likely price on a steady market basis.
The latest reported spot-market price was US$62.50 a pound, up by about $20 since midsummer.
Answering a shareholder, Farmer said prices would have to rise to at least US$80 per pound before Denison would consider reopening operations at Kirkland Lake in northern Ontario.
Denison, founded by the late Stephen Roman, was best known for its mine in Elliot Lake, later diversifying into coal, potash and other ventures before coming to grief amid low prices as uranium demand slumped in the 1980s and 1990s.
The current Denison Mines has benefited from what industry executives herald as a nuclear renaissance since emerging from the 2004 reorganization of the former Denison Energy Inc.
Its stock has risen since then from C$5.75 to an early-November TSX peak of C$25.26, closing Monday at C$24.05, up 67 cents on the day.
International Uranium, which traded for years as a penny stock until late 2003, was up 20 cents on the session to C$8.49, with a 52-week high and low of C$9 and C$4.28.
© The Canadian Press 2006
Denison and IUC Shareholders Vote Over 99% for Merger
By Gary Norris
20 Nov 2006 at 12:00 PM EST
TORONTO (CP) -- Shareholders of Denison Mines Inc. [TSX:DEN] and International Uranium Corp. [TSX:IUC] voted by over 99% Monday to approve a merger creating a company with the critical mass to thrive in the increasingly hot uranium market.
In two brief meetings, each attended by three dozen people who were largely insiders, investors endorsed the deal to put together an enterprise aiming at annual production of 5.5 million pounds of uranium oxide by 2010.
Denison owns 22.5% of the McClean Lake mill and 25% of the Midwest uranium project in Saskatchewan, both operated by the AREVA Group of France, and is active on other projects in the Athabasca Basin as well as in Mongolia and Australia.
IUC runs the only uranium mill currently operating in the United States, the White Mesa complex in Utah, and also has deposits in Mongolia and exploration projects in the Athabasca Basin.
Denison stockholders will exchange each of their shares for 2.88 International Uranium shares, and will own slightly less than half of the combined corporation immediately after the merger - but slightly more than half on a fully diluted basis, including options and warrants.
The new company is to be known as Denison Mines Ltd., trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol DML with a current combined market value of about C$1.5 billion.
Each company will bring five members to the combined board, including former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow from the Denison side.
The board will be chaired by Lukas Lundin, whose family owns 15% of International Uranium.
Denison chief executive officer Peter Farmer will be CEO of the new Denison Mines, while IUC's Ron Hochstein will be president and chief operating officer.
The share prices of both companies have increased by about half since the merger was announced in mid-September.
Lundin suggested after the meetings that this is partly due to investor recognition of the value of the deal, and partly to developments boosting the uranium market - notably the Oct. 23 disclosure by Cameco Corp. [TSX:CCO] of disastrous flooding at its Cigar Lake mine under construction in northern Saskatchewan.
''We're looking to get a bigger market capitalization in our companies,'' said Lundin, whose Swiss-headquartered Lundin Group has seven mining companies and five oil and gas companies worldwide.
''We're going to see the capitalization go up again once we get the whole company merged.''
The new Denison is poised to grow by acquisition as well as through exploration and increased production, Farmer told shareholders.
It faces none of the problems afflicting Cameco at the half-kilometre-deep Cigar Lake operation, he added.
He noted that McClean Lake is an open-pit mine, and said the combined company's U.S. mines are shallow - less than 200 metres - and ''dry as a bone.''
Cigar Lake's woes are driving up uranium prices by US$5 to $10 a pound, he said, but Denison and International Uranium regard $50 a pound as a likely price on a steady market basis.
The latest reported spot-market price was US$62.50 a pound, up by about $20 since midsummer.
Answering a shareholder, Farmer said prices would have to rise to at least US$80 per pound before Denison would consider reopening operations at Kirkland Lake in northern Ontario.
Denison, founded by the late Stephen Roman, was best known for its mine in Elliot Lake, later diversifying into coal, potash and other ventures before coming to grief amid low prices as uranium demand slumped in the 1980s and 1990s.
The current Denison Mines has benefited from what industry executives herald as a nuclear renaissance since emerging from the 2004 reorganization of the former Denison Energy Inc.
Its stock has risen since then from C$5.75 to an early-November TSX peak of C$25.26, closing Monday at C$24.05, up 67 cents on the day.
International Uranium, which traded for years as a penny stock until late 2003, was up 20 cents on the session to C$8.49, with a 52-week high and low of C$9 and C$4.28.
© The Canadian Press 2006
UNOR Announces Financing
Monday November 20, 2:03 pm ET
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 20, 2006) - UNOR Inc. (TSX VENTURE:UNI - News), subject to regulatory approval, has arranged with Desjardins Securities Inc. a private placement of up to 4.81 million flow-through common shares at a price of $0.52 per flow-through share for total gross proceeds of up to $2.5 million.
UNOR will pay an agent fee equal to 7% of the gross proceeds received. These flow-through shares are subject to the applicable statutory hold period of four months. The private placement is expected to close on or about November 29th, 2006.
The proceeds of this private placement will be used by UNOR to fund part of its uranium exploration program on 1,144,000 acres in western Nunavut, Canada which include its whollyowned 226 mineral claims, its UNAD Joint Venture 41 mineral claims and its Cameco Optioned 205 mineral claims.
UNOR Inc. was incorporated in 1996 in Ontario as a uranium exploration and development company. In June 2006, Cameco Corporation acquired 19.5% of UNOR for its uranium exploration focus and expertise in western Nunavut.
The TSX Venture Exchange has neither approved nor disapproved the contents of this release.
Contact:
George P. Bell
UNOR Inc.
President & CEO
(416) 368-0114
Tom Devlin
UNOR Inc.
Secretary & Controller
(416) 368-0114
(416) 368-0198 (FAX)
Website: www.unorinc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: UNOR Inc.
UNOR Announces Financing
Monday November 20, 2:03 pm ET
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 20, 2006) - UNOR Inc. (TSX VENTURE:UNI - News), subject to regulatory approval, has arranged with Desjardins Securities Inc. a private placement of up to 4.81 million flow-through common shares at a price of $0.52 per flow-through share for total gross proceeds of up to $2.5 million.
UNOR will pay an agent fee equal to 7% of the gross proceeds received. These flow-through shares are subject to the applicable statutory hold period of four months. The private placement is expected to close on or about November 29th, 2006.
he proceeds of this private placement will be used by UNOR to fund part of its uranium exploration program on 1,144,000 acres in western Nunavut, Canada which include its whollyowned 226 mineral claims, its UNAD Joint Venture 41 mineral claims and its Cameco Optioned 205 mineral claims.
UNOR Inc. was incorporated in 1996 in Ontario as a uranium exploration and development company. In June 2006, Cameco Corporation acquired 19.5% of UNOR for its uranium exploration focus and expertise in western Nunavut.
The TSX Venture Exchange has neither approved nor disapproved the contents of this release.
Contact:
George P. Bell
UNOR Inc.
President & CEO
(416) 368-0114
Tom Devlin
UNOR Inc.
Secretary & Controller
(416) 368-0114
(416) 368-0198 (FAX)
Website: www.unorinc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: UNOR Inc.
Investing in Peak Oil - Part II
Greg’s Note: In this second of a two-part set of articles, our Peak Oil correspondent Byron King discusses the arguments of one of the more vocal, institutional critics of Peak Oil theory, Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. (CERA). CERA has been speaking out against the merits of the Peak Oil concept. So we asked our own oilman to take a look at what CERA is saying and report back. If you want to comment, our server is up and receiving e-mail addressed to your managing editor and bartender, greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com.
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 16, 2006
by Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Association for the Debunking of Peak Oil & Gas, Part II
THERE IS NO BAD PUBLICITY, no matter what you do or say, as long as the critics spell your name right. So as I said in Part I of this article, let me make sure that I correctly spell the name of my subject, Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. (CERA, for short), of Cambridge, Mass.
CERA has released a so-called “new analysis” of Peak Oil theory, concluding that Peak Oil is a “simplistic model based on flawed logic and incomplete data that has consistently produced inaccurate forecasts.” But if you want to read its new analysis, you have to buy a copy of it from CERA. Unlike most everything else in the Peak Oil debate, CERA wants to be paid for its product. That is just fine, because we live in a capitalist society in which everyone is entitled to make a buck.
But if you do not want to send your bucks to CERA, I will provide a summary of some of CERA’s previous statements on Peak Oil. This is purely in the spirit of allowing CERA to have a forum that includes its nonpaying clients. I will offer here some other details on what CERA has said about Peak Oil in the past.
On Dec. 7, 2005, a person named Robert Esser, who is associated with CERA, testified before the U.S. House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing on “Understanding the Peak Oil Theory.”
In summary, Mr. Esser noted that the term Peak Oil “is not a very helpful concept, nor one that provides much descriptive power. Rather than an imminent ‘peak,’ we envision an ‘undulating plateau’ two-four decades away. We at CERA have been conducting continuing research on future oil supplies, working up from a field-by-field basis.”
Mr. Esser noted that the issue of future oil supplies:
“is an issue that needs most serious consideration. After all, the planet has a finite resource, and the world is consuming 30 billion barrels a year. But the understanding of the situation needs some clarification. Key considerations include technology, economics, timing, fiscal and regulatory terms, and a comprehensive understanding of current and future productive capacity. As we see it, the model for Peak Oil has been and continues to be flawed. The resource base is still poorly understood and it appears to continue to expand.”
While I want to give ample forum to CERA’s claims, I should note at this point that most of the “expanding” resource base is due to Peak Oil critics redefining the word “oil.” It used to be that gooey stuff that flowed out of the ground from a well bore. Now the term “oil” has expanded to include immense volumes of resources such as heavy oil, tar sand, oil shale, and even coals (in terms of using coal to make liquid fuel). The problem is that the recovery of these resources is quite energy inefficient. It takes almost as much energy input to obtain liquid fuel from these energy-diffuse sources as you obtain energy output from them. This gets into the concept of energy return on investment (EROI), which we have discussed previously in Whiskey & Gunpowder.
Mr. Esser then listed, in his testimony to Congress, six “key points” on which CERA is focused, namely:
The world is not running out of oil in the near or medium term. Our field-by-field activity-based analysis points to a substantial buildup of liquid capacity over the next several years.
An increasing share of supplies will come from "nontraditional oils" -- from the ultra-deep waters, oil sands, natural gas liquids, gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids, etc. As time goes on, these "nontraditionals" will become more traditional.
Rather than a "peak," we should expect an "undulating plateau," perhaps three or four decades from now.
One reason for the pessimism about future supplies is that the reserves disclosure rules mandated by the Securities and Exchange Commission are based upon three-decades-old technology and need to be updated.
…
The major risks to this outlook are not below ground, but above ground -- in such forms as political turbulence, abrupt changes in contract terms, and controversy over fiscal terms.
Meeting the energy needs of a growing world in an environmentally sound fashion will be a major challenge. Doing so will require substantial investment and continuing technological innovation and will more likely be achieved through an open global economy.
“Are we running out of oil?” asked CERA’s Mr. Esser rhetorically to the subcommittee of the U.S. Congress. And then he provided an answer:
“CERA’s belief is that the world is not running out of oil imminently or in the near to medium term. Indeed, CERA projects that world oil production capacity has the potential to rise from 87 million barrels per day in 2005 to as much as 108 mbd by 2015. After 2015, we see further growth in capacity. Our outlook contradicts those who believe that Peak Oil is imminent.
“Although there have been recent downside factors, such as the slowing rate of expansion of capacity in Russia and continuing problems in Iraq, this is balanced by a more positive outlook for major producing countries such as Angola and Brazil, where a stream of large projects continues. In addition to crude oil from conventional settings, our analysis concludes that unconventional oil -- condensates, natural gas liquids, deep-water production, extra heavy oils, and gas-to-liquids -- will represent about 35% of total capacity in 2015 -- compared to 10% in 1990.”
This latter point goes back to the notion of redefining the energy problem with conventional oil, by expanding the definition to use other substances.
Mr. Esser made reference, in his congressional testimony, to CERA’s database of oil field and production statistics and to CERA’s methodology. He outlined many of the underlying assumptions that CERA uses. He made numerous country-by-country forecasts, for both OPEC and non-OPEC nations that produce oil. And he stated certain of the risks that are built in to the scenario for future oil production. What can go wrong, according to CERA? Here is the short list:
“Elements of risk involving existing project problems, annual maintenance, new project delays and attrition, and the timing and scale of appraisal and exploration projects. But there is another group of major risks that will materialize. While there is uncertainty about decline rates and the scale of contributions from new projects and exploration, CERA believes the risks to capacity expansion are mostly above ground: People, rigs, yard space, and raw materials are in very short supply; costs have been driven up; and the situation shows no sign of easing. This will limit the expansion of the exploration effort and slow the rate at which new projects will be sanctioned. Other aboveground risks are:
Operational risks exist, especially in extreme environments such as ultra-deep water, where the cost base and the subsurface risks are also higher.
Weather and environmental effects can be broad and unpredictable. The impact of hurricanes Katrina and Rita are still being felt in the U.S. Gulf Coast, where some 0.54 mbd of production is still shut in.
Creeping nationalization and reconsolidation is occurring in key producing countries.
Resurgent nationalism in some countries is creating considerable turmoil and increased risks for both international oil companies and the now better-positioned national oil companies.
Tightening fiscal terms in response to higher oil prices and policy changes where governments and NOCs do not see inward investment as absolutely essential are an ongoing risk.
Violence and insecurity is having an impact on production capacity in some areas.”
Mr. Esser’s testimony to Congress made reference to what he labeled as “The Specter of Peak Oil.” And then he appended the note, “What Peak?” According to Mr. Esser, CERA’s outlook “shows no evidence of a peak in worldwide oil production before 2020.” And then he adds that “It is true that total annual global production has not been replaced by exploration success in recent years, but production has been more than replaced by exploration plus field reserve upgrades.” A lot of people believe quite differently on that one.
“Although oil is a finite resource,” said Mr. Esser, “we still do not have an exact estimate of total reserves; meanwhile, global resources should continue to expand. Many basins, even those producing significant volumes of oil, remain underexplored.”
Follow the Facts, Argue the Conclusions
A good many of the things that Mr. Esser said to the subcommittee of the U.S. Congress are technically correct. For example, the “undulating plateau,” the SEC definition for reserves, and the political and other “aboveground risks” are all very good points. They are also part of the very intelligent discussion that occurs whenever a group of Peak Oil aficionados gets together. And in an effort to “understand the situation,” the recent ASPO Boston conference included quite a bit of review of the “key considerations [of] technology, economics, timing, fiscal and regulatory terms, and a comprehensive understanding of current and future productive capacity.” So these CERA benchmarks were all points of discussion at the ASPO and high in the list of concerns of that allegedly “flawed” Peak Oil theory. It is not as if CERA has some monopoly on the magic elixir of understanding oil depletion issues, or the secret-decoder ring without which all others are flailing about in the dark.
And nobody from the Peak Oil school really believes that “the world is…running out of oil imminently or in the near to medium term.” That is a pure “straw man” kind of argument, because I have never heard any real Peak Oilman (or -woman) say that. The world’s oil industry will still pull oil out of the McClintock No. 1, a well drilled south of Titusville in 1861 (a couple barrels per month, but it is still coming through, 145 years later). And the world’s oil industry will be extracting large quantities of oil from the ground for a long, long time. But -- and here is the take-away point -- just not enough to meet anything like the projected levels of demand going forward. So the future will not be just a glossier imitation of the past. Will the future be a James Kunstler-like vision of decline due to the Age of Oil passing most of us by? Or will the future be a more optimistic vision of people simply changing their consumption habits and motoring happily down the highways of the future? Good questions.
Too bad nobody from CERA bothered to show up at Boston University and contribute to the discussion. Perhaps the viewpoint from CERA could have helped to dispel the “simplistic model based on flawed logic and incomplete data” that most of the other ASPO speakers were allegedly presenting.
And a CERA representative might have offered to explain to the ASPO conference how, in the face of a minimum of 4% annual oil depletion rates on a worldwide basis, CERA can forecast that oil extraction will increase “from 87 mbd in 2005 to as much as 108 mbd by 2015.” Is CERA really making the case that the world’s oil industry is “discovering” sufficient new reserves, on an annual basis, to replace not just the output that is depleting, but also finding enough new extractive capacity to increase daily oil production by about 35% within the next 10 years? If so, I must have missed those upbeat articles when I was reading my copies of Oil & Gas Journal during the past few years.
If the CERA dismissal of the Peak Oil perspective is valid, I would like to see some facts to back it up. The Peak Oil people tend to put their cards face up on the table and let the readers follow the facts. At the recent ASPO conference, for example, one of the most compelling speakers was Matthew Simmons, who has devoted many years to reviewing the facts behind the world’s oil predicament. He has the slide show to prove it. But of Mr. Simmons, no less than Daniel Yergin, one of the principals of CERA, is on record as saying, “He’s wonderful at stirring up an argument and slinging around rhetoric...For some of these people, it seems to be a theological issue.”
A “theological issue”? Well, that’s a new one that takes the prize. But I suppose that different people pick up on Peak Oil for different reasons, and maybe some people think that Peak Oil is important because they do not want to meet God before their time. But most people, in my experience, begin to worry about Peak Oil because it is a concept that has factual support and makes sense.
Makes sense? Peak Oil actually explains quite a bit about what is going on in this world of ours. If you are interested, I will sell you my report on the subject. (No, just kidding. Keep on reading Whiskey & Gunpowder, and I will explain it to you. And send your note of thanks to the publisher, Bill Bonner.) Once people start to comprehend what Peak Oil is all about, they begin to ask where do we go from here, as individuals, as a group, as a nation, and as a world. And this kind of publicity for the subject matter works against the interests of people who want to keep their knowledge bottled up and tell everyone that you have to be some sort of “expert” to really understand it. It is almost like the Peak Oil debunkers are saying, “The future of the world’s energy supply is a really important issue, but you are not worthy and cannot know about it because you might not understand.”
And so, dear readers and many friends, it is time to bring this article to an end. I hope that no one will accuse me of not correctly spelling the name of my subject for the day. Again, it is Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA). There is, after all, no bad publicity. But will CERA someday be recognized as a farseeing prophet of the perils and passions of Peak Oil? Or will CERA become the Paris Hilton of the energy consulting gig? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, thank you for reading Whiskey & Gunpowder.
Until we meet again…
Byron W. King
Yamana Releases Update on Milestones at Chapada and Other Operations
Monday November 20, 6:45 am ET
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(MARKET WIRE)--Nov 20, 2006 -- Yamana Gold Inc. (Yamana) (TSX:YRI.TO - News)(AMEX:AUY - News)(AIM: YAU) is pleased to provide an update on its operations and ongoing developments at its mines and properties.
Chapada
The start-up of operations at the Chapada copper-gold mine is continuing in the ordinary course. The following substantive milestones have been achieved at the Chapada mine as the Company advances toward commercial production, expected in early 2007.
- Mining continues at a rate of 16M tonnes of ore per year which is consistent with mine plan.
- The ore stockpile is now at 3M tonnes of ore with a crushed ore stockpile available for processing of 150,000 tonnes which is consistent with mine plan.
- The SAG mill is operates according to plant design.
- There is sufficient water in containment ponds for continuous ore processing.
- Adjustments have been made to conveyor systems, water pumps and pipelines for delivery of ore and water for ore processing at the plant.
- Flotation circuits are operating according to design.
- The filtration system for concentrate dewatering has begun operations and is in the process of being commissioned.
Gold and copper is produced at the Chapada mine in concentrate which is then delivered for sale to smelters.
The Chapada mine has now produced its first concentrate. A total of 500 tonnes of concentrate has been produced with total in circuit inventory of concentrate (in flotation, thickener and stock tank) now at a total of approximately 1,200 tonnes. The Company plans to produce sufficient concentrate to the end of the year for total contained gold and copper of 15,000 ounces of gold and approximately 11-12M lbs of copper.
Production for 2007 and 2008 along with the life of mine (LOM) production is expected to be as follows.
2007 2008 5 Years LOM
Copper 125-135M lbs 165-175M lbs 690M lbs 2B lbs
Gold 180-200,000 oz 170-190,000 oz 700,000 oz 1.4M oz
------------------------------------
October Average Monthly Q3
--------------------------------------------------------
Sao Francisco 12,700 ounces 10,395 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacobina 7,200 ounces 6,440 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
Fazenda Brasiliero 6,800 ounces 6,190 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
San Andres 5,300 ounces 4,895 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
Fazenda Nova 2,800 ounces 2,200 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
Total 34,800 ounces 30,120 ounces
--------------------------------------------------------
November 17, 2006
EMGOLD ANNOUNCES $5,000,000 BROKERED PRIVATE PLACEMENT
Emgold Mining Corporation (EMR - TSX Venture) (the “Company” or “Emgold”) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement with M Partners Inc. (“M Partners” or the “Agent”), to act as its exclusive lead agent in connection with a brokered private placement offering (the “Offering”) on a best efforts basis to raise gross proceeds of approximately $5,000,000 through the offer and sale of units of the Company.
The Company will issue up to 13 million units (the “Units”) at a price of $0.32 per Unit. Each Unit will comprise one common share and one share purchase warrant. Each warrant will entitle the holder to purchase one additional common share for a period of 24 months from closing, at an exercise of $0.45 per share.
Additionally, Emgold is offering up to 2,023,810 units (the “FT Units”) at a price of $0.42 per FT Unit. Each FT Unit will comprise one flow-through common share and one-half of one non-flow-through (“NFT”) share purchase warrant. Each whole NFT share purchase warrant will entitle the holder to purchase one additional share of Emgold for a period of 24 months from closing, at an exercise price of $0.55.
The Agent will receive a cash fee equal to 8% of the aggregate gross proceeds of the Offering and compensation warrants exercisable to acquire that number of units that is equal to 8% of the total number of units sold in the offering, at an exercise price of $0.32 per unit.
All securities issued or issuable in connection with the Offering will be subject to a hold period and may not be traded for four months plus one day from the date of closing.
The securities offered have not been registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an available exemption from the registration requirements. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any State in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
The non-flow through proceeds of the Offering will be used to advance permitting on the Company’s Idaho Maryland gold project and for working capital.
The Company has been working on permitting the Idaho-Maryland Mine in Grass Valley and developing the CeramextTM technology, both of which are capital intensive projects. The Idaho-Maryland project is entering the final stages of the permitting process and will require a substantial amount of the Company's financial resources. As a result, Emgold has decided to reduce the Golden Bear Ceramics Company operations and defer its capital investment in Golden Bear Ceramics while it examines various alternatives for further development and commercialization of the CeramextTM technology. One of the alternatives under consideration is a reorganization of the Company to permit the separate financing and development of the CeramextTM technology. The Company will continue to meet its obligations under and maintain its world wide license of the technology.
On behalf of the Board of Directors,
William J. (Bill) Witte, P.Eng.
President and Chief Executive Officer
For further information please contact:
Michael O’Connor, Manager, Investor Relations
Tel: (604) 687-4622 Fax: (604) 687-4212
Email: info@emgold.com
No regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained in this news release.
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES AND MORE
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES AND MORE
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES AND MORE
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
IMPORTANT READ ON COMMODITIES
http://www.financialsense.com/captain/log.html
QIS Capital Feature Company Profile Alert - Bulldog Resources Inc.
http://www.qiscapital.com/showpage.php?article_id=63
Eastern Platinum Announces New Order Rights at Mareesburg and Kennedy's Vale
Friday November 17, 2:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 17, 2006) - Mr. Ian Rozier, President and CEO of Eastern Platinum Limited ("Eastplats") (TSX:ELR - News; AIM:ELR) is pleased to report on the issuance of New Order Rights on Eastplats' and Barplats' projects in South Africa by the Director General of the Department of Mineral and Energy ("DME").
New Order Prospecting Rights have been issued on the Mareesburg PGM Project ("Mareesburg") and the DME has approved the transfer of the Mareesburg mineral title to Lions Head Platinum Ltd ("LHP"), Eastplats' South African operating company for the Mareesburg project. At the Barplats Kennedy's Vale project, located immediately adjacent to the Spitzkop project in Mpumalanga Province, two New Order Prospecting Rights have also been granted by the DME.
The new Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act legislates that all Old Order Rights be converted into New Order Rights on all mineral properties in South Africa.
"The issuance of new order prospecting rights is a significant milestone in the development of any mining project in South Africa," stated Ian Rozier.
With the future development of Spitzkop and Kennedy's Vale, as well as the potential to enter into toll treatment contracts, a concentrator may not be required at Mareesburg. This, together with the project's amenability for open pit mining during the initial years of operation, should result in a 'fast-track' development of Mareesburg, with 'start-up' planned for 2007.
"Mareesburg is an advanced, high grade, surface accessible platinum rich project with a measured resource containing an estimated 2 million PGM ounces. The transfer of mineral title to LHP means that we can now finalize the bankable feasibility study on the project. Granting of New Order rights at the Spitzkop, Mareesburg and Kennedy's Vale projects bodes well for our activities on the eastern limb of the Bushveld and we look forward to moving these projects into production," stated Mr.Rozier.
Eastern Platinum Limited trades on the TSX and AIM stock exchanges under the trading symbol ELR.
Certain statements included herein constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. These forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions by Eastplats and Barplats and as such are not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements due to factors such as general economic and market conditions, increased costs of production and a decline in metal prices. Eastplats is under no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable laws.
Contact:
Mr. Ian Rozier, M.Sc., P. Eng.
Eastern Platinum Limited
President & CEO
(604) 685-6851
(604) 685-6493 (FAX)
Website: www.eastplats.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Eastern Platinum Limited
Rhubarb,
Very happy with this announcement.
We have a very valuable stock with a stake in copper which will only grow in importance and necessity, particularly with the industrialization of China. What a market over there and someday Chariot will be serving that market.
I continue to look at the importance of copper in the context of the world population. Demand will probably outstrip supply at some near point in time and you know what that means to Chariot's stock price.
You'll be popping a lot of corks in the future, imo.
sumisu
Speculation on Chinese Reserve Diversification Just Keeps Building
By Stephen Clayson
16 Nov 2006 at 12:55 PM EST
LONDON (ResourceInvestor.com) -- An increasing number of people within China and in the wider world are suggesting that the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) will soon look to diversify its foreign exchange reserves, which at the equivalent of over $1 trillion now exceed those of any other central bank, away from the U.S. dollar. Such a move does indeed look like a very strong possibility at some point, and would likely have huge consequences for currency markets, as well as for the gold price.
I flagged this issue for Resource Investor readers months ago in this article, but now the idea seems to have really taken hold elsewhere.
It must cause the People’s Bank of China, and just as importantly its political masters, quite some pain to know that immense losses will be sustained on its dollar holdings as the value of the dollar falls, and that these losses can never be recouped. The desire to shift into something safer is understandable, even though one of the reasons that the PBOC’s dollar holdings have piled up so high is that the Chinese government has seen fit to prop up the value of the dollar so as to sustain U.S. demand for Chinese exports.
It is not generally part of the mission of a central bank to make profits or even to avoid making losses; rather, the needs of the economy as a whole are the overriding priority. But when currency losses are being contemplated on such a scale as in this instance, the avoidance of said losses may well become a powerful consideration for those with decision making power.
Something that gold investors will be hoping for is a shift of some of the PBOC’s reserves into the yellow metal, thereby creating a significant source of new investment demand. However, a meaningful move by the PBOC into gold may not be all that likely. For one thing, the process of acquiring sufficient gold could drive up the metal’s price substantially, which is an obvious discouraging factor.
But even if sufficient gold could be acquired with acceptable effects on its price, by acquiring such a large amount of gold, the PBOC puts itself in a similar situation to that which it is now in with regard to its dollar holdings. That is, being unable to divest any sizable portion of its stash of dollars without triggering a significant decline in their value, turning the exercise of accumulating dollars, or in the analogous case, gold, into a loss making venture.
Furthermore, by the time the PBOC had amassed a potentially worthwhile amount of gold, the bull market for the metal might well have passed. After all, a very good case can be made that the current strength in the gold price is primarily a function of a major currency market adjustment, long in gestation, that is centred on a redefinition of the dollar’s role in the world economy.
It follows that this period of high gold prices is temporary and will end once the currency market adjustment is complete, albeit that this could take 10 or more years yet, and that breaching the gold price highs of earlier this year along the way is in no way precluded. Therefore the PBOC, which has to plan for the very long term, would be ill advised to shift its reserves out of dollars and into gold.
But the news is still good for gold investors, as any major diversification by the PBOC into other currencies, the euro being a prime candidate, will undermine the value of the dollar and that, more than anything else, has positive implications for the gold price.
december,
All of my current holdings are listed in my profile.
I like DJE.V the most has it will eventually give me natural gas and oil exposure plus it recently sold its uranium holdings to TITAN URANIUM INC. [TUE.V], but has ownership of 37% of Titan. It's balance sheet looks very nifty now.
Here is the homepage:
http://www.dejour.com/
For a long-term, low cost gold play, you might want to look at EMR.V. I think this company is way oversold and eventually it will bounce back, but it will not be drilling until next year, probably 3rd quarter.
http://www.emgold.com/s/Home.asp
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=5395
I also like West Hawk Development Corp. [WHD.V], which is a long-term coal gasification play, but it will be drilling very soon for natural gas in Colorado, to finance its ultimate coal projects.
http://www.westhawkdevelopment.com/
I missed out on the Aurelian play in Ecuador, but a possible alternative is LRG.V, which has property along one of the same fault lines of Aurelian. It will also have two mines operating soon in Mexico; they were recently purchased.
http://www.lateegra.com/
These are my four favorite holdings.
sumisu
Plexmar: Final Contract Signed For Acquisition of Escondida Project
Thursday November 16, 12:40 pm ET
SAINTE-FOY, QUEBEC--(CCNMatthews - Nov. 16, 2006) - Plexmar Resources Inc. (TSX VENTURE:PLE - News), is pleased to announce that its newly formed subsidiary, Plexmar Ecuador S.A., has signed the final contract for the acquisition of the Escondida project in Ecuador. The project covers 84,110 hectares in the cordillera del Condor near Aurelian's Resources Fruta del Norte discovery and Corriente Resources Mirador deposits.
"With the contract finally signed, Plexmar can now focus on the exploration program, especially in the area where the 396.0 g/t Au sample was found." Says Guy Bedard, president
Details of the transaction were revealed in the Sept.28 press release. During its due diligence process on the Escondida concessions, Plexmar took 44 samples, 12 returned anomalous values of gold and the best values were: 14.2 g/t, 38.4 g/t, 91.4 g/t and 396.0 g/t Au confirming the high potential of the area. The samples are located on the Escondida II concession adjacent to Aurelian's ground and approximately 8 kilometers northwest of Fruta del Norte.
A field program is on-going on the Escondida II concession and others to evaluate the source of the high grade samples and quickly delineate potential drill targets. The program is under the supervision of S. Amireault, P.Geo.,
This transaction needs to be approved by the TSX Venture Exchange.
Also, the Company has granted 350,000 incentive stock options to a key consultant of the Company at a price of $0.73 for a period of two (2) years.
The TSX Venture Exchange does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
This press release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, that address future exploration drilling, exploration activities and events or developments that the Company expects, are forward looking statements. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include market prices, exploitation and exploration successes, continued availability of capital and financing, and general economic, market or business conditions.
120 M shares outstanding
Contact:
Guy Bedard
Plexmar Resources Inc.
President
418-658-6776
www.plexmar.com
1-866-460-0408
Paradox Public Relations
1-514-341-0408
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Plexmar Resources Inc.
Investing in Peak Oil
Greg's Note: In this first of a two-part set of articles, our Peak Oil correspondent Byron King discusses the arguments of one of the more vocal, institutional critics of Peak Oil theory, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA). For several years, CERA has been speaking out against the merits of the Peak Oil concept. So we asked our own oilman to take a look at what CERA is saying and report back. If you want to comment, our server is up and receiving e-mail addressed to your managing editor and bartender, greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com.
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 15, 2006
by Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Association for the Debunking of Peak Oil & Gas, Part I
SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT there is no bad publicity, no matter what you do or say, as long as the critics spell your name right. So let me make sure that I correctly spell the name of my subject for the day. It is Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. (CERA, for short), with its main offices in Cambridge, Mass. CERA has other offices, as well, in various high-rent districts of North and Latin America, Europe, and Asia.
On its Web site, CERA describes itself as:
"A leading adviser to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers. CERA delivers critical knowledge and independent analysis on energy markets, geopolitics, industry trends, and strategy. Our services help decision-makers anticipate the energy future and formulate timely, successful plans in the face of rapid changes and uncertainty."
There is more of the usual, self-serving promotional stuff on the Web site, dear readers, and if you are interested, you can link to it.
The Empire Strikes Back
Recently, CERA announced that amid "expanded popular discussion of a theory that a peak in world oil production will soon be reached," it is releasing a "new analysis." CERA's new analysis concludes, "The Peak Oil theory is a simplistic model based on flawed logic and incomplete data that has consistently produced inaccurate forecasts." Actually, CERA's "new analysis" is not all that different than its old analysis, as we shall see. But sometimes, there is a market for old wine in new bottles. "No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new," said Luke.
The CERA report is entitled Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down: Myths, Legends, and the Future of Oil Resources. This new report argues, according to a CERA press release, that "the real challenges to future supplies are aboveground risks" without further amplification. CERA adds, helpfully, "Future global energy security is too critical to the global economy for superficial argument to replace careful analysis of the challenges, possible outcome, and risks involved in meeting the liquid fuels needs of growing economies." The author of the CERA report is Peter M. Jackson, CERA's director of oil industry activity.
A summary of the report, dated Nov. 10, 2006, and posted on the CERA Web site, notes that the "questionable 'Peak Oil' theory obscures critical aboveground factors. The Peak Oil debate continues to rage without any obvious progress. But upon examination, the Peak Oil theory falls down because of serious flaws in logic and application."
Fighting Words
The entire body of the foregoing summary by CERA constitutes, to most members of the Peak Oil camp, fighting words. From my perspective, for example, the "obvious progress" of the Peak Oil debate in recent years is that more and more people are beginning to understand the basic geologic concept that the world's conventional oil reserves are depleting fast. My experience is that most people do not know that until you tell them and explain the concept. And people are "getting it" when the Peak Oil advocates explain why other well-hyped fossil energy resources will, in all likelihood, not serve to meet future demand. Tar sands? Oil shale? Burn the nation's food supply to keep the cars and trucks running? Don't bet the ranch, boys. It boils down to "energy return on investment" (EROI) issues. And at a very basic level, people are beginning to wonder exactly how our society is going to heat its houses and grow and transport its food in about 20 years or so.
Twenty years? Who cares, right? You scoff at such a time frame? For perspective, just understand that about 50% of all the petroleum ever consumed by mankind has been consumed since 1984. That is, people have been watching Tom Cruise movies and listening to Madonna sing for a longer time than it took to burn 500 billion barrels of petroleum. Talk about Nero fiddling? And about 90% of all the petroleum that has ever been consumed by mankind has been consumed since 1958. So 90% of the world's oil consumption has occurred in the time since the Beatles were a warm-up act in Liverpool. Does this not give you some sense of the rapidity of the developing energy storm? And if not now, just when is it going to be the right time to begin being concerned about the world's depleting energy supply over the next 20 years, let alone the next 50 years?
And apparently this "lack of obvious progress" occasioned by the Peak Oil debate, which CERA discounts, has gone hand in hand with the rise in the price of oil from under $20 per barrel just a few years ago to not-quite $80 per barrel a few months back. Why did this happen? Apparently, there must have been more people buying oil than were selling it. And not to be too mercenary about it, but if you have been an investor in energy-sector plays just before and during this time period, your "obvious progress" is that you should have made boatloads of money as the capital markets of the world figured this Peak Oil thing out as well. (As Elvis used to say, "Thank you, thank you very much.")
Didn't Get the Invitation?
I happen to know that the organizers of the recent meeting of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO), conveniently held in Boston, sent invitations to the principals of CERA, whose offices are just up the road from the ASPO convention site at Boston University. The invitations politely asked CERA to send representatives to attend and participate in the ASPO discussions. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one from CERA attended the ASPO event (I have seen a list of registered attendees) and no CERA spokesperson took advantage of the occasion to address the room full of 500 ASPO conference attendees. I wonder why not? Didn't get the invitation?
By way of comparison, I have mentioned before that a group of people took their valuable time to crash the ASPO meeting and protest loudly against the proposed Chelsea, Mass., electricity generation facility. This was not on the ASPO agenda, but at least the protesters had some guts. And nobody from CERA showed up, even by invitation, to explain to a crowd eager to learn exactly why Peak Oil is "simplistic" and based on "flawed models." Go figure. We're not good enough for you?
You Have to Pay to Play
Go figure? Unfortunately, dear readers, the CERA report that debunks Peak Oil is not publicly available. It is proprietary and you have to be a CERA client, subscribing to the company's "global oil" and "upstream oil" services, if you want to read this new report on why "Peak Oil theory is a simplistic model based on flawed logic and incomplete data." In other words, if you want to read CERA's discussion about a matter that is "too critical to the global economy for superficial argument to replace careful analysis," you can only learn what it has to say if you purchase a copy from CERA. As Borat says in his recently released "movie film" of the same name, "Verrry niiice!"
Allow me to digress for a few paragraphs and discuss this marketing strategy of our energy-tracking colleagues at CERA. Frequent readers of Whiskey & Gunpowder certainly know that our letter is sent at no cost to you, courtesy of Agora Financial LLC of Baltimore, Md. Just to be sure you understand, Whiskey is a good-will item, in the nature of a promotion, sent to you in the anticipation that some certain segment of readers will like what they see and purchase other of the many fine Agora products:
But really. It is quite something for CERA to just plain blow off the ASPO conference, and then a few weeks later announce its complete disdain for and write-off of the Peak Oil school of thought. So Peak Oil theory is, according to CERA, "questionable" and a "simplistic model based on flawed logic and incomplete data"? And "future global energy security is too critical to the global economy for superficial argument"? That's OK as far as it goes. But now, having baited the hook, CERA is not going to tell us why this is so unless we pay it? "There is a sucker born every minute," goes the famous saying attributed to P.T. Barnum. But they screen for that at the hiring desk of Agora Publishing LLC.
And pardon me, dear readers, but I am immediately reminded of what a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral once told me about Richard Nixon and his 1968 campaign for the presidency. Nixon, said the admiral, promised the voters that he had a "secret plan to end the Vietnam War." But Nixon would only tell us what the "secret plan" was if we elected him as president. In retrospect, said my three-starred acquaintance, the "secret plan" was to fight for five more years, then turn everything over to the South Vietnamese, and then lose the war.
The View From CERA
But please don't get me wrong. I am only discussing CERA in this Nixonian light because CERA has made it so. CERA is welcome to join the ASPO discussion, but to date has declined to do so. But CERA is otherwise inserting itself into the Peak Oil debate, and ramping up its effort directly to debunk the Peak Oil concept, by flinging gratuitous insults via press release at a group of otherwise thoughtful and respectable people (well, most of them). And if CERA has things wrong, then a lot of people might just follow its advice and do the wrong thing and get hurt (or, in the case of politicians, follow its advice, do the wrong thing, and cause other people to get hurt.) But if CERA has some points to make in its latest report, then CERA is more than welcome to send me a copy of its paper, which I will be happy to read and review.
I do not wish to be unfair to CERA, however, and in the next installment of this article, I will provide a forum to the CERA argument, based on CERA's previously published work. Stand by for the next installment of this article. And as Borat says, "Verrry niiice!"
Until we meet again...
Byron W. King
A 10% Reduction in America's Oil Use in Ten to Twelve Years
An Overlooked, Practical, and Affordable Approach Using Mature Existing Technology
Commentary by Alan S. Drake
May 2006 • Rev. October 2006
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Global oil production – “Rate of Conversion” is the key.
by Keith Skipper
Published on 26 Sep 2006 by Oil & Gas Journal. Archived on 16 Nov 2006.
[A letter published in the September 26 edition of the Oil and Gas Journal]
The ongoing discussions about “Peak Oil” have continually skirted the one unifying concept which addresses the reality about the (eventual) peaking of global liquids production. The realities can perhaps best be summarized by addressing the “rate of conversion” of resources to production capacity or supply. Our industry is perhaps “flat out” in terms of its abilities to add additional “low cost” supply. We may be at the peak rate of conversion reflected in increasing costs from the service providers and the squeezing of profitability for producers. In some areas, this increase in costs (and reduction in product prices) is reflected in margins of profitability being reduced to levels experienced in the 1990’s. Indeed, this is also occurring when the intensity of effort (aided by marvelous digital capabilities) by an aging but limited skilled workforce for small, but profitable reserves, has never been greater.
We have seen a number of recent comments by executives associated with larger oil and gas enterprises who allude to the vast global endowment of hydrocarbons (“adequate resources”) sufficient to meet projected global demand for liquid fuels, but in the fine print have caveats “provided there are timely access, investment and technological gains”. Of course, there is the added implication that such caveats will provide for a sustainable profitable industry.
Arguments about adequate resources provide little comfort to those charged with finding, developing and producing the enormous amounts of “hydrocarbon liquids” to feed the apparently ever growing global appetite. Indeed, to suggest there are adequate physical hydrocarbon resources is a “no-lose” use of terminology.
A better appreciation of the difficulties now apparent is to consider the issue as one to do with the “rate of conversion” of hydrocarbon resources to (production) capacity or “flows”. The rate or pace of conversion to required products has many chokepoints or bottlenecks. Some are, for example, an adequate skilled workforce, availability of suitable drilling rigs, tanker capacity, refining capacity, resource habitat, field size distributions, basin location, access to the resources (actual or speculated), environmental constraints including emissions, water, costs, the price “margin”, profitability, available investment, fiscal terms, technological limitations, suitable markets, truck tires, return on energy investment etc. The importance of any principle “choke point”, for example, may vary between geographic regions, the type of products and markets but, no matter what the choke point, the rate of conversion is impeded.
Vast resources of oil sands and oil in shales do not answer the issue. (“Point of View”, April 24th issue). For example, if we accept 175 billion barrels of oil as resources in the Alberta oil sands, even at a production rate of 3 million barrels per day or 1 billion barrels per annum, the annualized “rate of conversion” is less than 1%. This is less than the current global production loss per annum via field and basin’ depletion.
We should all be aware that the “rate of conversion” might be reaching a peak irrespective of demand, price, netback, crude quality and the speculated global endowment of resources. This “peak” has already occurred in many oil and gas productive basins which have had an historical transparency in term of access, ready markets, favorable fiscal terms, security and perceived political risk.
Keith Skipper,
Managing Director
NorthStar Energy Pty Limited
Sydney, Australia
Keith Skipper (M.Sc., P.Geol.) is a seasoned oil industry explorationist and executive who has evaluated and searched in many of the world’s sedimentary basins for commercial oil and gas over the last 36 years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a tendency more so of imminent-peak-oil detractors rather than promoters to emphasize reserves (inclusive of oil shale and tar sands) rather than production flows (or 'rates of conversion' as Keith puts it). Chris Skrebowski, for instance, is one expert who has tried to stress the importance.
The flow-to-reserves ratio of conventional oil is generally going to be greater than that of the lower quality resources of polar oil, heavy oil, tar sands and shale, which take more effort, in one way or another, to extract, transport and refine.
-AF
http://www.energybulletin.net/22485.html