Rare earth minerals: A new old frontier?

On 21 Oct, I blogged about rare earth minerals and how China mines 93% of the world's supply.  I concluded the blog post by saying "Mining almost all of the world's rare earth minerals, non-renewable resources which seem to have no viable alternatives at the current point in time, makes the Chinese a force as formidable as OPEC and possibly more."

Well, the recent belligerent attitude of China towards its trading partners in the West could possibly backfire at least in the rare earth minerals trading department as I read this just now:

The rising global demand for rare earth metals - the elements needed to make items like hybrid electric cars and laptop batteries - have caused the value of rare earths mining companies to soar in just a few months.

We've told you about one company, Rare Element Resources, that saw its stock surge 1200% in the last year.

But China's outright monopoly in the industry, along with fears that it will cut down on its rare earth exports, are driving plenty of other stocks higher too.

Posted Oct 28, 2010 01:00pm EDT by Gregory White and Hannah Kim, Yahoo! Finance.

Read article here.

Related post:
Control of non-renewable resources!

Tea with AK71: Hand sanitiser.

I started using hand sanitisers after the SARS outbreak years ago. Basically, everyone became a bit more conscious of the need for good personal hygiene. It is very sad but we usually need some earth shattering tragedy to effect some positive changes in society. I guess society evolves more rapidly due to such seismic events.

For many years now, I carry in my sling bag a small bottle of hand sanitiser. I would use it before meals or after doing some work with my hands. It gives me a peace of mind.

In the last two or three years, I switched to Dettol's hand sanitiser as it is the only one that did not leave a sticky feeling after use. The stickiness from using hand sanitisers is what puts off some people.  Dettol's formula solved that problem although it costs more.

Today, while driving to work, I saw a large bus ad announcing that Dettol's hand sanitiser kills 99.9% of all bacteria.  I guess this claim must be on the bottle too but I never really bothered to think about it before.  99.9% of all bacteria? What are the 0.1% of bacteria that remain alive and well?

Is that statement just a quantitative one which means that the sanitiser kills all types of bacteria but some are lucky enough to fall through the cracks? Or is the statement a qualitative one which means it kills 99.9% of all types of bacteria but 0.1% of bacteria types are so strong that they could resist elimination?  I would be very worried if 0.1% of bacteria types are strong enough to resist elimination!

Mapletree Commercial Trust: IPO in early 2011.

For anyone who did not get any shares in MIT's IPO, here's a chance to own some of Mapletree Commercial Trust's. This is a S$1.3 billion IPO expected to take place early next year.

The commercial REIT will draw its initial portfolio from Mapletree Investments’ $6.4 billion worth of Singapore commercial properties, including assets like Vivocity, the island’s largest mall, and several office buildings west of the city-state’s central business district. 

Besides its plan to list its commercial trust, Mapletree Investments also intends to launch several private property funds including a US$300 million Japan fund focused on IT-related infrastructure, a US$300-500 million Vietnam fund in which Mapletree may inject existing commercial and residential projects, and a US$500 million China-focused fund that will invest in a wide range of sectors.

Read full article here:

Mapletree hires bankers for $1.3b IPO: Update
Friday, 29 October 2010

© 2010 - The Edge Singapore

Tea with AK71: A better car.

Reading the latest issue of Newsweek and this really makes sense:

"Instead of jumping through hoops to make an electric car that most people can't even afford, why not just develop an internal-combustion engine that gets really amazing gas mileage? That's the premise of Troy, Michigan based EcoMotors...."

"Our carbon footprint will be smaller than a full blown electric car running on electricity generated in the U.S., where about 50 percent of electricity is made by coal.  In places like China, where 90 percent of the electricity comes from coal, we'll be far below the carbon footprint of an electric car," says EcoMotors CEO Don Runkle.."

Source:  "Finding more in the tank" by Daniel Lyons in Newsweek, 1 Nov 10.

I have never heard people questioning whether electric cars are really environmentally friendlier, questioning how the electricity that would run the cars is produced.  This is a pertinent question.

There is also the question of wastage as other forms of fuel are combusted to produce electricity which would in turn run the electric cars.  How much is wasted in the conversion process? Would it not be better to build a more efficient internal combustion engine?

I am not an engineer but this idea makes a lot of sense to me. Any thoughts?