Looking to invest in Energy? Try Sasol
Imagine a fuel made from gas, containing the same qualities as gasoline…and more, a fuel so ultra pure that it is one of the cleanest fuels available, a fuel that gives improved engine and environmental performance, a fuel that can be used in existing diesel engines…from ships, trucks and buses through to the family car. Welcome to the world of Sasol. Sasol Limited, a South African state owned global energy company is exploring new frontiers in the way we produce energy.
George Bush said recently that America is addicted to oil, a strong statement from a president seen as friendly to the oil & gas industry, but one forced to be proactive with the increasing oil prices. America may be addicted to oil, but the rest of the world is not far behind. People on the wrong side of the sanity line, will argue that we need to end the dependence on fossil fuels and see the oil industry as evil capitalists looking to make profits at the expense of the common man (but isn’t that what all companies do?) There has also been talk about a windfall profit tax, which any free market economist will tell you is both counterintuitive and counterproductive. I do not see an alternative to fossil fuels in the near future; I think the challenge will be to use existing fossil fuels in an innovative way. Fossil fuels are naturally occurring, and it is extremely difficult to come up with an alternative source which is as efficient and cost effective.
With the ever increasing costs of energy, it is only natural that talented scientists and engineers will come up with a solution that is a product of the free market. I have been looking at various existing methods of energy production and I believe the GTL (Gas to Liquids) technology offers the greatest potential for success. Sasol uses a proprietary GTL technology based on the Fischer-Tropsch process, taught in high school chemistry, to convert natural gas into environmentally friendly liquid fuels. The basic procedure (to a chemical engineer, a thermodynamic phase change!) is not revolutionary, but the way the process has been tweaked is path breaking. The significant benefit of the technology is the use of natural gas as feedstock, which is abundantly available in nature. It gives an opportunity for countries like Qatar and others of the erstwhile Soviet Union to reap the benefits of large natural gas reserves. The sucess of Sasol will lead to larger investments by the big oil companies in this gas to liquids technology, Chevron already has a stake in Sasol's GTL business.
I am not sure how the stock market views Sasol, the fact that it is state owned might be a hurdle to its future growth. I do not bet on the markets, but if I was a punter I would put my money on Sasol!
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Charlie Rose
If you do have the luxury of not having to get up early every morning (as I presently do!), it will definitely be worth your while to check out the Charlie Rose show on PBS thirteen, aired at 11p EST. It is probably the best talk show on TV right now, and has been for a while.
Looking at the last two weeks as a basis, there have been some tremendous people featured on the show, from molecular biologists to New York film critics. Some of the best interviews over the last few days have been; the scientific duo of James Watson (yes, the Watson-Crick model!) and naturalist Edward Wilson on Charles Darwin and evolution; Thomas Friedman (at his animated best!) on foreign policy and George Shultz (former secretary of state and current academic at the Hoover institute), who I think is one of the sharpest minds on foreign policy, and its no coincidence that his protege (Condi Rice) is doing a fine job right now.
Check out charlierose.com for up-to-date schedules, more program information, show transcripts and the Charlie Rose Show message board.
If you do have the luxury of not having to get up early every morning (as I presently do!), it will definitely be worth your while to check out the Charlie Rose show on PBS thirteen, aired at 11p EST. It is probably the best talk show on TV right now, and has been for a while.
Looking at the last two weeks as a basis, there have been some tremendous people featured on the show, from molecular biologists to New York film critics. Some of the best interviews over the last few days have been; the scientific duo of James Watson (yes, the Watson-Crick model!) and naturalist Edward Wilson on Charles Darwin and evolution; Thomas Friedman (at his animated best!) on foreign policy and George Shultz (former secretary of state and current academic at the Hoover institute), who I think is one of the sharpest minds on foreign policy, and its no coincidence that his protege (Condi Rice) is doing a fine job right now.
Check out charlierose.com for up-to-date schedules, more program information, show transcripts and the Charlie Rose Show message board.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Wrong Un
Interesting article in cricinfo http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/228475.html
Its quite ironic! check it out, especially those in pursuit of cricket trivia!
Interesting article in cricinfo http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/228475.html
Its quite ironic! check it out, especially those in pursuit of cricket trivia!
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Oops-onomics
The December 7th issue of Economist had this article posted http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5246700
Let me start by giving a big thumbs up to Steven Levitt for his unorthodox take on everyday issues in his book "Freakonomics".
I am huge fan of the book, it makes interesting reading, but does not always make logical conclusions. I found Levitt's thought process fascinating and his approach refreshingly simple for a Chicago economist. Levitt has come up with some bold theories, but we should just leave it at that, they are just theories, open to debate.
The issue that is by far the most controversial, is Levitt's take that Roe V Wade was directly responsible for crime reduction. Messrs Foote and Goetz (two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston) in their paper have shown flaws in the statistical model employed by Levitt and Donohue, I am no economist, but as a student of engineering, keeping 600 possible variables constant in a study of this kind seems highly questionable. Professor Ted Joyce from Baruch College says quite accurately that "this robs the data, of most of their variety, and of much of their ability to explain anything."
In grad school, I recall trying to convince my professor, as to why I had kept one of the terms in a mathematical relation constant. Finally, after close to an hour of discussion, I had to accept that it was at best an assumption, without any physics behind it. I think, the same is true for Levitt's theory, its provocative, but there is no sound basis for some of his conclusions.
Talking about controversial research findings, a paper by Prof. David Grier (Physics Department, University of Chicago) comes to mind. Using a combination of experimental manipulations and statistical mambo jumbo he had managed to prove that like charges "attract". This was eventually proved wrong by his peers, but it shows that if the laws of physics can be interpreted incorrectly, under certain conditions, with the right statistical model and design of experiment, a rather undefined correlation between abortion and crime rate can be formed, as long as the degrees of freedom tend to infinity!
The December 7th issue of Economist had this article posted http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5246700
Let me start by giving a big thumbs up to Steven Levitt for his unorthodox take on everyday issues in his book "Freakonomics".
I am huge fan of the book, it makes interesting reading, but does not always make logical conclusions. I found Levitt's thought process fascinating and his approach refreshingly simple for a Chicago economist. Levitt has come up with some bold theories, but we should just leave it at that, they are just theories, open to debate.
The issue that is by far the most controversial, is Levitt's take that Roe V Wade was directly responsible for crime reduction. Messrs Foote and Goetz (two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston) in their paper have shown flaws in the statistical model employed by Levitt and Donohue, I am no economist, but as a student of engineering, keeping 600 possible variables constant in a study of this kind seems highly questionable. Professor Ted Joyce from Baruch College says quite accurately that "this robs the data, of most of their variety, and of much of their ability to explain anything."
In grad school, I recall trying to convince my professor, as to why I had kept one of the terms in a mathematical relation constant. Finally, after close to an hour of discussion, I had to accept that it was at best an assumption, without any physics behind it. I think, the same is true for Levitt's theory, its provocative, but there is no sound basis for some of his conclusions.
Talking about controversial research findings, a paper by Prof. David Grier (Physics Department, University of Chicago) comes to mind. Using a combination of experimental manipulations and statistical mambo jumbo he had managed to prove that like charges "attract". This was eventually proved wrong by his peers, but it shows that if the laws of physics can be interpreted incorrectly, under certain conditions, with the right statistical model and design of experiment, a rather undefined correlation between abortion and crime rate can be formed, as long as the degrees of freedom tend to infinity!
Monday, December 05, 2005
We need to grow up!
Check out this link in Outlook http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051212&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=3&pn=1
Anjali Puri goes back in recent memory bringing out instances that just make you want to shout out GROW UP!
For those unaware about the happenings that Anjali talks about let me give you an introduction to stupidity 101.
Kushboo, the erstwhile goddess (literally speaking) of the Dravidian world (though she happens to be a Punjabi!) made some remarks about pre-marital sex. To a non-Tamil, the entire episode might seem nonsensical, which would be completely rational, but anyone who has been acquainted with Tamil filmdom or politics will understand the impact of cinema and particularly that of Kushboo! She contested the notion that brides in India need to be virgins. I was actually quite surprised that the Indian media has stooped to levels low enough to report this incident on national television; but then again a Tamil film personality is no ordinary mortal! To be fair to her, I think she was just being practical. It is quite evident, that pre martial sex is widespread in India. All you need to do to verify this is to spend time with some yuppies from Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore or I might dare to add conservative Chennai. The self appointed custodians of Tamil culture that attacked Kushboo, have not come to grips with the changes in their society or maybe they have and its just some bizarre political move!
L.K. Advani found himself in a quagmire after his remarks about Jinnah. I thought he made an excellent speech and his statements were historically accurate. But like my uncle says, in India we don’t distinguish between history and myth. The typical Hindu believes Jinnah to be an evil person, so praising him is akin to have moved into the dark side. Advani, like Anakin Skywalker was suddenly Darth Vader to his party members. Advani assumed that Indian politics was mature enough for his speech, he was sadly wrong. The Jinnah speech will haunt him for years to come.
Prime Minister Singh was not spared either. His now infamous speech at Oxford described by Leftist scholar Prof. Irfan Habib as “looking for applause from the sahibs” was a perfect case of misplaced jingoism. All the PM said, was we have to thank the Raj for some of the basic infrastructure in modern India, which could not be more historically accurate, yet people like BJP spokesman Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi seem to call it an insult to hundred million proud Indians. Who does Mr. Naqvi believe he represents? I agree there was a time when Indians feared the British, which is but natural as they were our rulers. I can recount an episode my grandfather talks about when he and his pals ran away from the English officer in Madras whom they called “vellakaran” (white man). I would like to imagine that things have changed now. India is a proud independent country and can afford to talk about its past in a proper historical manner. We need to acknowledge the work of a few noble Englishmen. My cousin will tell you that historians like Jones, Princep and other English bureaucrats introduced us to our past http://vijayblog.blogspot.com
We seem to still portray the image of General Dyer as the typical English officer, which is far from the truth and I believe our media, Hindi movies in particular have been greatly responsible for this misguided representation.
Anjali Puri, also brings about the case of the new Indian teen icon Sania Mirza. People (thankfully an insignificant lot) have criticized her attire. People like SM need to be applauded, she has been a path breaker and a fine role model for young women athletes.
Sania Mirza for her fashion choice, Shyam Benegal who was compelled to remove the part of an Austrian love interest in his movie Bose, the protest about a completely fictional and illogical movie like Mangal Pandey or the absurd ban on smoking in the movies, are all pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle. We just refuse to grow up. We need to rediscover our values for the modern times; we cannot afford to be stuck in some sort of time warp. U.R. Anantha Murthy puts it perfectly in his book Samskara when Naranappa (a pariah to the brahmin community) tells Praneshacharya (the learned brahmin of the community) “read the Vedas, read the Puranas, but don’t try to interpret them. Acharya-re, you are the one who’s studied in Kashi-you tell me, who ruined brahminism?”
Check out this link in Outlook http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051212&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=3&pn=1
Anjali Puri goes back in recent memory bringing out instances that just make you want to shout out GROW UP!
For those unaware about the happenings that Anjali talks about let me give you an introduction to stupidity 101.
Kushboo, the erstwhile goddess (literally speaking) of the Dravidian world (though she happens to be a Punjabi!) made some remarks about pre-marital sex. To a non-Tamil, the entire episode might seem nonsensical, which would be completely rational, but anyone who has been acquainted with Tamil filmdom or politics will understand the impact of cinema and particularly that of Kushboo! She contested the notion that brides in India need to be virgins. I was actually quite surprised that the Indian media has stooped to levels low enough to report this incident on national television; but then again a Tamil film personality is no ordinary mortal! To be fair to her, I think she was just being practical. It is quite evident, that pre martial sex is widespread in India. All you need to do to verify this is to spend time with some yuppies from Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore or I might dare to add conservative Chennai. The self appointed custodians of Tamil culture that attacked Kushboo, have not come to grips with the changes in their society or maybe they have and its just some bizarre political move!
L.K. Advani found himself in a quagmire after his remarks about Jinnah. I thought he made an excellent speech and his statements were historically accurate. But like my uncle says, in India we don’t distinguish between history and myth. The typical Hindu believes Jinnah to be an evil person, so praising him is akin to have moved into the dark side. Advani, like Anakin Skywalker was suddenly Darth Vader to his party members. Advani assumed that Indian politics was mature enough for his speech, he was sadly wrong. The Jinnah speech will haunt him for years to come.
Prime Minister Singh was not spared either. His now infamous speech at Oxford described by Leftist scholar Prof. Irfan Habib as “looking for applause from the sahibs” was a perfect case of misplaced jingoism. All the PM said, was we have to thank the Raj for some of the basic infrastructure in modern India, which could not be more historically accurate, yet people like BJP spokesman Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi seem to call it an insult to hundred million proud Indians. Who does Mr. Naqvi believe he represents? I agree there was a time when Indians feared the British, which is but natural as they were our rulers. I can recount an episode my grandfather talks about when he and his pals ran away from the English officer in Madras whom they called “vellakaran” (white man). I would like to imagine that things have changed now. India is a proud independent country and can afford to talk about its past in a proper historical manner. We need to acknowledge the work of a few noble Englishmen. My cousin will tell you that historians like Jones, Princep and other English bureaucrats introduced us to our past http://vijayblog.blogspot.com
We seem to still portray the image of General Dyer as the typical English officer, which is far from the truth and I believe our media, Hindi movies in particular have been greatly responsible for this misguided representation.
Anjali Puri, also brings about the case of the new Indian teen icon Sania Mirza. People (thankfully an insignificant lot) have criticized her attire. People like SM need to be applauded, she has been a path breaker and a fine role model for young women athletes.
Sania Mirza for her fashion choice, Shyam Benegal who was compelled to remove the part of an Austrian love interest in his movie Bose, the protest about a completely fictional and illogical movie like Mangal Pandey or the absurd ban on smoking in the movies, are all pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle. We just refuse to grow up. We need to rediscover our values for the modern times; we cannot afford to be stuck in some sort of time warp. U.R. Anantha Murthy puts it perfectly in his book Samskara when Naranappa (a pariah to the brahmin community) tells Praneshacharya (the learned brahmin of the community) “read the Vedas, read the Puranas, but don’t try to interpret them. Acharya-re, you are the one who’s studied in Kashi-you tell me, who ruined brahminism?”
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)