investment

India’s rich eye gold

The emergence of young, entrepreneurial high networth individuals in India is leading to a more diverse investment appetite, with gold linked debentures and gold ETFs high on the list.

The amount of wealth held by high networth individuals in India has reportedly increased faster than that held by rich people globally, according to a report, which notes that India’s elite are looking to invest their cash in gold.

With Indians holding more than 18,000 tonnes of the precious metal, the report by Indian wealth management firm Karvy Private Wealth has noted that the demand for gold has risen by 13% on average over the past 10 years, and is likely to increase by 30% this year.

The report found that while the fortunes of high networth individuals internationally grew by around 9.7% during 2011, money held by India’s rich increased by more than 18%. The growth made India one of the fastest growing high networth populations in the world, accounting for 1.6% of global wealth, according to the report.

Even as these rich Indians look for risk averse ways to invest their cash, the rising demand for gold from this class has not gone unnoticed. Though much of the growth in wealth was thanks to the increase in investment in fixed deposits, bonds and equities, the most popular alternative asset was structured products in the form of equity and gold-linked debentures, which constituted nearly 72% of the total wealth invested.

Individual wealth of Indians surged to $1,683 billion (Rs 86.5 lakh crore) in 2010-11 fiscal. Investment in alternative assets has increased significantly, boosted by investors’ rising confidence and interest in a relatively newer class of assets, the report states. According to Karvy, total assets under management (AUM) in equity-linked debentures was estimated to have grown 21% year on year.

According to R Parandekar, group head of the Wealth Management and Asset Management team at Karvy, “India’s individual wealth in alternative assets is 0.34% of her total wealth in comparison to 6.2% globally. We believe that alternative assets will be a major investment avenue in India over the next few years. Alternative assets including Gold ETFs, structured products, private equity and venture capital funds, etc. which are expected to grow at a rapid pace of 100% per annum.”

Gold exchange traded funds (ETFs) have also seen a steady increase in interest. The asset base of gold ETFs, as per data from the Association of Mutual Funds in India, has surged 167% between January and November 2011 to $1.8 billion (Rs 9658 crore). In the last two years, gold mutual fund assets have grown nearly 570%.

Analysts say the gold fund category is the only one that has generated significant returns for investors in 2011, ending the year generating over 30% returns. Gold funds gained 27% to 31% over the past one year, as compared to large cap equity funds, short term bond funds and income funds which on an average returned minus (-) 23%, 9.04% and 8.2% respectively during the same period, according to data from Value Research.

Between now and 2016, the wealth of India’s richest is also expected to treble. As per the Karvy report, with current annual household savings of about 34%, and expected to grow 8% on average, India is well poised to lead wealth creation in the global arena.

Source: http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page34?oid=143379&sn=Detail

2012: The Recognition of The Age of Critical Technology Materials

The following essay was written over New Year’s weekend, 2011-12. My theme is that the rare earths supply frenzy has exposed an irreversible shift in the demand/supply picture for all technology materials, not just the metals, but also the energy minerals, and the minerals necessary for agriculture. The only mining ventures today that have the potential to be profitable on a stand-alone basis are those that can produce at the lowest cost in the global marketplace and the breakeven point of which is low enough to so they can maintain production at very low levels thus holding on to their customers.

America’s technology materials mining industry can prosper now only by vertically integrating to supply the domestic market first. Surplus production can be exported from several points of a total supply chain thus reinforcing capacity flexibility and dropping the breakeven point for the whole supply chain. This is smart globalization. Just as an aircraft flight attendant tells you to connect your oxygen first before trying to help anyone else I am telling you to build total supply chains for technology materials domestically to ensure that you can help yourself before you try to help others.

Note that by “American” I mean North American. The North American market for producing end use technology materials is 90% in the USA, but the production of those materials and at least half of the requisite supply chains can be constructed in Canada. There has never been a better opportunity to make NAFTA into the basis for a world class technology materials production economy.All that is really needed now is insightful finance and much better educated legislators driven by something other than re-election and greed. Call me a cynic, but Happy New Year.

The unprecedented and unexpected growth in total demand for technology materials for the production of fabricated goods, energy, and food since the beginning of the 21st century has changed the dynamic of the global materials market.

The response of American and European style capitalism to this sudden rush of demand has until now been to treat it as a problem to be resolved along traditional lines by raising the prices of the affected “commodities” until the “opportunity for profit” thus created resulted in additional supplies to relieve, or at least, to limit, the upward price pressure. “Demand will create supply” and “shortages will be ameliorated by surpluses” were among the responses I heard from American and European industrial procurement and planning managers. I was among those who then raised the “security of supply” issue only to be told that it was a non-issue due to the fact that the amounts of all materials in the earth’s crust made the potential supply infinite.

It was impossible at first, and it is not much easier now, to explain to industrialists and financiers that only resources the mineral deposits of which are concentrated enough to be recovered and purified by known and economical technologies can be called even potential supplies. The greed, short-sightedness, and poor general science education of our current politicians, industrialists, and financiers has let America and Europe sit back and not only observe but actually assist our economic competitors to gain such an advantage over us through focused acquisition and management of natural resources that the USA and Europe, in order to survive economically, must now restructure our financial as well as our remaining industrial assets in the hope of salvaging some competitive advantage through maintaining a lead in technological innovation.

Yet like the Mahdi’s soldiers who wore talismans to ward off bullets our financial, industrial, and political elites raise the banner of an outmoded form of independent operator capitalism to ward off the advances of a differently structured and focused Asian capitalism wedded directly to the finances and centralized direction of an immense nation able to drown the individual western capitalists in a tsunami of money not for the sole purpose of acquiring more money but mainly to acquire ownership and control of critical natural resources so as to make their home nation(s) self-sufficient in natural resources and energy.

The western capitalists serve the purpose of the eastern capitalists by choosing to concentrate on short term gains while the Chinese, for example, acquire resources for their use to create products and jobs not for speculation.

The problem of course arises from the fact that this growing demand for natural resources has not been created by the USA, Europe, or Japan, but almost solely, at this point, by a new player on the world trading stage, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).

I believe that 2012 may finally see a recognition by western strategic investors that the long term outlook for the global demand for technology materials is one of continued high net growth and that the present rate of supply of these materials already is at the point where it cannot even now keep pace.

Junior miners, which are basically exploration companies, playing the same old game of appearing to be on the cusp of “rushes” are really just bit players in the new world of natural resource supply. The economic cycles and turmoil in the old capitalist societies of the west and of Japan have taken precedence in the news over the dramatic growth of overall demand for technology materials, but the focus on short term gain from trading junior mining shares in a casino atmosphere is no longer viable when looking at ensuring the security of supply of technology materials.

Ownership of ore bodies and other such natural resources are only of long term value when they are developed to the stage where they contribute directly to Increases in the rate of production of technology materials. This requires years of planning and continual development. This cannot be achieved just by issuing shares to raise capital. The share market for technology materials’ producers is rapidly becoming a sideshow. China seems today to be the only nation-state with both an existing industrial policy and the capital and command organization to carry it out. Like the Soviet Union before it the PRC plans its economy in five-year tranches. Also, like the Soviet Union before it the PRC sets higher production targets for goods and services with each successive five-year “plan.” But the PRC also measures the success of a five year plan by the increase in employment and improvement in the standard of living it brings about. The Soviet Union pretended that it was always at full employment. The planners of the PRC do not seem to follow this tradition.

The key to future wealth is the ownership and control of total supply chains for the production of technology materials. There are no short cuts.

In the western markets tumbling share prices and suspension of IPOs on news of temporary declines in demand or temporary oversupply are simply casino gambling, and if that is the best that the so-called free market can do then China will be the clear long term winner in the technology materials’ self-sufficiency stakes. In order to be a competitive economy it is necessary for a nation to have access to the natural resources it needs so that its economy can grow. The development of such resources can no longer be left to short term planning. It is necessary to commit both capital and intellectual capital to the long term development of adequate and sustainable production rates of natural resources. Base lines must be established for nations and the development of the resources necessary to maintain those baselines and allow for growth must be a priority of the nation’s markets.

This didn’t come about overnight. This situation has been building since the making of money for the sake of having more money eclipsed the making of money from increasing productive commerce

The economic cause of the transfer the world’s trading and manufacturing center from America to China has been American capitalism, which seeks the lowest cost for all resources, goods, and services in a system of as much global free trade as is compatible with minimizing national and international taxation, i.e. maximizing profit. American style free market capitalism does not believe in natural resource exhaustion except as a scare tactic to drive share or commodity prices. In fact it is the maximization of the rates of production of natural resources that is the problem from the point of view of the long term allocation of capital for most, non-energy, extractive industries.

Increasing the rate of production of extractive resources is capital intensive and time consuming, which means, of course, that it must be a low profit endeavor when ranked against speculation.

Twenty-five years ago when the transfer of labor intensive repetitive operations to low labor cost countries was begun in earnest the main driver for American industrialists was cost control as a method for the retention of market share in a very competitive market place then just beginning to feel downward price pressure from Asian, predominantly Japanese, imports. A second, no less important, driver at the time was the maintenance of the industrial company’s share price. This was in the era of blue-chip stocks, which were defined as those of the largest producers of raw materials, energy, or finished goods in an era when banks were service industries. Money was to be made through profit margins on goods and services. Banks were providers of the service of lending money to blue chips mainly for cash flow or working capital purposes. Investment “banks” took new ventures public and the partners in those banks had their own money at risk first of all.

The until now unnoticed political driver that allowed the transfer of low cost manufacturing to China, in particular, was the desire of the ruling communist party of the People’s Republic of China to use the situation (the desire of the capitalists for low cost labor) to literally force-start and then accelerate China’s development into a modern military-technological-industrial state. As Deng Xiaoping had put it succinctly the idea was to make China “strong and rich.” A version of capitalism was to be allowed albeit one with Chinese characteristics so that the nation could be put onto a path that would lead it to being able to provide its average citizen with the safety, health, and material well-being already achieved by the nations of the west of which the paragon is the USA. Of course this would come after or at the same time as China grew in strength to “resume” its natural place among nations.

On Friday, December 30, 2011 the Chinese government announced that China would put men on permanent duty in an orbital space station before 2020. Such an announcement in 2000 would have been considered “crackpot” at best. What a difference a decade of GDP growth at 10% per annum makes!

I have thought, and I have been trying to point out for many years now that apocalyptic theories of supply shortages and of subsequent rampant price inflation supposedly due to peak natural resources, i.e., the exhaustion of natural resources, are based on the type of reasoning that confuses the disease with the symptom. The disease is the financialization of capital, which means that the majority of investments made in the west today are completely detached from any relation to the production of commerce at all. Money is being used primarily for pure speculation. The purpose of such types of investments is solely to make more money. The confusion between wealth creation (jobs, goods, and services )for productive purposes and the simple making of money, for no other reason than to make more money, by the press, the politicians, and the ordinary citizen has masked this societally suicidal frenzy until it has now resulted in the downgrade of the American standard of living for the vast majority, and the placing on the path to extinction not only the contemporary middle-class but also the pathways to entering and remaining in that class.

The American governing classes have purposefully joined the financial elites and insulated themselves from this downgrade, which has now moved beyond their understanding. They have assigned the solution of the financialization crisis to those whose lack of interest in the well being of the nation is manifest, the bankers, who in fact brought on the American abandonment of wealth creation for productive purposes as a status game enshrined in the corrupted phrase, “Him who has the gold makes the rules.”

American industry literally taught the world how to build and equip workshops to economically mass produce consumer goods. The industry was financed by a capitalism, which counted success as the marketing of mass produced products made at the lowest cost that could be sold at a profit.

America’industrialists never worked under a national industrial policy, so that when the opportunity arose to lower costs simply by exchanging the American for a lower cost labor workforce there was no ethical barrier. The short term goal of maximizing profit was paramount. No one was concerned with the long term consequences of such a move to the workforce much less to the country as a whole.

Keep in mind that financiers backed the moving of millions of jobs to low cost labor countries while politicians never even gave a thought to the effect on the economy of the ensuing unemployed masses. As I recall we were told that “service” jobs here would replace those lost to low labor cost countries. It was never clear exactly what the economic pundits were defining as service jobs. We now realize that was because they didn’t know what they would be either.

So why should investors in natural resources care about the sad history of American corruption, greed, and sheer stupidity. It’s because one of the totally unforeseen long term consequences was the shift to Asia of the demand for not only the final assembly and the manufacturing of the parts necessary for such assembly, but ultimately of the TOTAL SUPPLY CHAIN BEGINNING WITH AND INCLUDING THE MINING AND REFINING OF THE MINERALS. This shift has meant the loss of not only the physical plant for total supply chains but the withering away by the attrition of non-use of the intellectual basis of such industrial processes.

The rare supply earth situation, which has been highlighted in the USA for the last few years, is just the tip of the iceberg the body of which is the loss or collapse of the capability to build or operate a total supply chain for a given critical material when the first steps of that supply chain have been moved off-shore.

Clueless and engineering-ignorant American environmentalists for whom mining and refining are simply evil incarnate have managed over the last generation to force re-election-only driven legislators to favor the closing of sites producing natural resources for energy and manufacturing and the imposing of regulations that make such production simply too time consuming as well as adding enormous costs .

The dwindling proportion of capital targeted to increasing productive capacity remaining in a system being squeezed dry of such capital by pure financial speculators seeking short term gain has now made it more productive to move entire supply chains off-shore to where the raw materials CAN being mined and refined rather than to waste capital on endless regulations and battles with the ignorant and suicidal (or ignorant and rich). The result has been at best to increase the cost of re-starting a supply chain and at worst to make it intellectually impossible if only domestic resources are to be utilized.

I note in passing that America’s most important remaining engine of wealth creation is its innovative high-tech industries. These industries, such as electronics and healthcare, have been responsible for more improvement in the standards of living and lifestyle of the peoples of the world than any other intellectual force in history. The American electronics, aerospace, and nuclear industries have held out off-shoring their research and development, but sadly they have only managed to do that by enticing the best of the Asian students to come and work in the USA.

For a generation this worked well, because such individuals for the most part preferred to stay in the USA to utilize their American honed and learned skills to enjoy a better life style than they could at “home.” And to have the opportunity to create their own businesses. Today that situation has changed as places like China and India have improved enough in opportunity-availability to entice their brightest and best to stay home or even to come home. The American mining and refining industry has also had its share of bringing skilled Asian workers and engineers to the USA from China and India and like the high tech manufacturing industries it has now seen the outflow of these same people with their American honed skills and technological improvements back to their “home” countries.” Asian engineers who specialize in mining and refining engineering are very unlikely to remain in an America that blocks them from opportunity at every step.

America’s greatest inherent advantage in the production of natural resources is based on

  1. The variety of items in which North America can be self-sufficient,
  2. The safety of American natural resource production, and
  3. The productivity of North American mining technology and personnel.

The hypocrisy and sheer stupidity of those who want to stop producing natural resources in North America, so that we can get them from places where civil liberties are frequently nonexistent, productivity is low, safety is poor, women are treated worse than domestic animals, and the standards of living are appalling is simply beyond understanding.

I think that January 1, 2012 is as good a date as any to focus on the fact that maintaining a steady flow of affordable raw materials for energy production, food production, and manufacturing all at prices we can afford, which will let our economy GROW without lowering our standard of living is now the imperative.

The problem is that while we are trying to maintain production levels and costs the BRICS are trying to increase the production of the same materials at a rate never before seen in history. It is unlikely that America can ever again be a major supplier of extractive resources to an export led domestic manufacturing industry. We have waited too long and have simply lost the will and the capability to restore that capacity.

We can however conserve capital and reduce debt by becoming self-sufficient in energy and by again being entirely self-sufficient in metals and minerals for our domestic needs. The demand for technology materials of all kinds is ultimately now and in the future to be driven by the BRICS as all of them struggle to build military-technology-industrial complexes. The USA cannot hope to supply the BRICS with structural metal ores or fabricated products, because we waited too long to get into the game. Our structural metal industries cannot now, and have been unable to, compete with those of China or India on price since at least the middle of the last decade. The move to financialization destroyed any hope of American financiers creating truly global metals and minerals giants such as Rio Tinto or BHP. However there is still time remaining for the USA to become a technology materials powerhouse for ourselves and for the world.

The USA and North America are rich in the extractive resources of the metals and minerals that are critical to mass producing high tech devices for all uses civilian and military. The USA and Canada combined currently also lead the world in mining and refining engineering as well as technological innovation. The USA, however, is entering upon the last decade during which it has a chance to return to self-sufficiency and innovative leadership in technology. Once these opportunities are gone the world will have passed us by, and the result will be the slow erosion of our standard of living and of any further opportunities for growth. Canada has been a patient partner, our largest supplier of natural resources, but Canada’s population cannot support the creation of enough capital to move North America into the position of the world’s premier and central supplier of technology materials.

Small investors need to take note that the first decade of the 21st century saw more change in both the movement and the composition of the world’s metals markets than any other comparable period in history. The changes are permanent and their cause is an irreversible and fundamental change in the geography of the global raw materials trade. The driving center of the trade is no longer in the west; it is today in east Asia.

I believe that you can safely relegate the bulk of twentieth century punditry and scholarship on the cycles of the production and prices of metals in peacetime to the scrap heap. There they join such ideas and common wisdom as “the end of history” and descriptions of China as a third-world or developing country. In 2011 as in the prior decade, China and the other “developing” countries of southeast Asia continued to grow their GDPs at a rate of at least 3, and as much as 4, times the pace of the US or Europe. And since their common target, not their target in common, is to develop technology-military-industrial economies with a per capita GDP at least equal to that of the pre-2008 USA the rapidly growing economies of the nations of south and east Asia, and soon, if not already, of Brazil are consuming, in an unprecedented accelerated timeframe, the same volumes of base metals, mainly for fixed infrastructure and for transportation, that the USA and Europe produced and consumed in the from the beginning of the age of steel, 1867, until now!

The strain this acceleration of and growth of demand has put on the world’s productive capacity for the ores of the base metals has now highlighted the differences among the base metals themselves by resolving them, by use, into the structural metals and the enabling structural metals. China alone today, in 2011, already uses 60% of all of the iron ore mined globally and 33% of the aluminum ore. Huge investments of capital in the ores of both of these base structural metals have been made outside of China solely for the purpose of supplying just China. Investors should note that unless the demand for base structural metals grows in the other BRICS-the resource rich and/or resource mega-demanding nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa- China could create chaos in the world iron-ore market simply by increasing its domestic output to self-sufficiency, which is in fact possible, although not today economical. This game changing event, Chinese self-sufficiency in iron ore, which is actually predicted by Rio Tinto to take place by 2020, would, without a buildup in demand outside of China, throw global iron ore production into a vast oversupply status thus collapsing prices. By simply, albeit expensively, moving forward towards self-sufficiency China puts downward pressure on global iron ore prices. Strategic investors should now look for the most efficient low cost producers and fabricators of steel and aluminum outside of China, because the creation of a massive non-Chinese demand is absolutely necessary for the non-Chinese owned iron ore industry.

The ores of iron and aluminum are available in proven accessible deposits in great abundance. The proven resources of these ores are sufficient even at present global demand to sustain the global steel and aluminum industries for centuries. As long as energy is plentiful and relatively cheap the global production of steel and aluminum will continue, but continue to grow only through demand from the “developing” countries. Strategically I think that Russia is far from any meaningful development. I am looking at India and Brazil as demand drivers for iron and aluminum. Both are today self-sufficient in iron ore and both are world class exporters. Note well though that should either’s economy ever require the importing of iron or aluminum ore while at the same time Chinese demand were stable at today’s rate, or continued growing, there would then be a run-up in iron ore prices that would dwarf those of the last 10 years. In that case Australia would be the big winner. Australia’s demand for steel can never require more than a small fraction of its capacity to supply of iron ore. The unknown factor in all of this, in the long run, is China, which could become an exporter of iron ore in the 2020s.

Whatever commodity scenario one plots for the long term it is now always Asian demand that is critical. America’s future is tied to sophisticated supply chain developments for natural resources.

I personally do not believe that China will become an exporter anytime soon of iron ore, as a raw material, unless such action becomes necessary to maintain employment in the Chinese mining industry and then only after domestic demand is satisfied.

Additionally it should be noted by strategic investors that a China, self-sufficient, or in an ownership situation globally of resources to make itself self-sufficient, in iron ore, coking coal, limestone, bauxite, and cryolite could easily come to dominate the global supply of steel and aluminum.

It is ironic that monopoly capitalism with Chinese characteristics is the true threat to so-called free market capitalism, which considers monopoly capitalism to be counter-productive to the fair distribution of wealth because it concentrates wealth in too few hands and hands pricing power solely to the monopolist. Yet the Chinese have chosen state monopolized capitalism to ensure the distribution of the wealth created to the largest number of Chinese people. The Chinese system is as much a threat to western economic philosophy as it is a threat to western lifestyles and standards of living. The biggest problem is that even as production rate investments consume more and more western capital it is not at all clear that the prices for the materials so produced will be set by a free market. Thus such investments are high risk-in fact this is exactly the problem in the current rare earths production buildup. There has been almost no change in the geographic center of rare earth demand, China. This means that Chinese moves to regulate its environment, improve worker health, safety, and compensation, and to direct its economy away from being export led to being domestic consumer demand driven will be the drivers for rare earth pricing. When one takes into consideration Chinese moves into global finance are targeted so as to keep Chinese manufacturing competitive this means ultimately a convertible currency in which raw materials such as the rare earths are denominated.

So long as America is dominated by a Wall Street and Washington elite that believes that a man’s worth is measured by the capital he accumulates whether or not it is used productively to make products and create jobs there is no contest. China is winning

By: Jack Lifton
Source: http://www.raremetalblog.com/2012/01/2012-the-recognition-of-the-age-of-critical-technology-materials-the-following-essay-was-written-over-new-years-weekend.html

2012 Outlook: Uncertainty Continues For Rare Earths Prices, China Still Major Player

(Kitco News) - After exploding onto the metals scene in 2010 and garnering widespread media and investor attention, rare earths element prices have dropped and have been unstable mainly due to demand tapering off in 2011, leading to uncertainty in 2012.

Low demand during 2011 was caused by high rare earths prices from both heavy and light rare earths metals, which despite their fluttering prices, remain historically high.

Despite unstable prices throughout 2011, there is some expectation that rare earths prices might become more stable in 2012.

“I think that rare earth metals, they tend to be more strategic in nature and supply versus demand remains quite balanced in favor of prices being stronger in 2012,” said Mike Frawley, global head of metals at Newedge Group. “The pace of consumption in mainland China is a critical component of demand, prices.”

The Chinese continue to control most of the rare earths supply but reports show that Chinese exports are extremely low. Information provided by Metal Pages, a news site that focuses on non-ferrous metals, ferro alloys and rare earths, indicated that rare earth elements exports have dropped 65% in 2011 and that China has only exported 11,000 metric tons of rare earths through the first three quarters of the year.

Reports suggested that the Chinese government may change regulations that would get around Chinese producers who have cut their supply while keeping prices high.

Rare earths prices alone are also an issue not only with volatility, but with their general cost.

According to a report focused on rare earth elements performance for the upcoming year from A.L. Waters Capital, the firm highlighted some specific rare earths and their current prices compared to their peak prices.

A heavy rare earth such as dysprosium, which is commonly used in televisions and lasers, reached a market high of $2,800 per kilogram while its current price is $2,000.

Another heavy rare earths type, europrium, which is used in television screens, peaked at $5,900/kg while its current price is $3,900.

Some light rare earths come at a substantially cheaper price, such as neodymium, which is used in magnets, peaked at $410/kg on the market and currently sits at $270. (A complete list of all 17 rare earth metals and their uses can be found at the end of the article.)

While rare earths are expensive to use in producing several products used daily, the drop in demand does not come from an alternate substance that can be as effective for a fraction of the cost.

“Demand has gone down (in 2011) but I also think that they haven’t really been able to replace rare earth metals,” said Arnett Waters, chairman of A.L. Waters Capital. “I think that part of what’s going on is that businesses are spending less money on more expensive stuff. If I have a use for europrium and I can use a quarter of a pound of it and it does ok in the product that I’m making, I’m not going to adopt a new product in this economy. It would cost too much money.”

Also, with current economic crises around the globe, it is expected that demand will not be strong in 2012 given the historical high prices of rare earths.

Waters used strategic military defense equipment as an example.

“In the case of strategic military equipment, defense budgets are declining,” Waters said. “I realize the U.S. may not be cutting stealth bomber production, but I am saying that in many countries that would like to use these rare earth metals for strategic purposes are cutting their defense budgets and they cannot afford it.”

Rare earths metals play a large role in current modern technology, cruise missiles and other weapons systems.

PRODUCING RARE EARTHS METALS OUTSIDE OF CHINA

China holds most of the processing capacity for rare earths metals.

“A lot of the processing capacity is in China and you can’t use Chinese capacity unless you’re actually getting your rare earths from them,” said Waters. “That’s why Lynas Corporation Ltd. (ASX: LYC) and others have been building their plants in Malaysia.”

Lynas currently has a concentration plant under construction at Mount Weld in Western Australia as well as an advanced materials plant in Kuantan, Malaysia. Neither plant has begun production yet.

Molycorp Inc. (NYSE:MCP) has three facilities, two located in the U.S., California and Arizona respectively, as well as one located in Estonia. The company stated earlier in 2011 that production from the three facilities would produce between 4,941 and 5,881 metric tons by the end of 2011. The company expects to raise production to 19,050 metric tons by the end of 2012.

The sentiment to mine and produce rare earths outside of China does not fall squarely on the shoulders of these two companies but it is still believed that bigger companies will gain more control of mines and production compared to smaller mining companies.

“At the end of the day it just means that there’ll be fewer smaller mines and there’s a natural evolutionary process that takes place in all developing parts of the world,” said Frawley. “You’ll have the small miners who will be succeeded by stronger companies. A more efficient process will begin to emerge.”

“That takes a long time and I don’t see it changing the balance of that supply any time soon.”

RARE EARTHS AS AN INVESTMENT OPTION FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

The biggest obstacle rare earths metals face as an investment is that although classified under the umbrella of rare earths metals, there are 17 different types and they are separated into two categories.

“Rare earth prices are not listed like precious and base metals prices so it is difficult for the average person to invest in,” said Waters. “It’s a barrier to the growth of the industry.

“As the market is maturing, there is going to be a need for a centralized source of information.”

Although newer in the metals world than precious and base metals, information can always be found.

“They’re small markets in comparison to gold, copper and aluminum in terms of tonnage and consumption tonnages,” Frawley said. “In terms of price transparency of these markets you’ll have to dig a little deeper.”

-List of heavy and light rare earths metals and their uses-

Heavy

Yttrium TV, glass and alloys

Promethium Nuclear batteries

Europium TV screens

Gadolinium Superconductors, magnets

Terbium Lasers, fuel cells and alloys

Dysprosium TVs, lasers

Holmium Lasers

Erbium Lasers, vanadium steel

Thulium X-ray source, ceramics

Yterrbium Infrared lasers, high reactive glass

Lutetium Catalyst, PET scanners

Light

Samarium Magnets, lasers, lighting

Neodymium Magnets

Lanthanum Re-chargeable batteries

Cerium Batteries, catalysts, glass polishing

Praseodymium Magnets, glass colorant

Scandium Aluminum alloy: aerospace

By Alex Létourneau of Kitco News
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconews/2011/12/30/2012-outlook-uncertainty-continues-for-rare-earths-prices-china-still-major-player/3/

DOE report finds 5 clean-energy related REEs at risk in short-term

The substantial capex required for the development of a rare earths mine, compounded by major miners’ lack of interest in mining rare earths, may spell trouble in meeting future demand.

A report issued Thursday by the U.S. Department of Energy has determined supplies of five rare earths metals-dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium-are at risk in the short term, potentially impacting clean energy technology deployment in the years ahead.

The 2011 Critical Minerals Strategy examined 16 elements for criticality in wind turbines, electric vehicles, photovoltaic cells and fluorescent lighting. Of those 16 elements, eight are rare earth metals valued for their unique magnetic, optical and catalytic properties.

Five rare earth elements used in magnets for wind turbines and electric vehicles or phosphors for energy-efficient lighting were found to be critical in the short term (present-2015).

Between the short term and the medium term (2015-2025), the importance to clean energy and supply risk shift for some materials.

Other elements-cerium, indium, lanthanum and tellurium-were found to be near-critical.

DOE’s strategy to address critical materials challenges rests on three pillars. To manage supply risk, multiple sources of materials are required. “This means taking steps to facilitate extraction, processing and manufacturing here in the United States, as well as encouraging other nations to expedite alternative supplies,” the report said. “In all cases, extraction, separation and processing should be done in an environmentally sound manner.

“Second, substitutes must be developed,” the report cautioned. “Research leading to material and technology substitutes will improve flexibility and help meet the materials needs of the clean energy economy.”

“Third, recycling, reuse and more efficient use could significantly lower world demand for newly extracted materials,” the DOE advised. “Research into recycling processes coupled with well-designed policies will help make recycling economically viable over time.”

The report also contains three in-depth technology analyses with the following conclusions:

· “Rare earth elements play an important role in petroleum refining, but the sector’s vulnerability to rare earth supply disruptions is limited.”

· “Manufacturers of wind power and electric vehicle technologies are pursuing strategies to respond to possible rare earth shortages. Permanent magnets containing neodymium and dysprosium are used in wind turbine generators and electric vehicle motors. Manufacturers of both technologies are current making decisions on future system design, trading off the performance benefits of neodymium and dysprosium against vulnerability to potential supply shortages.”

 · “As lighting energy efficiency standards are implemented globally, heavy rare earths used in lightning phosphors may be in short supply. In the United States, two sets of lighting energy efficiency standards coming into effect in 2012 will likely lead to an increase in demand for fluorescent lamps containing phosphors made with europium, terbium and yttrium.”

In their analysis, DOE found R&D plays a central role in developing substitutes for rare earth elements. In the past year, the agency has increased its investment in magnet, motor and generator substitutes.

“The demand for key materials has also been driven largely by government regulation and policy,” the report observed.

“Issues surrounding critical materials touch on the missions of many federal agencies,” said the DOE. Since March 2010, an interagency working group on critical materials and their supply chains convened by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has been examining market risks, critical materials in emerging high-growth industries and opportunities for long term-benefit through innovation.

The report also found that, in general, mining and metal processing expertise “has gradually declined in countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, although the need to develop and retain such expertise has received increasing attention in recent years.”

While the number of REO-producing firms located outside of China is small, the proliferation of new rare earth companies “could help ease market concentrations in the years ahead,” the DOE observed. However, “one of the most significant requirements in the rare earth supply chain is the amount of capital needed to commence mining and refining operations…”

“The extraction and, in particular, the processing of rare earth ore is extremely capital intensive, ranging from $100 million to $1 billion of capital expenditure depending on the location and production capacity,” the report noted. “Bringing a greenfield mine to production likely costs in excess of $1 billion.”

“The estimated financial investment needed just to prove the resource (e.g., exploration and drilling) can be up to $50 million,” said the DOE. “The up-front cost of production capacity can range from $15,000 to $40,000 per tonne of annual capacity.’

“Unlike other commodities, rare earth mining generally does not appeal to the major global mining firms because it is a relatively small market (about $3 billion in 2010) and is often less predictable and less transparent than other commodity markets,” the report said.

“Additionally, the processing of rare earth elements into high-purity REOs is fundamentally a chemical process that is often highly specialized to meet the needs of particular customers,” the study noted. “It requires unique mineral processing know-how that is not transferrable to other mining operations. These factors reduce the appeal of rare earths production to the major mining companies, leaving the field mostly to junior miners.”

The report observed that smaller mining companies face a number of challenges, including being less well-capitalized than the majors and may find it difficult to raise money from traditional market. Certain macroeconomic conditions, particularly tight credit and volatile equity markets, can contribute to these difficulties.

“Successful public flotations require fairly advanced operations with proven resources, a bankable feasibility study and often customer contracts or off-take agreements in place that ensure some level of revenue,” the agency said. The DOE noted that Molycorp and Lynas Corporation have the largest capitalizations, “reflecting in part their expansion of large established mines.”

By: Dorothy Kosich
Source: http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72102?oid=142195&sn=Detail&pid=102055

Gallium Helping Us Stay Connected

Rare Earth Metal - Gallium

The element so instrumental in the success of CIGS or Copper Indium Gallium Selenide solar panels garners little respect. If you do some research on Gallium you will see very few articles on this element. What you see is people talking about how to make melting spoons, and talk of the metal melting in your hand due to its low melting point of 85° F or 29.8° C. Here we are going to go over the history of Gallium and its uses in technology today.

Gallium has the symbol of Ga and the atomic number 31 on the periodic table of the elements. In 1875 Paul Emile Lecoq de Boisbaudran discovered Gallium spectroscopically. He saw Gallium´s characteristic two violet lines. Gallium does not occur free in nature. Lecoq was able to obtain the free element using electrolysis.

Gallium is found in bauxite, sphalerite and coal. It is primarily extracted from Aluminum and Zinc production. The exact amounts mined and recycled are very difficult to quantify. According to the United States Geological Survey the total amount mined in 2010 was approximately 106 t and the total recycled was approximately 78 t. Gallium supply is highly reliant on other Aluminum and Zinc mining for its supply, when the prices of the base metals fall the amount of Gallium available will be highly affected. Similar to other rare industrial metals, mining companies will not invest in the production of these metals because the markets are so small.

The uses of Gallium are found all around you. Semiconductors, LED´s, medicine, electronic components, CIGS solar and new tech like IGZO (Indium, Gallium, Zinc and Oxygen) LCD screens. The new iPhone 5 will have this kind of LCD. Over 90% is used in electronic components in the form GaAs (Gallium Arsenide). Recently CIGS solar panels reached an unprecedented 20.3% efficiency once again proving that CIGS is the most efficient form of solar on the market. The technology that will greatly increase the use of Gallium is smartphones. Analysts predict that smartphone use will grow at a rate of 15-25% over the next several years. Recently LED´s backlit screen TV´s and computer monitors have been all the rage. The LED screen market will continue to grow, further putting strain on the small Gallium supply.

The top producers of Gallium are China, Kazakhstan and Germany. Once again China has a strong position in the production of a rare industrial metal. The difference with Gallium is that almost 40% of the metal produced every year is coming from recycling.

With all of the new technologies coming along using Gallium what will the market for this metal look like in a few years? Unlike some metals like Silver and Gold, Gallium is not traded on the LME (London Metal Exchange). This makes the price of Gallium very stable. Rare industrial or technical metals are small markets with big possibilities. So if you are looking for an investment that is rarely talked about, Gallium could be a good option.

 By: Randy Hilarski - The Rare Metals Guy

Gold and Silver Imports in India Surge 222% Amid Worry Over Currency Devaluation

Gold was marginally higher in most currencies Tuesday and on the verge of making new nominal highs in dollars, euros and pounds.

It is holding near record highs as there is no quick end in sight to economic turmoil in Europe after Greece was told to approve brutal new austerity measures to avoid defaulting on its debt. This would threaten the solvency of many western banks and the European Central Bank’s Fernandez Ordonez (member of the ECB’s governing council) warned Tuesday morning that the Greek crisis could have “€˜transcendent consequences€™”.

Further evidence of continuing very significant and robust demand from Asia and from China and India in particular was seen in massive Indian gold and silver imports. The figures released overnight showed a huge surge of 222% in May 2011, compared with May 2010.

Cross Currency Rates

Imports of gold and silver were a staggering $8.96 billion in May, a growth of 500% over the previous month and 222% over last year.

Official inflation rates in India have surged to 8.65% and people on the Indian sub continent are concerned about the devaluation of the rupee and the erosion of the purchasing power of their savings.

While the rupee has maintained its value against the beleaguered U.S. dollar it has fallen sharply against gold and silver and against oil and the other food and energy commodities.

Gold has always been seen as a store of value against currency debasement, inflation and hyperinflation in Asia. This is especially the case in India and we appear to be witnessing an acceleration in the recent trend of Indians opting to buy gold and silver bullion in order to protect their savings.

India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, bought 200 tonnes of gold from the IMF in the months preceding an announcement in November 2009. Given its huge dollar reserves it is likely that it is continuing to diversify foreign exchange holdings and further announcements of increased gold reserves are likely in the coming months.

Despite the increase in reserves its gold holdings remain paltry when compared with the U.S. and European gold reserves.

Most creditor nation central banks in the world are now diversifying out of the major currencies, the dollar and the euro, and into gold. These include the People’s Bank of China, the Russian central bank and central banks in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Mexico, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

News came Monday that Russia’€™s central bank again increased its gold holdings to 26.7 million troy ounces last month, from 26.5 million at the end April. The Bank of Rossii said its gold reserves were valued at $41 billion as of June 1, compared with $40.7 billion a month earlier.

It is interesting that the Reserve Bank of India has granted licenses to seven more banks to import gold and silver bullion and this is indicative of the favorable view of gold and silver in India – both amongst the public and at the official level.

Indian banks are thus likely contributing to the massive increase in demand for gold and silver. Chinese banks are also catering to the increased demand of Chinese people for gold bullion for investment and savings purposes.

This is in marked contrast to their western banking counterparts, the vast majority of which, do not offer gold or silver investments at all.

As of the start of 2011, some 30 banks in India have been granted permission to import gold and silver. New additions to the list were Karur Vysya Bank, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, State Bank of Hyderabad, Punjab and Sind Bank, South Indian Bank, State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore.

Since the start of 2011, India’s benchmark stock index, the Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive Index, is down by more than 14% while gold in rupee terms is up 9%. The Sensex is essentially flat in the last year and the last 3 years despite soaring inflation.

The increased demand from India and wider Asia is sustainable and one of the fundamental reasons that gold and silver’€™s bull market remain very much intact.

Importantly, China was expected to surpass India as the world’€™s largest gold importer this year. After the most recent Indian import figures this is now not certain.

Chinese investors more than doubled their purchases of gold during the first quarter in 2011, compared with the same period last year. China invested $4.1 billion into gold bars and coins during this first quarter of 2011.

China’s investment demand increased to 90.0 metric tonnes (40.7 tonnes in the year prior), compared with India’s 85.6 tonnes.

Gold in Australian Dollars Breaking Out?

In a report Tuesday, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences conservatively estimated that bullion may average $1,500 an ounce this year. The metal has averaged $1,445 so far in 2011.

“€œUncertainty about the ability of many developed economies to stimulate economic growth and control growing budget deficits is expected to encourage investment demand for gold as a lower risk, or safe haven, asset,”, the Canberra-based agency said.

Despite some calling the Australian dollar a “€œsafe haven”€ currency, the Australian dollar has been sold recently and gold appears to be in the early stages of breaking out in terms of Australian dollars.

This is another indication of the global nature of gold’€™s bull market and the fact that all fiat currencies are now vulnerable to currency debasement and devaluation. Focusing on gold solely in U.S. dollar terms remains simplistic and misleading.

Gold’s consolidation in recent months in all currencies and gradual gains since late January suggest that we may be on the verge of a break out in all currencies and a powerful move upward in the next leg of the precious metal bull markets.

Silver to outperform gold

Eric Sprott believes that silver is likely to be the investment of the decade and could easily get to $50 per ounce by the end of the 2011. Eric Sprott is the founder of the Toronto-based investment firm, Sprott Asset Management LP. His renowned hedge fund, Sprott Hedge Fund LP, is heavily weighted in precious metals and has generated an estimated 23% annualized return over the past decade.

Silver promises to become the next big buzzword among investors in 2011 and beyond, according to one of the investment industry’s most prescient and successful experts on precious metals. “I think that silver could easily get to $50 this year,” Sprott tells BNWnews.ca.

Meanwhile, Sprott says the big catalyst for surging silver prices in the coming years will be exponentially increasing investment demand, which is already beginning to overwhelm existing silver supplies. The mining industry only produces around 800 tonnes of silver per annum. This is a relatively inelastic supply, regardless of silver prices, he adds.

As household investors are becoming increasingly jittery about the debasement of the U.S. dollar and other major currencies, they are loading up in record numbers on silver bars, coins and silver-denominated exchange traded funds, Sprott says.

However, there’s also a quantum shift in investment demand taking place among big players in the precious metals market, including India (which is aiming to increase its imports by about 77 million ounces per annum), and of course China.

“China’s net imports of silver were 112 million ounces last year. In 2005, they were net exporters of 100 million ounces,” he says. ”That’s a 200 million ounce shift in an 800 million ounce annual market that seldom ever grows because production hardly ever goes up. So where’s it all going to come from? We don’t know.”

In fact, silver promises to outshine gold over the coming years, Sprott says. “Silver is the poor man’s gold. Gold has had a great run for the past 11 years. But I absolutely believe that silver will outperform gold this year. Currently, there’s more investment dollars going into silver than into gold.”

Such a game-changing scenario should recalibrate the gold to silver pricing ratio in silver’s favor, thereby eventually restoring it to its traditional level of about 16 to 1, he says. “It’s the easiest call of all time.”

“Silver as a currency always traded in a ratio of around 16 to 1 compared to gold, when it was a currency in the U.S. and the U.K. The current ratio is 48 to 1. If we go back to a 16 to 1 ratio, the implied price for silver would be $85.62 (per ounce).” he adds.

“On that basis, if gold goes to $1,600, then that would value silver at $100. And we certainly think that gold is going to $1,600. In fact, I’m willing to bet that this ratio will overshoot on the downside. It might even get to 10 to one.”

The only reason why silver is still trading at a 48 to 1 ratio to bullion’s spot price is that its price is being “manipulated” by big banks, Sprott says. That’s because they don’t want precious metals to become a popular alternative currency to Fiat money (currencies that are not backed by hard assets).

“Then there’s also a huge short position out there on silver,” he adds.

But time is on silver’s side, he says, as the sovereignty debt crisis deepens in Europe and a continued policy of qquantitative easing in the U.S. continues to undermine the value of the greenback.

To read more click here

2011 Looks Good for Cleantech Industries

Is the air leaking out of the buoyant cleantech sector? We’€™ve been hearing such chatter for months, but Dallas Kachan of the consulting firm Kachan & Co. is out with a forecast that says not to worry: 2010 was a glorious year for cleantech investment and more of the same is on tap for 2011. Kachan says that there are simply too many factors driving venture capital into the sector.

We predict these drivers€“ particularly the real or perceived scarcity around oil, rare earth elements and other commodities will be felt even more acutely in 2011, especially as the Chinese middle class expands, further cementing the demand for and the market validity of clean technologies,€ Kachan, managing partner of Kachan & Co., says in a press release.

Kachan says one notable feature he expects in 2011 is €œa return to early state venture investments as government grants and loan guarantees begin to fade. €œVenture investment in cleantech will return to what it does best: seeking out emerging early stage technologies and teams that promise good multiples, and will be less influenced by governments putting large amounts of capital to work themselves, Kachan says.

The subcategory getting the most attention, he says, will be efficiency, which Kachan said began to get €œserious traction€ in 2010 with big announcements, investments and acquisitions by GE in the third quarter and energy-efficiency plans unveiled in recent weeks by Russia.