In an article about world oil prices posted on CNN yesterday, Exxon CEO Rex W. Tillerson, is quoted “Crude prices in New York would be around $40-$45 a barrel without the risk of supply disruptions.” That may be true, but if we look at recent price history, that’s still 2x what crude was selling for in 2002. Check the chart below which has the average price of crude oil per barrel.



I believe that market demand, not only from the US, but globally continues to increase while supply stays relatively flat. That’s a sure fire recipe for price increase. Yes, more oil reserves are being discovered, but each successive discovery is more expensive to harvest. Make no mistake about it, oil is never going to be “cheap” again.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Tune: Party Girl by U2
Technorati Tags: Energy | Oil Price | Supply Disruption | Mike Harding Blog

Well, the M-Zone doesn’t have much to report on now other than obscure winter (sports?) – like snow snorkeling and perhaps we’ll see a curling entry. But, those fellows are always good for a laugh or two. So, they’ve brought us this:

Click the picture to get the whole story….if you want it.




If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Tune: Que Onda Guero by Beck
Technorati Tags: Snow Snorkeling | Obscure Sports | M-Zone | Mike Harding Blog

The Reese River project is underway with a 1,200m slim hole for exploration. Sierra Geothermal expects to tap somewhere between 13 and 30 megawatts (MW) when the project enters production. At 30MW, that represents enough power to run around 26,000 households in the US for a year.

An interesting side note on this is that Sierra’s drilling program is receiving some $580,000 of Federal assistance throught the GRED program, a program that has been eliminated with the release of the FY2007 US Federal budget. See this entry for more detail on this subject.

Thanks to Jim for passing this along.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Tune: Yellow by Coldplay
Technorati Tags: Energy | Geothermal | Drilling | Mike Harding Blog

Joint Venture of Silicon Valley publishes an annual report attempting to provide a holistic view of life and opportunity in the valley. To their credit, I’ve not seen a more complete view than what they’ve published – tip of the hat to Kevin for passing this along. The report for 2006 is available here. The report covers people, economy, society, place, and governance in the valley and is assembled by a diverse group of private and public agencies.

The general report is interesting enough, but I found a section on investment in clean tech to be very telling. Overall venture investment in the valley Quarters 1-3 in 2005 (Q4 2006 not yet available, so this will be a 3 quarter comparison) was $4.6B. The same period in 2006 saw the total rise to $5.2B, a healthy 13% increase year over year.

When we break out the clean tech segment, it’s even more interesting. Check the chart below:



As you can see the 2005 Q1-3 total investment was on the order of $95M compared with $480M in the same period for 2006. A 505% increase year over year. Perhaps even more importantly, the total share of clean tech in the overall venture picture increased from 2% in 2005 to 9% in 2006. The chart below gives a breakout of the general areas of investment in clean tech and the dollar amount in each category:



It’s clear that we’re starting to see a shift in the way people are thinking about “green” from something that “is good for the planet” to something that “is good business.” And that’s exactly the shift that needs to happen, until these technologies and their attendant environmental benefits are profitable, we won’t see the magnitudes of change required to make a difference. However, venture capitalists as a rule seek out places their money can work at multiples, it’s encouraging to see the expectation of returns in this segment.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Tune: Laissez Faire by Bruce Daigrepont
Technorati Tags: Energy | Investment | Clean Tech | Mike Harding Blog

Like many people at the beginning of the year, I find myself on a diet. I’ve been doing pretty well this year shedding nearly 15 lbs (6.8 kg) thus far. Unfortunately, I’ve still got some work to do in that front. As a consequence, I’ve been watching what I eat and how it affects weight loss.

I’ve always believed that sushi is a pretty healthy meal, not much “bad” fat, one tends to feel a little hungry not long after the meal. But, I was shocked to discover the actual kcal in each morsel. Just in case you’re interested, here’s a listing of some sushi favorites with associated kcal:

• Nigiri Ebi (Shrimp 2 pcs.) – 72 kcal
• Nigiri Maguro (Tuna 2 pcs.) – 90 kcal
• Nigiri Sake (Salmon 2 pcs.) – 120 kcal
• Nigiri Hamachi (Yellowtail 2 pcs.) – 120 kcal
• Nigiri Hirami (Flounder 2 pcs.) – 78 kcal
• Nigiri Ika (Squid 2 pcs.) – 78 kcal
• Nigiri Kani (Crab 2 pcs.) – 90 kcal
• Nigiri Saba (Mackerel 2 pcs.) – 120 kcal
• Nigiri Unagi (Eel 2 pcs.) – 125 kcal
• Nigiri Tako (Octopus 2 pcs.) – 76 kcal (and who knows how many kcal are burned chewing it!)
• Kappa Maki (Cucumber roll 6 pcs) – 105 kcal
• Tekka Maki (Tuna roll 6 pcs) – 145 kcal

Individually, none of these are going to kill you. But if you order too many at one time (read, Mike last night at dinner) you’re sure to pay for it at the scale the next day. This doesn’t factor the ginger, soy sauce, and wasabi nor the impact of any adult beverages. No doubt, sushi tastes wonderful and is a good meal. But like anything else, it needs to be eaten in moderation (note to self: go easy on the nigiri next time.)

Want to eat at home? Copy Cat Cookbook has your favorite restaurant’s recipes.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Tune: Chain of Fools by Aretha Franklin
Technorati Tags: Sushi | Caloric Content | Weight Loss | Mike Harding Blog