patrick_mahoney said:
Sounds very similar to the oil companys excuse that there isn't enough refineries that's causing the high gas prices when they're the ones to blame for steadfastly refusing to build any new ones.
Except that the US refinery problem is in the US involving less than a half dozen companies, while this would require a world-wide conspiracy that involves literally over 450 different nickel mining companies... several of which are state-owned. I couldn't find a list of production stats by company - although I tried - but I'm pretty sure that the top 3 companies control less than 50% of the market. When a couple of companies control 80% of production, that's one thing, but when it takes literally dozens of companies to reach 80% production, then it becomes much, much harder to manipulate the market. What company wants to limit their income at a time of tight supply? That's the time to rake it in... with all the production coming online in the next couple of years, this spike is only going to be temporary.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Then you disagree with the facts.
A little <A HREF="http://www.chemlink.com.au/nickel.htm">background</A>, albeit from 2000.
If you have anything more recent, please lay it on me.
I know the nickel landscape has shifted recently but haven't been following intently.
If anything the concentration has gotten greater in fewer hands.
Production
World production of nickel is 930,000 tonnes per year (of which 740 000 tonnes is new nickel). Production since 1990 has remained within 7 per cent of 1 million tonnes. About 230 000 tonnes (one quarter) is produced by Russia, 210 000 tonnes (one-fifth, of which Inco produces 180 000 tonnes) by Canada and one eighth each by New Caledonia and Western Australia (W.A.). While total production has remained steady, the new low-cost producers, notably in W.A., Indonesia and Colombia have promoted closures and intended closures in Canada and the USA and reductions in other countries.
New production is from Russia and CIS with exports of primary forms of 230 000 tonnes (one quarter of world production) in 1998; Cuba exported 60 000 tonnes, Colombia (Cerro Matoso) to produce 35 000 tonnes, PT Inco doubling by 2000 to 68 000 tonnes.
Canada has the Falconbridge's Raglan mine with a capacity of 21,000tpa. Inco owns the Voisey Bay laterite nickel deposit that could produce 120,000 tonnes based on 1000 mt of ore (though some is very deep and expensive to develop). In Jan 2000, though having paid A$4 billion in 1996, the project has been deferred.
Inco also has owns the world's largest nickel deposit at Goro in New Caledonia. It could produce 30,000 tpa by 2003 with acid leaching of the laterite nickel. With high rainfall, the project may have to pump the tailings into the ocean (unlike the WA projects operating in dry, high evaporation rate areas) that may cause environmental problems.)
Russia's large Norilsk project produces 210,000 tonnes based on sulfide deposits
Canadian production is essentially under <A HREF="http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30857/story.htm">one roof </A>.
It's reports like this among others that have shaped my opinion.
Story by Nicole Mordant
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
CANADA: May 19, 2005
VANCOUVER - The world's biggest nickel producers, already benefiting from nickel prices near 16-year highs, are starting to wax lyrical about the demand potential of the hybrid car market
Vigorous global demand for nickel and tight supply are not stopping Canada's Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd., respectively the world's No. 2 and 3 producers, from training their sights on the small but fast-growing market for hydrid electric/gasoline vehicles, which use nickel-containing rechargeable batteries.
Russia I'm assuming is a government run operation, therefore one company, just like their oil.
Together the top three own 45 to 50% of the world market.
How difficult would it be to invite another partner to the dance to push that to over 50% for complete control?
Even at 45% you can have
effective control over pricing.
So nowhere near 450 'conspirators' required.
A half dozen should do it.
Where did that 450 figure come from anyway?
How many of those are subsidiaries & corporate cutouts for the larger firms?
A lot of different tentacles of the same body.
Even a large cartel will hang together for a time, but that's not the case here.
There's more to the Reuters article & it presents a well balanced picture, but my only point here is that it illustrates how these companies think & as is often the case, since they don't think what they're doing is wrong will openly & freely admit to engaging in what you term 'conspiracy'. I call it 'people are greedy' & is the natural order of things, as natural as water flows downhill. When two or more large companies get together to pull in the same direction & act as one, does anyone truly expect prices to drop?
I just fail to understand why it seems the majority of people have such a difficult time accepting that this goes on & that the whole point of forming alliances & mergers is so you can gouge with impugnity.
Anyway to loosely tie it back to the topic at hand, the same jockeying for control over lithium is underway right now.
No matter which hole the mice run to, it's always the same trap.
Strange....
)
The main things is "are the Lithium batteries actually for real?" and apparently the testing is still going on, but it looks promising. 
