Client 9 and how to spend our tax-cut dollars in the US?

March 16, 2008

The business circles have been buzzing with jokes about (former) NY state governor Eliot Spitzer, who is now better known as Client 9, and his scandal involving a prostitute called Kristin (real name: Ashley Duprey). Hardly a day has gone by since the scandal broke out on news that I have not heard a joke related to it. I even joined a business conference call last week where one party dialed in and instead of using their real name, announced themselves as Client 9. There was a deadening silence… until we realized the joke and broke out into laughter.

All realities around Client 9, his beloved Kristin (who has a My Space website and yes, I did check it out), and his poor wife aside, I am amused by the whole issue. Why do we care so much about other peoples’ sex lives? Why are the holier-than-thou usually found with their pants down by their feet? and why are the democrats paying $5000+ for a sexual rendezvous while republicans are looking for it for free in public restrooms? :-) (this is a Jay Leno joke!)

Anyways…I am outside the country right now and even here, the Client 9 story is following me. Or at least I can’t seem to get over it. Allow me my fun, please.

Here is a short letter to the editor I read today in the International Herald Tribune:

George W. Bush said each American would get a $600 check as a part of a stimulus package. If we spend the money at Wal-Mart, it will all go to China. If we spend it on computers, it will go mostly to Korea or India. If we spend it on gasoline, it will go to the Arab countries. None of these scenarios will help the US economy.

We need to keep the money in America. Currently, it seems that the only way to do that is to drink beer, gamble, or spend it on prostitution, the only businesses still left in the United States.

- Ted Rudow Menlo Park, California


Disruptive Technologies: Compatible or Incompatible?

March 9, 2008

Technology startups are all about disruption. If your technology is not disruptive, then it is hard to get funded, and even harder to succeed. Why would someone buy your stuff when someone else has something rather similar, and with lots of experience (and scale) behind it?

But then…the clean-tech startup movement has provided a reason to more critically analyze this disruptive nature of innovation. While disruptive technologies typically arrive with a different S-curve which eventually aspires to surpass the S-curves of incumbent technologies, how should they enter the marketplace, especially in entrenched industries where change is hard to come by? i.e. Do you blow up value chains and do everything completely different (as was described in Blown to Bits by some BCG alums), or is there a way to introduce disruption while working with existing value chains so the adoption is easier and less risky? The former could be Incompatible Disruption, while the latter could be called Compatible Disruption.

There are examples of both right before us in the clean-tech sector. For example, electric cars are disruptive (needing all kinds of infrastructure changes to improve fuel economy), but diesels and hybrids are not (minor change from a user point of view). GEO2 itself is a probably going to be an interesting case study on this issue at some point - but I am not allowed to speak freely about it as yet. So I won’t. But some decisions we will make will tell our thoughts on this problem in our industry.

But I want to point to two very interesting articles on this topic. I am linking them here so read them on… Exciting stuff.

GreenTech Media
by Rob Day

Almost all VCs will say that they look to invest in “disruptive” technologies — new products or systems where the value proposition is so markedly better in comparison to the incumbent choices that the market will have little choice but to go with the new option. Venture capital, needing to see rapid growth potential, naturally needs to see such opportunities, so it’s easy for VCs to say that they’re looking for Disruptive Technologies.

But VCs mean different things when they say this. And in cleantech, the differences between what I’ll call Compatible Disruptive Technologies and Incompatible Disruptive Technologies are, perhaps, even more stark than in other sectors.

Read the rest of this entry »


Built to Last, or Built to Flip…

March 5, 2008

I am attending a class at Sloan next week - discussing how we built the GEO2’s entrepreneurial organization, developed our business plan, and worked towards execution on our strategy for entering a staid automotive component market place. The class, I am told, read this following article by Jim Collins which may be on their mind as they speak with us….I am sharing it here. Interesting ideas. I particularly agree with the last para.

March 2000

Built to Flip
Fast Company
by Jim Collins

“I developed our business model on the idea of creating an enduring, great company—just as you taught us to do at Stanford—and the VCs looked at me as if I were crazy. Then one of them pointed his finger at me and said, ‘We’re not interested in enduring, great companies. Come back with an idea that you can do quickly and that you can take public or get acquired within 12 to 18 months.’ ”

A former student was reporting to me on her recent experiences with the Silicon Valley investment community. As an MBA student at Stanford, she had taken my course on building enduring, great companies. She had come up with a superb concept that involved doing just that. But when she took the idea to Silicon Valley, she quickly got the message: Built to Last is out. Built to Flip is in.

Built to Flip. An intriguing idea: No need to build a company, much less one with enduring value. Today, it’s enough to pull together a good story, to implement the rough draft of an idea, and—presto!—instant wealth. No need to bother with the time-honored method of most self-made millionaires: to create substantial value by working diligently over an extended period. In the built-to-flip world, the notion of investing persistent effort in order to build a great company seems, well, quaint, unnecessary—even stupid.

The built-to-flip mind-set views entrepreneurs like Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, cofounders of Hewlett-Packard, and Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, as if they were ancient history, artifacts of a bygone era: They were well-meaning and right for their times, but today they look like total anachronisms. Imagine Hewlett and Packard sitting in their garage, sipping lattes, and saying to each other, “If we do this right, we can sell this thing off and cash out in 12 months.” Now that’s an altogether different version of the HP Way! Or picture Walton collecting a wheelbarrow full of cash from flipping his first store after 18 months, rather than building a company whose annual revenues now exceed $130 billion. These entrepreneurs and others like them—Walt Disney, Henry Ford, George Merck, William Boeing, Paul Galvin of Motorola, Gordon Moore of Intel—were pedestrian plodders by today’s built-to-flip standards. They worked hard to create a superb management team, to develop a sustainable economic engine, to cultivate a culture that could withstand adversity and change, and to be the best in the world at what they did. But not to worry! In the built-to-flip economy, you can get rich without any of those mundane fundamentals.

Read the rest of this entry »


MIT economist sees U.S. weathering $100 oil

January 4, 2008

Oil has finally hit $100/barrel. To some, it seems, this is finally the trigger that will force major societal changes - a price point for oil commodity that may now impact not just our outlook on the cost/benefit analysis of investments in renewable energy sources (i.e. non fossil fuel based), but also our consumption patterns (i.e. improving our nega-watts).

But I am no so sure. I feel, an d I qualify this by saying that this is more of a gut feeling than any kind of careful analysis, that people won’t feel the need to make a change in their behavior unless the change was rapid, sharp and highly publicized. I also worry if at such high prices, some of the more dirty fuels, such as tar-sands etc might also start getting exploited.

But what do I know….let’s read what an economist has to say about the impact on the $100 oil (source: MIT News):

MIT economist sees U.S. weathering $100 oil

Sarah H. Wright, News Office
January 2, 2008

As the price of oil doubled over the last year, hitting the $100 mark for the first time on Jan. 2, it may have looked like 1973 all over again to some observers. But research by MIT macroeconomist Olivier Blanchard, Class of 1941 Professor of Economics, shows that a return to 1970s-style gas lines and stagflation isn’t in the cards.

Blanchard’s paper, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Price Shocks: Why are the 2000s so different from the 1970s?” outlines changes in U.S. and global economic policies between the two eras. Cited in The Economist (Nov. 17) as an explainer for the current situation, the paper was co-written by Blanchard’s colleague Jordi Gali (Ph.D. 1989) of the Center for International Economic Research in Barcelona.

Blanchard discussed the differences between the oil shocks in the 1970s and in the 2000s during a recent interview with the MIT News Office.

Q: Four price-doubling oil shocks have occurred in 35 years–1973, 1979, 1999 and now. How have economic reactions differed?

A: In the 1970s, there were two sharp recessions and sharply higher inflation. This time around, the economy has remained strong, and inflation has barely bulged.

Q: What’s behind the differences? Why was 1973 so different from 2007?

A: In the 1970s, the adverse effects of oil price increases were compounded by other adverse shocks–a sharp slowdown in productivity growth and large increases in the price of raw materials.

In the 2000s, the effects of oil price increases have been partly offset by other shocks, this time favorable–sustained productivity growth and strong Asian growth, for example.

Read the rest of this entry »


Boston Globe: GEO2 profiled

December 13, 2007

A good coverage for us in The Boston Globe. Wish Rob and I smiled a bit in the photo :-)



Woburn firm’s goal? World domination

Small company’s filter cleans up diesel exhaust

By Davis Bushnell

Globe Correspondent / December 13, 2007 WOBURN - GEO2 Technologies of Woburn is a small, fledgling company with big ambitions: to have its patented filter for making diesel engines cleaner and more fuel-efficient become the standard for excellence worldwide.

To do that, the privately held company must license its technology or be acquired by a global corporation, said chief executive Rob Lachenauer, 46, who founded the firm 3 1/2 years ago with Bilal Zuberi, 31, now vice president-product development.

Previously, both worked for the Boston Consulting Group; Lachenauer as a partner, Zuberi as a consultant. The company’s first office was in Lachenauer’s Weston garage. It moved into 5,000-square-foot quarters in Woburn, off Cabot Road, in January 2005. There also is a small facility in Wilmington for diesel engine and component testing. GE02 has 25 employees.

“We’re now deep into negotiations with potential partners,” Lachenauer said in an interview last week, declining to be specific for competitive reasons. “In six months, we expect to have something.”

The challenge will be “to sort out various options and then make the right choice,” said Jim Bartlett, a Cleveland venture capitalist who is a GEO2 investor and board member.

So far, between $20 million and $25 million has been raised from individuals and a Palo Alto, Calif.-based venture firm, Firelake Capital Management, Lachenauer said. Corning Inc., the US-based specialty glass and ceramic manufacturer, and two Japanese companies control 90 percent of the particulate filter market internationally, Lachenauer said.

“All of them, as well as others, are aware” of GEO2’s product development work, he added.

The company’s particulate filter is 5.66 inches in diameter and 6 inches long, and consists of “high-temperature, ceramic microfibers,” said Zuberi, a Pakistan native who has a doctoral degree in physical chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Laboratory tests have revealed the filter can remove 99 percent of particulates, or soot, in diesel engines, according to Zuberi and Lachenauer. “It is lighter, stronger, and has a lower impact on fuel economy, thereby yielding better vehicle performance than other comparable filters,” Lachenauer said.

Read the rest of this entry »


Hawkeye, an ethanol company pulls its IPO

November 26, 2006

I have written about ethanol before, and regular readers will recognize that I tinge at the thought of an ethanol IPO valued at hundreds of millions of dollars! For what? What need is it fulfilling, and what sustainability does the industry project? I strongly support research in biosciences for understanding the enzyme based conversion of plant cellulose into ethanol, but that is not the same as the standard ethanol refining capacity that others have invested in over this past summer.

Now the market has also given the message loud and clear (at least for the time being) to the ethanol investors: Study the fundamentals before doing a quick flip to make a buck or two from unsuspecting investors. Hawkeye Holdings, an ethanol company owned by Thomas H. Lee Partners, today pulled the plug on its proposed $350 million IPO. This comes after an initial delay in th IPO that was announced back in September. This was a classic attempt by Thomas H Lee Partners to do a quick flip because they had barely bought their shares in the company in may (80% ownership acquired), and as Dan Primack of PEHub reports, prospectuses for the IPO arrived 3 weeks later. Fortunately, that stunt was rejected by the market at large.

I was astounded when a few ethanol companies, such as VeraSun and Aventine Renewable Energy, had blockbuster IPOs this summer. However, it seems the investor population that bought into ethanol at that time not only mistimed, but also bet on what is otherwise a commodity product at high technology growth prices (P/E ratios very very high). They learnt their lesson fast. PEHub reports the following on their performance:

VeraSun Energy (NYSE: VSE) seemed like a big hit when it raised $420 million back in June, with a stock price that climbed up to $30 per share on its first day of trading. But it’s been almost all downhill from there. The stock slipped below its $23 per share IPO price just two months later, and even fell as low as $14.88 per share. For the past week it’s been at around $22 per share. Aventine Renewable Energy (NYSE: AVR) has suffered even worse since its June IPO, which raised around $390 million. The Pekin, Ill.-based company priced at $43 per share, but opened trading today at 23.14 per share.

A stock chart obtained from Yahoo finance for AVR is given below.

Aventine Renewable Energy Stock chart

Dan Primack is pointing an article in Buyouts magazine to say that eventually the deals might still work out for the investors, thanks to a drop in ethanol prices. Well, one hopes so. I do so too, partly because a failure of ethanol stocks may be perceived as additional risk in investments in the broader clean-tech category, which would be totally misplaced and wrong. Clean-tech is not just an emerging area, but most of it is entirely based on new science and technology which promises to bring new and exciting prospects for energy, storage, and emissions reduction technologies in the future. Investments in novel clean technologies should be valued for growth, but not those in standard ethanol refineries.


Is The dot-com Boom 2.0 “on” Now? Here’s One Way to Get “in” On It.

November 22, 2006

Oh God. I am soooo behind on posts.

This has been a hectic time at work, working hard towards getting the product (vversion 1.0) out of the door and into testing. Well, i think we have finally made it that far. Our product is now in testing at an independent lab and we anxiously await the results. Product development never stops and hence this is just our first big test in a series of tests to come. We expect to have a few problems, but that will just help us guide in the right direction….

Enough on that. I have a lot of things I want to vent about but I will take it easy and chose a few ideas to share over the next few days/weeks.

Is the dot-com boom 2.0 on now? I sure think so. The dot-com boom has returned, even though we all hope that the forces to be have learnt from the last experience and there will be a lot more survivors this time around when the boom ends. Why do I think its another boom? Well, for two reasons:

1. There are now dozens of IT/internet startups propping up, some of which are hardpressed to even fully describe what they are all about. Essentially, once again, if you have an internet business idea which has at least the qualification that it is not exactly the same as someone else, you can start a company and get some funding from a VC or other investors. Lots of dating sites, social networking sites, music sharing sites, photo sharing sites, and shopping sites are propping up with revenue models that are far from certain, or even well thought out.

2. Check out http://www.agloco.com. The presence of this site definitely sends a signal that the boom is on. And this time, I will try to be “in” on the boom if I can in a small way. Heck, why should I not try to make a buck or two, esepcially if it does not cost me anything :)

Here’s the thing (and how you can get “in” on this dot-com boom 2.0:

Companies like Google (yes, the master Google-dom) are making billions of dollars in revenue generated by ads. By the simple virtue of getting people to search using their search engines, Google has been able to generate so much revenue that its stock price topped the $500 mark yesterday. And it is us, yes we as in you and I, that are helping Google make that revenue. Google has nothing to offer to its adevertising payors if you and I decided to move to Yahoo or to somebody else not using Google engines (AOL does not count since it uses Google. But check this out: Google pays AOL ~10 cents for each search conducted by AOL users).

Read the rest of this entry »


Private Equity Firms as Corporate Sharks?

August 3, 2006

If you have any interest in venture capital or private equity, I highly recommend signing up for the PE Week Wire that Dan Primack (and his colleagues) so brilliantly put together every day. Dan’s commentary in the daily wire is usually the most interesting read for me and today he provided a stunning analysis of what some of the large private equity firms are doing with leveraged buy-outs (LBOs) when they really should not be! They are already making tons of money on turning around lagging companies, so why extract so much cash out of the businesses they spin out that it sends the other shareholders’ value nose-diving? Read on:

PE Week Wire — Thursday, August 3

Return of the Corporate Raiders Burger King is supposed to represent the best of what private equity has to offer. Unfortunately, it also represents the worst.For the uninitiated: Burger King was acquired in 2002 by Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners and Texas Pacific Group. The transaction was valued at around $1.5 billion, including just $300 million in equity. If this sounds surprisingly low for the world’s number two patty flipper, that’s because it was.Burger King had been sagging under the umbrella of
UK beverage giant Diageo PLC, but still managed to get a $2.6 billion bid from Bain/GS/TPG in July 2002. This would have valued BK at 7x EBITDA. Soon after, however, the overall fast-food market took a nosedive – many blamed increased competition – and the consortium withdrew its offer. The two sides spent several months renegotiating, and eventually agreed on the $1.5 billion price, which shaved the EBIDTA multiple to just 5x.
Fast forward a few years and Burger King seemed revived. It still wasn’t close to overcoming the clown, but nonetheless was able to generate increased sales for seven consecutive quarters. It also settled on a well-received advertising campaign — the BK Mascot ones, not the absurd flowering burger ad from the Super Bowl. By February of this year, the company was stable enough to file for a $400 million IPO.Some felt that the offering would be sidetracked by the surprise resignation of CEO Greg Brenneman, but it nonetheless priced in May at the top of its range, generating approximately $425 million and valuing the company at around $2.25 billion. Bain, GS and TPG took what seemed to be well-deserved bows. Bain even had the BK mascot show up at its most recently LP meeting (sans Brooke Burke).But all of this was masking the unfortunate fact that Bain/GS/TPG were stripping the company of cash, and shareholders of value. I’m not suggesting Refco-like fraud here, but rather a completely-transparent, one-time $30 million management termination fee paid by Burger King to its LBO backers on the day of IPO. Most people didn’t pay too much attention, until the company reported its first post-IPO earnings earlier this week. As the Associated Press wrote:

In its first earnings report since going public, Burger King Holdings Inc., the world’s No. 2 hamburger chain, on Tuesday said it swung to a loss in its fiscal fourth quarter profit because of a one-time fee associated with its IPO.

What should make this so perplexing to regular shareholders is that while Burger King’s balance sheet went from black to red, its sales actually increased. Perhaps it could have supplemented the termination fee with some of its IPO proceeds, but the vast majority of those were used to pay off a dividend to… the private equity investors. In other words, the only shareholders making money were the private equity backers. Everyone else was getting slammed.

It’s not supposed to be this way. Private equity firms are supposed to identify underperforming companies, right the ship and then make money off the fruits of that revival. Interests are supposed to be aligned. Instead, the new standard is to buy a company, return the original investment via financial engineering and then generate additional profit at the expense of shareholder value. It is unconscionable. It also is the next generation of corporate raidering.

Before you jump all over me, I recognize that Bain/GS/TPG did not engage in a 1980’s-style hostile takeover of Burger King. That’s why this is the next generation, and it is far more devious. Private equity firms now ingratiate themselves with company management/founders, become controlling shareholders and then pay themselves to give up said management control. This has been going on for years, but only now are public investors beginning to realize that the game is fixed. Need proof? Aftermarket performance of LBO-backed IPOs is worse than for the IPO market at large, which is really saying something in 2006.

Let me be clear: There is no valid justification for management termination fees, and private equity firms should immediately stop inserting them into IPO documents.

Bain, GS and TPG would have made money on Burger King even without the management termination fee (and without the dividend). They paid a combined $300 million for their stake, which was worth about five times that at the time of IPO. These firms like to brag about how they are able to turn companies around, and they often manage to do just that. It just seems that they aren’t confident enough to stop hedging their bets.


Apple ipods built to last only 4 years?

July 29, 2006

I was given an an Apple ipod video as a gift for my last b-day (Thanks, L). With a large memory for all the video files I might store on it in addition to the music (I was recently offered to inherit a large number of business books in MP3 format — yay!!!), it was an expensive gift. As with other digital equipment that I own, I expected it to last a long time - until someone decided to replace it with a newer gizmo for me to play with. Well, Apple spokesperson recently announced (and it seems she did so by mistake and to much chagrin of Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO) that the ipod systems are built to last for 4 years. She thought she was helping Apple with that answer, but Steve doesn’t seem to think so. He is known for keeping a real tight lid on inside affairs…and if you step outside the line, the whip comes down faster than you can imagine.

Regardless, I am interested in what you think? Does your perception change about the product (and its price point in the market) given that this is the spokesperson giving this life-time and these guys are paid to paint a positive picture? Is 3-4 yrs enough to justify a $300-$400 expense when you could buy a non-Apple MP3 player with same memory for 20% of the cost? I remember vividly the controversy regarding Ipod nanos, where the screens were getting scratched within a few months of use! Apple is sure making a killing in this market - no wonder Microsoft says it is coming up with an ipod-killer.

 

Source: Apple Insider Thursday, July 27, 2006

Apple: iPods built to last 4 years

By Katie Marsal

Apple Computer says its iPod digital music players are built to last four years and have a failure rate that is lower than other consumer electronics devices.

 

Although there have been several accounts in which the iconic music players have been called faulty devices, Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris recently told the Chicago Tribune that iPods have a failure rate of less than 5 percent, which she said is “fairly low” compared with other consumer electronics.

“The vast majority of our customers are extremely happy with their iPods,”Kerris said, adding that Apple builds the players to last four years.

However, a survey conducted by Macintouch last year found that out of nearly 9,000 iPods owned by more than 4,000 respondents, more than 1,400 of the players had failed. The survey concluded that the failure rate was 13.7 percent, stemming from an equal mix of hard drive and battery related issues.

Apple’s fairly recent decision to embrace solid-state NAND flash memory at the core of its most popular iPod models, rather than hard disk drives, is likely to improve failure rates. Flash memory lacks the moveable parts contained inside hard disks, making the storage medium significantly more durable.

According to the Macintouch survey, flash-based iPod shuffles and iPod nanos indeed sport a much lower failure rate than their hard disk drive-based counterparts.

Apple’s iPod turns five years old this October.


Water: Elixir of life is in short supply

July 25, 2006

It is no joke that the future world wars may be fought over access to WATER and not oil. While the scientist in me gets excited about properties of this colorless, odorless material, which is the only material found in nature in all 3 physical states (I have published some papers on phase transitions of aqueous particles), it is the more human, the more thirsty-quenching aspects of this drink that fascinate me more. Clean healthy water is essential for human health, and yet it is in short supply in many parts of the world. We have learnt since primary school days that about 72% of the fat free mass of the human body is made of water, but something I learnt not too long ago indicates that in order to function properly, the body requires between one and seven litres of water per day to avoid dehydration. My personal goal: drink 4-7 large glasses of water a day.

Societies around the world consume water in many different ways, from drinking and cooking of foods to irrigation, construction, personal hygiene, travel, recreation, etc. This post is not a lengthy article on properties or uses of the liquid that is the essence of life, but just to point out (a) how important water is to us, (b) how many people on this earth have no access to clean drinking water, (c) how water has become an expensive commodity even in the developed world, (d) the need for conservation of water, (d) a threat to geo-political stability in the case of wars over water, and (e) need for new technological enhancements and investments to secure clean water for the world.

Access to healthy drinking water:
Finding and using healthy water has been one of the more basic challenges of humanity ever since the civilizations began settling down. No wonder all major towns, cities in history were built around rivers or other water sources. That need remains, and even though some technologies allowed us to direct water into areas further away from the point sources, it can safely be said that civilizations will flourish or flail depending on their ability to utilize this wonderful nature resource. From major port cities to agricultural havens, water continues to be the fuel that feeds civilization. When water becomes scarce (for example famine and drought in part of Africa) or over runs the land (for example the floods in Bangladesh), mankind suffers terribly. For researchers, there is a wonderful repository on access to clean water on the web at http://www.worldwater.org/.

Water fit for human consumption is called drinking water or “potable water”. Water that is not specifically made for drinking, but is not harmful for humans when used for food preparation is called safe water.

This natural resource is becoming scarcer in certain places, and its availability is a major social and economic concern.

Currently, about 1 billion people around the world routinely drink unhealthy water. Most countries have accepted the goal of halving by 2015 the number of people worldwide who do not have access to safe water and sanitation during the 2003 G8 Evian summit [8]. Even if this difficult goal is met, it will still leave more than an estimated half a billion people without access to safe drinking water supplies and over 1 billion without access to adequate sanitation facilities. Poor water quality and bad sanitation are killers; some 5 million deaths a year are caused by polluted drinking water.

That is hardly surprising, since in the developing world, 90% of all wastewater still goes untreated into local rivers and streams. Some 50 countries, with roughly a third of the world’s population, also suffer from medium or high water stress, and 17 of these extract more water annually than is recharged through their natural water cycles. The strain affects surface freshwater bodies like rivers and lakes, but it also degrades groundwater resources.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Politics of war:
If you and I worry about the conflict in Middle East raging over holy lands and religion, try imagining wars over access to water resources. It is no surprise that a large strategic goal of Israel’s re-drawing of the borders with the illegal wall is to secure water and agricultural resources (Israel already controls 90% of the water in Palestine and gets 5 times as much water per person as Palestine). The Middle East region has only 1% of the world’s available fresh water, which is shared between 5% of the world’s population. Thus, in this region, water is an important strategic resource. By 2025, it is predicted that the countries of the Arabian peninsula will be using more than double the amount of water naturally available to them. India and Pakistan are no different. With all of Pakistan’s rivers starting in the Kashmir region, the conflict in that region has as much to do (or more) with long term strategic interests in natural resources than anything else.

Because of overpopulation in many regions of the world, mass consumption and water pollution, the availability of drinking water per capita is inadequate and shrinking as of the year 2006. For this reason, water is a strategic resource in the globe, and an important element in many political conflicts. Some have predicted that clean water will become the “next oil”, making Canada, with this resource in abundance, possibly the richest country in the world. There is a long history of conflict over water, including efforts to gain access to water, the use of water in wars started for other reasons, and tensions over shortages and control [9]. UNESCO’s World Water Development Report (WWDR, 2003) from its World Water Assessment Program indicates that, in the next 20 years, the quantity of water available to everyone is predicted to decrease by 30%. 40% of the world’s inhabitants currently have insufficient fresh water for minimal hygiene. More than 2.2 million people died in 2000 from diseases related to the consumption of contaminated water or drought. In 2004, the UK charity WaterAid reported that a child dies every 15 seconds due to easily preventable water-related diseases. Fresh water, now more precious than ever in our history for its extensive use in agriculture, high-tech manufacturing, and energy production, is increasingly receiving attention as a resource requiring better management and sustainable use.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Water Consumption:
Clean water is produced at natural sources (springs, lakes etc), or has to be cleaned via technical measures (such as reverse osmosis to clean sea-water). In many societies, availability of clean water is still considered the government’s responsibility, but that has been changing fast as market based mechanisms have taken root. The lack of new and readily accessible natural sources, as well as the lack of infrastructure to bring clean water to the users, has led to a burgeoning of the bottled water industry. The Independent reports that just in the UK, the water industry is currently valued at 1.9 billion euros. “Tap water costs a tiny fraction of bottled water, typically about a thousandth of the price at £1 per 1,000 litres. By contrast, the average cost of a single litre of bottled water is 90p” (Source: The Independent).Water is more expensive than beer or even petrol in the gas stations, and with the global warming starting to show present and clear signs in our weather, the price of water is only expected to go up. No surprise then that the largest bottlers of the world (Coca-Cola and Pepsi/Nabisco) are now holding major stakes in water companies. Even Starbucks has bought a water-company (Ethos), trying to put on a softer image by advertising that some portion of their revenue is used to help poverty-stricken Africans. A list of US bottlers is available at the portal for bottled water industry.

Drinking water is often collected at springs, extracted from artificial borings in the ground, or wells. Building more wells in adequate places is thus a possible way to produce more water assuming the aquifers can supply an adequate flow. Other water sources are rainwater and river or lake water. This surface water, however, must be purified for human consumption. This may involve removal of undissolved substances, dissolved substances and harmful microbes. Popular methods are filtering with sand which only removes undissolved material while chlorination and boiling kill harmful microbes. Distillation does all three functions. More advanced techniques exist, such as reverse osmosis. Desalination of abundant ocean or seawater is a more expensive solution used in coastal arid climates.

The distribution of drinking water is done through municipal water systems or as bottled water. Governments in many countries have programs to distribute water to the needy at no charge. Others argue that the market mechanism and free enterprise are best to manage this rare resource, and to finance the boring of wells or the construction of dams and reservoirs.

Reducing waste, that is using drinking water only for human consumption, is another option. In some cities, such as Hong Kong, sea water is extensively used for flushing toilets citywide in order to conserve fresh water resources. Polluting water may be the biggest single misuse of water; to the extent that a pollutant limits other uses of the water, it becomes a waste of the resource, regardless of benefits to the polluter. As other types of pollution, this does not enter standard accounting of market costs, being conceived as externalities for which the market can not account for. Thus other people pay the price of this water pollution, while the private firms’ profits are not redistributed to the local population victim of this pollution. Pharmaceuticals consumed by humans often end up in the waterways and can have detrimental effects on aquatic life if they bioaccumulate and if they are not biodegradable.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

New Technologies:
The field of water cleanup and supply is not a new one, but one that is certainly gathering tremendous momentum around the world. It is not just the technologists who are eager to identify new ways of producing and transporting clean water, but both early stage VC and late stage equity investorsare also starting to take notice. VC and private equity funds in Middle East are eager to invest in the future of water in the region, but there are also investment opportunities in cleaning up water for developing countries (for example using catalysis or molecular membranes to remove arsenic from wells in Bangladesh and elsewhere). In the report, “Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level”, by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in New York, it is estimated that an additional investment of around US$ 11.3 billion per year over and above current investments could result in a total economic benefit of US$ 84 billion annually. That means “the economic benefits would range from US$ 3 to US$ 34 per US$ 1 invested, depending on the region. Additional reductions in exposure to contaminated drinking-water, such as through household-level disinfection, would lead to an overall benefit ranging from US$ 5 to US$ 60 per US$ 1 invested”, the report estimates.

Water conservation has also evolved from a personal endeavor to a corporate one. It is no surprise that some more forward thinking companies, such as Genzyme, have already developed factory and office facilities which recycle water, while others are looking at water and other clean technologies closely in their development path. MIT has introduced mechanisms for collecting storm water on its buildings and utilizing them for indoor use, research is underway for sensor chips to detect the quality of water for drinking and other laboratory/industrial purposes, and drip irrigation technology is gaining acceptance worldwide. Closer to Pakistan, LUMS University in Lahore is starting a new School of Science and Engineering (with which I am proud to be associated with), and one of the priorities on their list is to establish a center for research on energy, environment and water. If you are more interested, following are some of the hot topics in the industry (Source: http://www.wateronline.com):

So where are we left then?
Clearly there is a shortage of water, and given that most of the world barely earns about $1 or 1euro per day, there is no way that bottled water of the sort that is currently sold in rich capitals of the world (ans also in the developing world for the rich), can be used to satisfy the need of 6 billion+ people in this world. There is a need for technologies that can refine, recycle, reuse, and efficiently transport water from all kinds of sources including lakes, streams, rivers, sea, oceans, rain and even our own sewage and rainage systems. The technologies have to be affordable, robust and available en mass. Perhaps many water technologies will not be universally applicable, but even ones designed for local systems or habitats would do, as long as they realize that in the long term, nature conserves mass and the only way to sustainabily use this natural resource is to find ways to recycle it. On a personal level, we all need to understand the importance and value of this natural resource, and as the learning goes, we have to find ways to reduce the amount of water we use and waste. As for the geo-politics, the aggressors and the greedy will always want more - and we just have to resist them. Humanity has to resist hoarding of this precious global resource. The world cannot really afford to have water become the next oil.