http://csrwiretalkback.tumblr.com/post/455149845/the-win-win-plan-for-iceland-britain-and-the

Your three team members are correct, affairs in Iceland are too much up in the air for immediate decision-making, or choosing among ideas for development directions. However, you have done well to introduce your Foundation now. As Axel’s links to examples of Icelandic energy development projects show, Icelandic companies were at the forefront in many technological areas when the political/financial crisis disrupted the economy and threw all into hiatus. As yourselves and they both work to develop technological solutions on global scale, and in areas of innovative energy use and development, once the current situation is resolved, so Icelandic companies may turn their attentions again to planning and projecting and innovating, and will again have access to financing for their plans and projects, your Foundation scientists and they should be able to build mutually valuable partnerships from which you both should be able to develop new innovations and solutions, which, when and where you are able to implement them you will, together, be able to provide many different peoples in many different places in the global world opportunities to develop new energy solutions. Ones that will serve their purposes and your and your partners’ purposes, and the global world’s purposes as well.

meaning its a good idea to sell energy to Europe,
if it is not too expensive and the right people are involved in doing this.

@ Giova Bocca

Thanks for a very useful post, it clarified a few things i have been thinking about lately.

Icelandic companies are building geo-thermal energy stations in many countries, new deep drilling technology can increase power output of existing holes 5-10 fold,

http://www.iceland-drilling.com/?pageid=349

Some information about one of our power company’s
http://www.landsvirkjun.com/operations/power-stations/

How we convert Co2 into fuel, like Ethanol or Bio-Diesel for example using new technology.
http://www.carbonrecycling.is/index.html

A factory is being built at Svartsengi geo-thermal power plant, it will generate 4m liters of fuel the first year from Co2.
http://www.mannvit.com/AboutUs/News/Readarticle/1588

2012.is New beginning.
http://2012.is/index.php?option=com_frontpage&msl=english&Itemid=61

There are two ways to count banks’ assets. One is to count money out in loans, mortgages, etc., which is “unsecured” value, even though the assets loaned against may be assigned collateral value, along with the value of owned securities, reserves, etc., which are usually also investments, but are considered certainly valued at market prices. The other way is the way you indicate you count, that the collateral assets’ and investment assets’ values are not the banks’ even though they back the loans. This way of accounting counts the banks loaned money to belong to the borrowers, not the banks. By this method the only assets the banks have are in their reserve accounts. Everything else is “owned” by others. This is the way the UK has been counting the Icelandic banks’ assets. In the beginning this gave an appearance that all the money the banks had out at loan was simply gone. As propagandists spun it, carried away by owners of football teams, High Street shops and others who held loans. Relatively little was in the banks reserves, which the Brit government shut the banks down for having too little in anyway. The money in the reserves the British government took into exchequer holding accounts. The loan papers it took into receiver custody. Iceland has had neither the loan papers nor the cash and reserve assets. Britain has been holding both as collateral against repayment to depositors.

Since then, as the borrowers football team owners, High Street merchants and most all others have continued to make payments the loaned out moneys, with interest, have been rolling back in. They have not gone to Iceland, they have gone into the Exchequer holding accounts. There that money sits, adding up more as payments are made, but collecting no interest, because the UK government does not pay interest on it, though it is able to count the money as reserves and use it, since it “paid off” depositors. Paid off is in quotes because while small depositors were paid off, ones with accounts over the limit got only the limit, and off-shore depositors, e.g.,Isle of Man residents, have received nothing of what the UK holds, and uses.

Today, as you note, which you learned from your recent reading, the amount of repayment resting in the UK Exchequer, with the value added that the interim of steady repayments on the blanks’ loans, instead of foreclosures, indicate the banks’ loan portfolios to hold adds to about 90% of what Iceland is said to owe. This is with no banking by those banks since their being put into receivership. The banks are stagnant but earning. This indicates very good banking practices, meaning conservative lending, by the banks before they were closed by Britain. The indications are that if the present wrangling continues another year the banks’ assets will likely be worth more than Iceland owes, even with the banks continuing stagnant. Note that selling the banks assets at auction would not bring the 90% as asset auctions are not like sale negotiations, so the wise thing would be to operate the banks as banks, which would recover the depositors’ assets, that being what the banks were in the business of doing before they were put in receivership.

Note that Iceland does not have access to the loan paper Britain holds for security, or to the deposits from loan repayments in the British Exchequer. Those are held by Britain. When Britain collapsed the Icelandic banks, in Iceland, by putting their British branches into receivership those Icelandic banks in Iceland did not have access to the branch funds Britain used the Terror law to claim and hold from Iceland. Thus, when the Icelandic banks in Iceland collapsed the only money Iceland had to reimburse depositors was what was in Iceland. You will hear some slow-minded in Britain grumping that Iceland looked out for Icelandic but not Brit depositors. When you do you may point out to them that the bank funds to repay the Brit depositors were not available to Iceland to repay to Brit depositors because the Brit government had them sequestered, through putting the banks to the receivers and through claiming all money and assets under terror legislation. For that terror legislation application other European Union nations were not even sure they could cash cheques for Icelanders without violating inter-Union-member cooperation agreements, let alone loan money to the sudden North Atlantic Ally to Osama bin Laden…

Gilgamesh,

A couple of things: One, there are more Plancks that only Max Planck. Two, don’t take such writings as the Planck Foundation letter too much to heart. The Planck Foundation people are business people. What they write is always for business purpose. It is never personal. If you say “No.” they say, “OK, let’s try this, instead…” That is what the letter says. The letter is really a very good example of a business try, fail, back up, try again with another tack. Read it for fun, it is really nicely done and very enjoyable reading. If you jump up and down and scream and swear those the letter comes from will wait to see what you collapse to willing to accept when you are finished. If you laugh and say, “Good job, but no, we aren’t ready to jump on your waggon.” they will say, “Well, then, what would you rather? Make an offer to us.” This is the way business is done. you try, you are rebuffed, you try another angle. It is like swimming in the sea, if you go with the flow, use the currents and waves, you can have a lot of fun. If you panic and fight water and waves you will exhaust yourself, inhale water and drown. Iceland panicked to begin, but has a second chance now and if it relaxes, takes it easy and enjoys the bi-play it can do well. In fact, the longer the negotiating, the more the Icelandic banks’ sequestered assets will increase in value, so the longer Iceland dawdles in negotiations the less it will owe when all is finally signed. This will be especially true if some of the events that should go to court go into court: Britain, especially, will want to negotiate withdrawals of those to be part of settlement.

An extra debt of EUR 12,000 per capita ?

lol, Italian debt per capita have just reached EUR 30,000 and it have always been over EUR 20,000 for ages.