Display:
If your project does not produce the Units it owes to its buyers (for operational reasons), then you have a counter-party problem, which is solved only if the owners of the production facility are financially strong enough.

As long as the owner is not the State, or guaranteed by the State, that risk is in there. If that risk is assessed by market instruments, you end up with a higher discount rate.

There's no market trick around it. A production facility presents risks, if not absorbed in a wider entity. They have a price.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 at 04:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you will not evaluate a gas supply contract to deliver gas to you on the Austrian border if the counterparty is Turkey or if it is BP's Azerbaijan subsidiary, or if it is BP itself, even if it's the same gas, and the same pipeline to transport it from Shah-Deniz to Austria via Turkey and Nabucco.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 at 04:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All true.

But I am proposing an alternative method of risk sharing without involving the single points of failure represented by risk intermediaries.

As for States, you only need to look at what happened in the tin market.

Put Not Your Trust In Princes.....

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Oct 2nd, 2009 at 04:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series