Cartel on Neodymium and TechnetiumPosted: 2013-02-24 Filed under: industry, market, nullsec | Tags: neodymium, NOTEC, OTEC, technetium 4 Comments
With two major collations forming cartels to control the flow of raw moon materials, I wanted to take my database of moon minerals and cross reference that with sovereignty data to see just how much control each cartel holds on each respective moon type.
Consider these numbers a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
OTEC: Organization of Technetium Exporting Corporations operated by the CFC.
NOTEC: Neodymium Organized Trading and Exporting Cartel operated by the HBC.
I’m showing that 22.7% of all Neodymium moons are under TEST’s direct control, meaning that the moons are in HBC space. If we expand the coverage to the CFC and their allies, this group has 50.7% of all the moons.
The OTEC grip on Technetium is much stronger, with 81.1% of the moons under CFC and ally control.
Geographically Neodymium is far more dispersed with moons covering 36 different regions. Technetium is mainly concentrated in the North and only spans 23 regions.
CFC’s control over Technetium is much stronger than HBC’s over Neodymium.
Visualization of Moon Mineral ConcentrationsPosted: 2013-01-30 Filed under: industry, market, nullsec | Tags: atmosphere gases, cadmium, ceasium, chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, evaporite deposits, hafnium, hydrocarbons, mercury, neodymium, platinum, promethium, scandium, silicates, technetium, thulium, titanium, tungsten, vanadium 5 Comments
In a previous post, I detailed the concentration of Technetium and Cobalt moon locations because they are of particular political interest due to their distribution and the recent rework of the Alchemy reaction for Platinum Technite.
Now I wanted to use my entire dataset to plot out all moon minerals to see if there was any pattern or promise of future monopolistic cartels due to the geographical distribution of the moon minerals.
My dataset contains information on 32,162 moons with a lack of data for Evaporite Deposits; I don’t consider this alarming to my analysis as it is a very common moon mineral.
Since my master dataset was pieced together from a few independent sources, I am not surprised by the inaccuracies or missing data points. As I have stated before, sanitized moon scanning data is usually a closely guarded piece of information by large Alliances and Industrial corporations as a large amount of time and energy has been spent gathering the data.
The raw numbers show that I have very poor coverage in many regions, but we need to consider that not every moon contains a mineral. If I knew the density of moon minerals (how many received minerals versus not in the seeding process), I could get a better feeling of my coverage levels. For now just consider the Green regions having a strong coverage and the Red regions showing poor coverage; ignore the coverage percentage values.
Despite the alarming Red portions that indicate major holes in my dataset, we can see interesting visual results from the initial galaxy seeding process. These seeding trends can help us explain the prices of certain minerals given their location, political atmosphere around specific areas, and weight necessity in the Tech2 production chain. *cough* Technetium *cough*.
The low value of these types of minerals is due to the sheer amount and distribution of each type. These common minerals are contained in almost every region.
With these types, we can see a definite skew in the regional location of each type. There are major pockets with a small scattering around the universe.
With the Rarity 16 minerals, there seems to be an even spread across the universe with no major points of concentration.
With these moons it seems like each type is dominant in a specific quadrant of the universe. Ceasium in the West, Hafnium in the South, Mercury also in the South, and Technetium having the majority of its concentration located in the North.
The rarity of these moons is shown with the lack of points on the scatter plot. We can see that they are spread around the Universe, but the lack of quantity keeps each type rare.
Visualization of Technetium and Cobalt Moon ConcentrationsPosted: 2013-01-10 Filed under: eveonline, industry, market, nullsec | Tags: cobalt, technetium, the citadel, the forge 8 Comments
We always hear that “Technetium is concentrated in the North”. I wanted to use data that I have to visually show this concentration to further prove that claim. Additionally I want to show how different the concentrations of Cobalt is when compared to Technetium. Cobalt is of particular interest as it became a recent star due to changes in alchemy in order to impact the rising cost of Technetium.
I have been developing a database of moons and their associated minerals. This dataset was born out of frustration when I used to help my corporation perform reactions in the Pure Blind and Cloud Ring regions. Often our logistics crew was doing double survey work so I started a centralized point of information to hold our moon data.
My coverage is small and has many inaccuracies; I have coverage on 32,000 moons at this point, which only covers 22.31% of Eve’s 143,402 Lowsec and Nullsec moons. I’m sure that there are some gross errors as I have pieced this data from various public and private sources. Alliances and reaction-heavy Corporations tend to guard their moon data very closely, so I’ve have limited exposure to verified and sanitized data.
My coverage of Technetium is 275 moons with an estimated 360-450 in existence. Using a conservative guess of around 400, that give me an estimated 68% coverage with a large amount of error.
The dataset on Cobalt is higher, coming in at 2,702 moons. I don’t have an estimation on how many there are in existence, so I can’t judge my coverage.
Despite the inaccuracies of my dataset, it can still be used to produce a scatter plot of the Eve Universe. I’ve added The Forge and The Citadel for map orientation purposes.
[Jan 10 Update]
From the comments so far, a lot of people are having trouble with the scatter plot. It is a 2D map of the Eve Unvierse with dots for systems that contain that moon type or are of that region. I thought that adding The Citadel and The Forge would help clarify the orientation of the map. Keep the Verite Influence map in mind when looking at these plots.
Technetium Income for Large AlliancesPosted: 2012-07-20 Filed under: market, nullsec | Tags: akita t, budget, dysprosium, goonswarm, neodymium, promethium, technetium, test 2 Comments
In light of the recent Devblog that outlines changes to moon minerals, I wanted to quantify the scale of income streams that are going to be changing with the Inferno 1.2 patch slated for August release.
Large alliances [in the North] thrive on Technetium income. It pays for ship reimbursements, sovereignty, incentives, and POS fuel. Imagine if you had a 19.3 B/month bill to pay and you could put up a structure to collect valuable goods, a weekly Jump Freighter run to collect the stock from each tower, and a few weekly shipments to market to supply your alliance with billions of ISK per month of income.
If you do some searching, you can find budget sheets for large alliances such as TEST and GoonSwarm. These
leaked documents might be a little stale, but can offer us some insight into the scale of income that Technetium contributes to its holders.
TEST Balance, Best Balance
On paper they have 253 B in and 86 B out for a net balance of 167 B per month. Not bad, but consider how much of that income stream comes from moon ownership and then how much of that moon income comes from Technetium.
An enormous portion of TEST’s income comes from Technetium. As a younger alliance, I imagine that their holding account doesn’t have nearly as much ISK idle as our older GoonSwarm friend; TEST’s summary page shows 162 days of operating capital.
Scrooge McDuck Money Vault of GoonSwarm
Haven been around for a long time, they have massive amounts of ISK reserved. I’ve been in on a few conversations that have revolved around the GoonSwarm market group and they are working with vast amounts of liquid wealth.
Their budget sheet shows a income of 762 B in and 547 out for a net balance of 215 B per month. Not surprisingly, a large amount of their income comes from Technetium moons.
Accidently All the Moons
On paper TEST has 16 Technetium and GoonSwarm have noted 76. So how much of the total nubmer of moons do these two and the rest of the Northern powers control?
There doesn’t seem to be an exact number of moons, only speculation with a high concentration ‘in the North’. Market Forum warrior Akita T has noted that there is somewhere between 360 and 450 moons with a conservative guess around 400. Taking the conservative 400 number means that only 23% is under TEST and GoonSwarm control so there still is a large amount of income not going into these alliance wallets.
May Financial ReportPosted: 2012-05-29 Filed under: eveonline, market | Tags: hulkageddon, implants, inferno, jump freighter, minerals, nocxium, subsystem, tech 3, technetium, vanguard, zydrine 5 Comments
Things are going great!
Since I missed my April update, this report will contain some events from April.
Overall the Inferno patch cycle brought a large amount of change in the form of market speculation:
Drone mineral drops were removed, market and macro bots were banned, RMT was again cracked down on, Vanguard sites were nerfed, Technetium prices were controlled, faction/deadspace/officer items were added to the market, Nocxium’s artifical price ceiling was removed, and datacores were moved to Faction Warfare. Whew.
All these changes combined with the Burn Jita and Hulkageddon V event meant that prices were volatile.
I have joined TEST and have been working with their market division, which seems to be a perfect fit for me. TEST has a very savvy development group that has no trouble coding up sites to manage our efforts.
In April at a Eve meetup, I met another trader who mainly operates in the North with an operation about 8x my size. It was a lot of fun to talk shop with another trader. I think we bored the PVP’ers while we rambled on about margins, hauling, bulk orders, and general logistics. I have apparently made a name for myself because she said, “oh you’re the Blake I’ve heard about — yes, I know about you.”
Order highlighting has improved the speed and accuracy at which I can update orders. I spend about 20 minutes a day total broken into two sessions updating prices. I tend to update after downtime and around 23:00, which is US prime.
Stats @CCP_Diagoras Style
172,592,790,045 sold so far in 2012.
35,912,308,945 profit so far in 2012.
12,340 transactions so far in 2012.
2,921,500.42 average profit per transaction in 2012.
10,843,867.01 standard deviation per transaction in 2012.
Top item by quantity was Tritanium with 90,272,146 sold for a profit of 306,018,174.
Worst profitable item was 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I where I lost 49,869,884.
Best trading day on May 5th with a total profit of 1.24 B beating out Oct 24, 2011 at 793 M when I sold a Jump Freighter I build from scratch.
Keep doing what I am doing and keep putting liquid ISK back into the market.
I spent some money and picked up 305 Tech 3 Subsystem BPCs. The return isn’t that high, so I might put this project off for a later date or work with a production partner to complete the batch.
The addition of officer/deadspace/faction items has opened up new area of trading. I have been having good success with these and am slowing building my list of items to watch.
New modules are almost always insanely profitable. The addition of the new Inferno modules have so far proven to be very lucrative.