||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Altona Energy Share Discussion Threads
Showing 19876 to 19896 of 19900 messages
|Expecting more interest / price action here over the next couple of weeks as news about the PEL could be around the corner. Could be significant...|
|100k buy and we're up 10%Hmmm...|
|I really hope so New Kid as this is now getting beyond boring!|
|Tarni. I think the PEL is only required because Altona are going down the UCG route. Going back to the original plan of strip mining/opencast would negate the need for the PEL I believe. However the Copex would be much more taking into account the plant build cost and the build time of 3 years. I still think this is the best route as we would know exactly what the outcome would be,7.5 billion barrels of high grade fuel. The build cost should be cheaper now as well as Altona could source the whole plant from China. We could be online in 5 years. Chinese banks are awash with cash so funding should not present a problem given the jobs this would provide for the Chinese.|
|Not sure about that, If I'm honest I have been here for so long now I very rarely look in as I have sort of written this off now and again being honest I can't really remember why they stopped CTL. To me it just is beyond comprehension why we have changed course more than once when it seemed, on paper, to be such a money spinner.|
|Popper isn't what you say just down to the oil price? If crude was at 100 or more plan a would still be in place?|
You’re not a believer that voluntary administration was sort to avoid lengthy legal costs and fines plus maybe a bill to clear it up? It may well have been proven in court that errors were made which lead to 4 works needing treatment in hospital and allegedly contaminating the environment. Did UCG fail or the company?
The point I’m trying to make is UCG cannot be labelled bad just because it doesn’t work out in certain cases. Mistakes will happen but it is learning from them that moves technology on. Queensland have jumped with a ban on all UCG but South Australia has not, but they have moved the goal posts for ANR. Originally UCG fell under the mineral licence requirements. Now it falls under petroleum, which is why ANR now need a PEL. PEL requirements are far more stringent so expect a revised feasibility plan and time table to come probably. That is if a PEL is granted.
As for Plan A it could be bought back into play as could open cast mining if needed. UCG was favoured over CTL/MTL as it requires less CAPEX.
The latest delay is not down to the BOD but changes in regulations. Maybe better information to shareholders from ANR wouldn’t be a bad move, I agree.|
|Oil is not out of favour and nor is all the bi-products that Altona would have produced, and Oz in this region desperately needs electricity so why did they change? and why can they not go back to plan A which was already well under way as far as homework was done. It was also only going to cost $3b to get going, a large amount yes but in relative terms to the figures produced it was peanuts.|
|Is it? Not according to my screens where the price of coal continues to rise!|
|I believed in the story and had far too many shares. I am now out, and it has cost me over £50,000. The dirs are keeping this company alive while they take fat pay cheques. The world has changed since the early days of Altona - coal is now out of favour.|
|any agm info?|
|....possiibly because there is no bargain here ? just a massive gample ?|
|Interesting too see the lack of bargain hunters at these levels this time.|
|Many questions at the ready?|
|Maybe the South Australian Government may stump up some cash to help/speed the project along long-term?|
|looks promising for license award shortly|
|I would have thought if South Australia was suffering an economic down turn, industrial demand for electricity would have dropped. If the economy picks up, power shortages will get even worse - a positive scenario for ANR.|
|OK many thanks CF On my watchlist.|
|melodrama -- PEL Application 604 was lodged by Sapex Limited, a 100% subsidiary of Linc Energy Ltd, which is now in administration -- so essentially they will be unable to satisfy the licence requirements leaving the coast clear for Altona to get approval.
The interesting part of the RNS is Mr Zhang's closing statement -- "The South Australian region is currently experiencing an economic downturn and power shortages are a regular occurrence. We therefore continue to believe the Arckaringa Project will be a high priority for the government given its potential to provide a large number of new jobs and a source of long-term energy supply for the state."
It's quite possible the long term holders among us might finally realise some value here -- if you're thinking of buying melodrama, now might be a good time to tuck some away down the back of your sofa -- but you need to be blessed with patience :-)|
|"The government has advised that our application is the next to be assessed in the event the new owner of PELA 604 has no interest in the licence or is unable to satisfy the licence requirements. We understand the government anticipates being in a position to engage with the new owner of PELA 604 early in the New Year." Not a holder but looking to buy in at some point. Sorry for being a potential thicko here, but I don't understand that Para, who is "The new owner" if it is not us? Surely they mean existing owner?|
|Did our comatose patient just blink?|