Renova Energy Share Discussion Threads

[motoben] 04/12/2007 07:51

to be fair about the divi they said they will pay a full years worth in the next one, they seem to have the dates in a bad way, only 3 months apart, why not 6 mths much easier on the cash flow.
they do seem to be getting a good price for the ethanol though, better than gtl, if they can start selling electricity back to the grid as well it will make a difference because they can sell/ receive carbon credits.
shame they are making a loss and the distribution network wont be ramped up till the last 2 plants are working as they seem to be the big ones.

[j5ack5k] 04/12/2007 07:51

On reflection maybe I am being a little bit hasty. Some interesting bits like the sale of electricity etc, but still disappointing.

[j5ack5k] 04/12/2007 07:46

3 month delay to start up... no dividend... says it all really.

No wonder share price got hammered... they talk a good talk about their business model, but consistently fail to deliver on their promises.

What a load of sh*te.

[ok,yah] 03/12/2007 16:31

Results tomorrow - looks undervalued potentially the bottom here if statement is upbeat

[asp1] 29/11/2007 11:00

This makes for an interesting read jailbird - E squares up quite good - surprising difference between motors:

[jailbird] 29/11/2007 10:35

asp1,

on top gear the other say, it showed that biofuels have faster acceleration,0-60mph, but miles to gallon are less.

[asp1] 28/11/2007 18:06

First the 'old' news - then the real news:

The EPA raised its renewable fuels standard for 2008 today to meet a federal mandate that - at least - 5.4 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into our (U.S) gasoline. This years standard was approximately 4.7 billion gallons as the EPA hopes to reach 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Rick Kment, a DTN biofuels analyst, believes, though, that this move is unlikely to have much effect as gasoline blenders are already using more than the 5.4 billion gallons mandated. The U.S. currently has 134 operating ethanol plants with a combined capacity of 7.2 billion gallons.

December Ethanol on the CBOT increased once again to settle at $1.968 a gallon. CBOT Ethanol has jumped approximately 40 cents since hitting its all-time low back in October. Investors should keep an eye out for ethanol stocks as conditions have become moderately favorable. Morgan Stanley's analyst, Dave Wilson, recently issued a short-term buying opportunity with share prices so low.

In other news, Aventine's (AVR) CEO, Ronald H. Miller, bought 10,000 shares of his own company's stock at $8.54.

What to look forward to:


The U.S. House of Representatives could vote on a wide-ranging energy bill next week that would triple the use of ethanol. There is speculation that legislation will require 20.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015, with 5.5 billion gallons of that coming from cellulosic ethanol. The bill is also speculated to set short-term targets of 9.5 billion gallons by 2008 and 11.6 billion gallons by 2009. Back in June, the Senate passed a proposal to require 36 billion gallons of ethanol use by 2022. Democrats will also attempt to hit the oil industry with $15 billion in taxes and require utilities to get 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources.

[asp1] 28/11/2007 17:50

Here's another for the disbelievers:

MSU Ethanol Energy Balance Study: Michigan State University, May 2002. This comprehensive, independent study funded by MSU shows that there is 56% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it.

[j5ack5k] 25/11/2007 11:07

Here's one for Opmoc :)

Absolutely great webcast on peak oil and the implications over the next 12-18 months.



Main financial sense website:

[j5ack5k] 23/11/2007 11:11

question is, is it worth a gamble a week before interims?

I reckon even if they are good share price won't go anywhere because most investors just want out of ethanol altogether now - especially after GTL's great results then subsequent a*se bumming by the MM's.

Only way this lot will rise is if Congress raises RFS IMHO.

[motoben] 23/11/2007 11:03

can they still pay the divi? but this level is getting attractive, shame about the damn huge spread now 11%

[bpoole] 23/11/2007 09:47

If it goes down to 20p it will be worth buying for the divi!

[bpoole] 23/11/2007 08:55

So,when is RVA going to start buying back their shares?

[asp1] 22/11/2007 09:41

30% E and no drop in performance! - read on:


Ethanol is healthy competition for crude oil
By Lura Roti, Reporter
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:54 AM CST


Ron Lamberty, vice president and market development director for the American Coalition for Ethanol, Sioux Falls, S.D., shows his support by fueling up with E-85. Lamberty says a reason fuel prices are increasing is because oil companies have purchased all the ethanol they are required to for 2007. Photo courtesy of American Coalition for Ethanol
As the crude oil price surpassed $95 this month, drivers might wonder if there is anyway to control prices at the pump. Dan Appel says the answer is ethanol.

"Anything that helps increase supply has to help the price," said Appel, owner/operator of Appel Oil and Appel's Quick Stop in Redfield, S.D. "It's all supply and demand. If you increase the whole supply situation then you'll decrease the price."

Working to control increasing fuel costs, Appel put in a blender pump June 1. The blender pump allows customers to put 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent ethanol or E-85 in their vehicles - saving from 10 cents to $1 a gallon.

"We get a 51-cent tax incentive from the federal government for every gallon of ethanol that we buy," Appel said. "We sell mostly 30 percent ethanol in vehicles that are not E-85 compatible because that is a 30-cent savings per gallon."

Along with a 30-cent savings, those that use a 30-percent ethanol blend in their vehicles experience an unexpected savings - no decrease in mileage.

"It's like a magic formula," Appel said. "We didn't think this would be true, but everyone that uses the 30 percent ethanol claims they don't get a mileage decrease. We use it in our own vehicles and we receive the same gas mileage with 30 percent ethanol as no-lead."
Appel has worked in the fuel industry his entire life. His dad opened Appel Oil in 1951.
Appel says that they are able to put in blender pumps because they are an independent fuel station.

He says even though customers can save a lot more with higher ethanol blends, big oil companies are not too excited to see customers drive away with less gasoline.
"Major oil companies don't like the blender pump idea, so a lot of brands are not allowed to have a blender pump, even though it frees up tankage so it saves the station owner money," Appel said. "The blender pump saves us between $30,000 to $40,000 because we don't have to put in more tanks for the different blends."

Ron Lamberty, vice president and market development director for American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), indicates that competition is the reason big oil companies do not support increased ethanol usage.

"The product we sell competes directly with the people that sell our product - gas stations sell gasoline and oil companies sell gasoline," Lamberty said. "In some respects it is understandable that they do what they do because it is their job to sell more gas."

According to Lamberty, oil companies are required by the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard to purchase what adds up to 4.6 billion gallons of ethanol each year and they are not too happy about this.

"You hear oil companies say that we need to let the market decide. They are not letting the market decide. If you look at strictly economics, they would be buying ethanol instead of gasoline," Lamberty said. "Basically all product is fighting for the same market. By importing more gasoline they are able to drive the price of ethanol down even further."

According to Lamberty, even when corn markets are at their peak, ethanol is still less expensive than crude oil.

"At $3.50 a bushel for corn, it is only $1.25 for the raw material that is needed to make a gallon of ethanol," Lamberty said.

Lamberty says the reason fuel prices are increasing now and ethanol prices are falling, is because the oil companies have purchased all the ethanol they are required to for the year. That is why ACE and other organizations are lobbying to increase the number of gallons of ethanol oil companies are required to purchase each year.

"We lost about 75 cents a gallon this year compared to last. Ethanol is nearly a dollar less per gallon than gasoline on the wholesale market," said Bill Paulsen, president of South Dakota Ethanol Producers and vice president of operations of Advanced BioEnergy, a company that operates ethanol plants in Aberdeen and Huron, S.D.

Lisa Richardson, executive director of the South Dakota Corn Growers Association says ethanol's increased market share is fueling myths and negative press.

"Negative press that ethanol is getting is simply coming from our friends in the oil industry," Richardson said. "We are getting ready to pass a 36 billion gallon Renewable Fuels Standard. They never thought we would get to 10 percent of the fuel market and if this passes, we will surpass that in the biofuels industry. This is an all out effort by big oil to prevent this from happening."

Whether or not the Renewable Fuels Standard will increase is to be determined. This legislation will possibly be a part of the new farm bill which is currently being debated in the Senate.

To keep up with ethanol legislation and the farm bill, go online to

[opmoc] 21/11/2007 20:34

Jimarilo,

Yeh - but I bet you a pound to a glass of Jack Daniels - that you unfiltered me to read what I posted.

Tony

[jimarilo] 21/11/2007 02:39

U.S. Stocks Rise, Led by Energy Shares; Exxon, Google Rally

Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest U.S. energy producer, climbed the most in five years.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index added 6.43, or 0.5 percent, to 1,439.7. The Dow rose 51.7, or 0.4 percent, to 13,010.14. The Nasdaq Composite Index increased 3.43, or 0.1 percent, to 2,596.81. Slightly more than one stock gained for every one that fell on the New York Stock Exchange.

``At the end of the day, the energy stocks won out,'' said Jeff Layman, chief investment officer at BKD Wealth Advisors, which manages about $1.4 billion in Springfield, Missouri. ``We're seeing a realization that these price levels might be more sustainable than we previously thought.''



opmoc - 20 Nov'07 - 21:05 - 903 of 903 (Filtered) and has been for a long time ;-)

[opmoc] 20/11/2007 21:05

asp1,

I'm afraid you are talking mumbo-jumbo religious nonsense. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put in.

Take your "2km high tubular towers to be built in outback Australia using the rising hot air to drive turbines and generate huge amounts of electric power"

To try and illustrate...

You can accurately estimate the maximum possible energy you could get out of the tower from the shadow it would make on the ground.

Whatever you do there will be a massive loss in energy conversion costs.

Having turbines in the system - might be attractive to potential investors who don't understand science - but it isn't going to create energy that isn't there in the first place.

I suspect that it would be less efficient than having a conventional array of solar panels.

You also have to take into account - in any such system - the energy costs of manufacture, maintenance, storage and distribution.

However - with solar power there is at least a chance that you will get net energy out of the system - over its lifetime.

With ethanol from food - there is no chance whatsoever - because it takes more energy to create the ethanol - than the ethanol contains. You have a net energy loss. You are wasting petroleum to create ethanol. You are also reducing food supplies for people to eat and wasting a great deal of water.

Tony

[asp1] 20/11/2007 18:51

Yep J5, got to agree it tends to waste too much time.

But the trouble with many people is that they are constrained to present day thinking and influenced too much by propaganda - they need to train themselves to think "out of the box" more.

Typically, in the case of solar energy are the proposed 2km high tubular towers to be built in outback Australia using the rising hot air to drive turbines and generate huge amounts of electric power. It's just one example – there are many others.

You have to think BIG in this world in order to move forward - you have to think beyond the restraints and limitations of solar panels and windmills - obviously Mr Hayden could not.

History is unfortunately littered with people who "proved" that this or that was not possible - their problem has always been that they were unable to think outside their immediate understanding – they had no vision - and of course they were subsequently swept aside in the natural progression of things. It's the way of the world.

But mankind has to take it step by step - it can't be rushed - the US has to go through the ethanol era because it is seen as the next logical step to reduce dependency on imported oil. It also gives a cleaner burn and reduces pollution - important in suburban areas. It is being introduced into more and more US cities as E10 or similar for exactly that reason.

It is a great pity that ethanol has received much bad press of late – most of it lies or half lies pushed by big oil afraid of losing its grip on a very lucrative industry. But in reality it's the wonder product of the age, and it will improve further with time and development.

Importantly for us all, the 2007 US corn crop (for 2008) will provide for both increased ethanol production and still have MORE left for food than was available this year - so everyone wins.

But enough of this - i really must go now – although here is something to muse on:

For quite some part of recent history, man has turned potential food onto alcohol which, although generally entertaining is not really an essential part of feeding people – not if you're starving that is. But for some reason using it as a fuel – a much more important use - is now condemned as a crime against humanity.

Strange people these humans.

Good luck to all ethanol lovers – whatever the use.

[j5ack5k] 20/11/2007 13:33

Yeah well I have to limit my posts now... was getting seriously addicted :)

[asp1] 20/11/2007 13:24

Thanks J5, and good to hear from you again.

Of course, the debate is as endless as energy itself.

As for big E, it looks like we are coming down to join you.

[j5ack5k] 20/11/2007 13:11

asp1, opmoc just comes on here to troll... ignore him. Why he bothers to do it to a tiny company like Renova I don't know...

Opmoc your efforts would be better spent on Yahoo.

and stop posting videos to youtube:

[asp1] 20/11/2007 12:58

opmoc,

I find your outlook both seriously flawed and boardering on hysterical:

"The alternative is mass genocide on a global level."

Surely, you must accept that even without oil there are many forms of energy capable of sustaining a v.good life on the planet. For example the energy arriving daily from the sun is immense and regrettably you give mankind little or no credit for future advances in harnessing this energy.

Without doubt oil (biotic or otherwise) will continue play a big part in world energy well into the future but to me it is most disturbing that you seem to find comfort in "everlasting" oil.

On the contrary, if "everlasting" oil is at hand then the pollution will be endless and imo it will be because of oil rather than the lack of it that the world we know and love is without doubt, doomed.

[opmoc] 20/11/2007 11:41

asp1,

The fundamental point as to whether or not oil is a fossil fuel is crucial to at least the short term future of the human race - say the next 100 years or so.

If peak oil is true, then the human race is in deep trouble amd Billions will have to die a horrible death over the rest of this century.

We will have to revert to the levels of population that existed 200 years ago and adopt a pre-industrial revolution life style.

Many in the "Green" movement actually want this to happen.

Now you can ignore the Russian research if you like, but there is an enormous wealth of evidence in Scientific papers written in Russian that prove conclusively to Russians that oil is not a fossil fuel - but is formed deep within the earth's crust.

If this is true, then there is no reason to suppose that oil will ever run out - well at least not until the planet does.

It would be nice to have some really objective scientific research on the subject (external to Russia) - but the problem in the West is that virtually all such research is funded with a political agenda.

Big Money from Big Oil pays for the results that it wants. The same is true about "Research" into Climate Change. The politics and money determine the result of the research. It is not pure objective research.

Now I accept many of the principles of conservation - both of the planet and its energy - but as I was trained as a scientist - I cannot accept "science" that is corrupted by a political or financial agenda.

Unless the human race and its leaders do their utmost to determine the real truth by following the principles of the scientific method, then totally ridiculous policies will be implemented - such as the one here - converting food into ethanol with both a net energy loss and highly undesirable environmental effects.

Anyway - thanks for your post yesterday to a link I had already read - but which eventually linked me to this - which further demonstrates the case - that volumes of oil could be unlimited.



If this is true - then it is potentially very good news for the human race. Whilst I accept that the World is overpopulated with humans - and also that we are following ridiculous wasteful policies that are not sustainable (the throw-away society), it should be possible for our numbers to decline gracefully - as is already happenning in the developed world.

The alternative is mass genocide on a global level.

Tony