res share price , page-97

Yep Crisis and the world will be needing every bit of it. Raising cash at the moment as this baby is becoming a bit of a diamond in the rough. I cried when I was forced to bail out 6 or so months ago(turned out to be one of my better sells as made a small profit) and feel for those around in the earlier days as if it wasnt for my Fup I would be in the same boat.
I still need to re-evaluate the management side of things to see what angle they plan to take. Consolidation still makes no sense to me why they did it but it does present a great opportunity for new buyers and old ones averaging down. Its not rocket science to work out that once upon a time this stock was 40c pre consolidation hence with a 10 to 1 ratio it would be worth $4.00. No I dont think $4.00 will be seen anytime soon but $2.00 (after a very long wait) is possible(More likely there will be a rights issue before then). All hinges on management and if they can get this one over the line. From there it should be able to look after itself.
Anyhow just my 5cents worth ;)

He's some reading to anyone who is bored doubting coals future. As I said if RES can get through then its up and away. Good luck to all.

Future Of Coal: Rhetoric vs. Reality
February 6th, 2009 by Fereidoon Sioshansi, EEnergy Informer
Environmentalists like to see an end to conventional coal, projected trends suggest otherwise.

Everybody agrees that coal is the most abundant and the cheapest fuel for electricity generation – which explains why it is the dominant fuel in the electric power sector in many parts of the world. Even its ardent proponents, however, admit that coal is carbon-loaded and a major contributor to the rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere – which many scientists are concerned about.

Coal currently half of the pie, and to stay that way
Global mix of electricity generation, 2004 and projected for 2030, in TWhs and %
Source: International Energy Agency

The disagreement is on the future of coal. And on this, opinions diverge. The coal-lobby, consisting of powerful companies engaged in coal mining, transport and power companies with major coal-fired plants, are happy with the status quo. Coal is abundant, cheap and that means lower electricity costs. Why rock the boat?

Those concerned about climate change – a diverse and rapidly growing global community – are adamant that we must put a moratorium on new coal-fired plants unless the carbon can be captured and stored. Some go even further, advocating a total ban on coal mining and export.

Naturally the two camps do not see eye to eye, each ridiculing the position of the other as absurd, unrealistic, dangerous, and irresponsible. Both sides offer convincing arguments supporting their positions. A lot is at stake on how these divergent views are reconciled. Meanwhile, the developing world, plagued by insatiable demand for electricity, continues to build coal-fired plants unperturbed by what they see as an interesting but academic debate.

Clearly, the developed countries, who have the means and the resources, should tackle the problem before they can ask the rest of the world to consider similar options. Many are hopeful that under the Obama administration, the US would lead the way by providing sufficient clarity on long-term future of coal (see related article on factories of death).

Last year, for example, Henry Waxman, a Democratic Representative from California and now the Chairman of powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce, introduced the Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act of 2008. That bill would have placed a total ban on building new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage (CCS) capability. Since CCS technology is not yet available on a commercial scale, the bill would have had the effect of stopping construction of virtually all new coal plants in the US. Others are likely to propose similar measures in the coming months.

Mr. Obama’s own views – at least prior to becoming President – are unequivocal on the subject of coal. In early 2008, he was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle, “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” (Coal Gets Wakeup Call On Both Sides Of Atlantic, Jan 09).

The problem with CCS, aside from the fact that it is probably a decade or more from commercial deployment on a wide scale, is that it is likely to be expensive. It is difficult to know what the price premium will be but current estimates, including one from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), suggest that the cost of electricity from new coal plants designed for CCS will be 40-80% higher than from conventional coal-fired electric power plants.

Aside from the extra costs of the sophisticated hardware, such plants would probably lose 30% of energy they generate to capture, compress, and transport

The rhetoric on coal, however, must not be confused with the realities on the ground. Coal currently generates roughly half of US electricity, and Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects this to drop only nominally from 49% to 47% between 2007 and 2030. This is not a pretty picture for those who would like to see a quick end to coal. In countries like China, coal’s share – currently below 80%, are projected to increase.

EIA’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook projects that an additional 46 GW of coal-fired electricity generation, approximately 75 new plants, by 2030. The good news is it is down from 100 plants in EIA’s 2008 projection – so at least it is moving in the right direction.

But these numbers dwarf the existing fleet of roughly 1,500 US coal-fired plants that are expected to be around for a very long time. Proposals like the one introduced by Mr. Waxman, even if they pass, will only affect new plants. Which is why the coal industry is working feverishly to develop and test commercial scale CCS technology. A unit of Southern Company has submitted an application for one.

The problem with CCS, aside from the fact that it is probably a decade or more from commercial deployment on a wide scale, is that it is likely to be expensive. It is difficult to know what the price premium will be but current estimates, including one from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), suggest that the cost of electricity from new coal plants designed for CCS will be 40-80% higher than from conventional coal-fired electric power plants.

Aside from the extra costs of the sophisticated hardware, such plants would probably lose 30% of energy they generate to capture, compress, and transport the CO2 for storage. EPRI believes that this figure may be reduced to 15% as the technology matures, but the basic message remains that while coal is cheap, CCS will be expensive.


What number should we use?
Levelized cost of electricity from select sources, ¢/kWh at 2004 prices
Source: Gilbert Metcalf,” Federal Tax Policy Toward Energy,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Ppaer 12568, Oct. 2006

Even if one assumes that the developed countries can agree to put a moratorium on conventional coal and/or require a phase-in of CCS over time, it is hard to imagine developing countries following suit. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2008, for example, projects that fossil fuels will still account for 80% of world’s energy requirements by 2030 with 90% of the projected growth coming from developing countries. Coal, like it or not, is not going away any time soon.

F.P. Shioshansi

This post is extracted from EEnergy Informer, February 2009 issue.