TRUST POWER

[ananda77]

Hey Fish, well done. At $.50 NOGOC will pay you over $9000.- this morning.

Tomorrow it might pay you $12000.-...but then again that's tomorrow.

Also tomorrow you can buy back again.

At least today, you are rich. Enjoy yourself today and spent $1000.- with your friends or family -highly rewarding too-.

My bottomline:

In a material sense, nothing but -A Dollar in Cash makes you rich-

[duncan macgregor]

FISH, well done on nog. It pays however playing with shares like that to keep close watch. It reminds me a bit of poisiden in Australia. It was a fifty cent share mining company that shot up to thirty dollars so muggins thought thats to high and watched it rocket to $230-00 before it crashed to earth. It pays to have a few good uptrending companies regardless of how boring because one day that is where you end up making the steady gains. It will be years before nog make money you are gambling that they will find more oil gas or whatever. Great to dive in and out but dont get caught at the top if it goes the other way. Stay with a power company they will outpace the market while you have your fun but be carefull it can fall faster than it rises. macdunk

[CAM]

quote:Originally posted by duncan macgregor

It will be years before nog make money you are gambling that they will find more oil gas or whatever.

Really????

[Dazza]

duncan, from what ive read about NOG, most of us are not waiting for the super high value of $230 etc, most of us are holding for either the PRCC IPO or until 2007/8 where who knows where NOG will be at... i to do predict that one day it will run out of steam, but by then... im sure most of us would have made the cash, and NOG will have settled for now,

as of now im sorry but i aint budging to sell my NOG or OC's

as for fish,
keep Trustpower , i believe it is a good company, not many shares left in the public arena, due to the buy back etc etc in the days.

my old man lost heaps in the 80s due to the crash, and now only has a small holding in trustpower he doesnt really care about nor trade it, usually i have to update him on it..

its one of those buy and hold and hold and hold... if i had trustpower shares i wouldnt sell any...

[ananda77]

Contact and Genesis recently comissioned a feasibility study into the option of importing LNG. According to their findings it's a feasible option.

Wonderful! However, I just doubt the validity of such findings based on judgements of companies whose generation capacity, as is well-known in the case of Contact, depends to 50% on natural gas.


[center]The case for renewable generation[/center

...If you think power prices have taken a steep hike recently,it 's nothing compared to the what could happen if we move towards an electricity price based on imported fuel – and if access to that fuel is disrupted in some way. It just doesn't bear contemplation.

...There is a fundamental flaw in the advertising spin that says price can only come down at the expense of the environment, and vice versa.

I think that's dead wrong.

...I know that there is enough wind and hydro power to provide secure supply for the next 15 years at a price well below (well below) coal or LNG.

source: http://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/

Importing LNG simply spells disaster.

During the oil-shocks in the 1970's our massive reliance on imported fuels caused economic growth to slump substantially as well as a tremendous amount of social upheaval.

In 1978, tankers destined for New Zealand were diverted to other countries willing to pay more, and with more clout internationally than us.

The LNG-option will be the sure key for such things to happen again!

-Unlike Oil, NG (Natural Gas) must be liquified prior to shipping

-Needs to be shipped in specially designed refrigerated ships

-Needs to be landed at specially equipped ports

-Needs to be re-gasified for re-distribution

-Needs specially designed storage facilities

Energy Loss in the process: 15-30%

Energy analyst Stephen B Andrews recently wrote:

“According to the 'Oil Gas Journal' (8/21/00), there were 114 existing LNG tankers on January 2000. Only 8 vessels were available for spot-market trade...e.g. not locked in to long-term trading agreements.”

“The 28 LNG tankers now on order and being built will increase the LNG fleet’s capacity by close to 1/3. An additional 52 vessels would be required between 2005 and 2010. Combined, the total increase would be an 87% rise in LNG shipping capacity. Most of those on order today are locked into long-term trading contracts.”

“Today, the world trade in LNG is apparently about 125 billion cubic meters — which would make it around 5% of world natural gas consumption (using BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy for the total sum). LNG trade is forecast to increase by 35% by 2005. If all of that increase were directed to North America, it wouldn’t come close to covering our projected increased consumption.”

“As luck would have it, Asia has already spoken for that upcoming increase in new LNG. The potential for LNG imports in India and China is enormous".

...and in the United States, "orders for a massive number of natural gas-fired plants have already been placed (275 North American gas-fired electrical generation plants are planned to begin operations through 2006).These new gas plants require an unbelievable amount of natural gas (approx. 8.5 tcf). The supply is simply not there.”

[Placebo]

Ananda I think it says something that the cost of setting up and sourcing supply to import LNG is a preferable option for Contact/Genesis than investing in wind/solar. Better solution to set up a risky supply chain to feed a continuing polluter when renewable sources (and technology for them) is available?

I'm wondering what sort of direction (if any) the feedback Contact are getting from their positive energy campaign is giving them. Some of it is posted on the website http://www.positive-energy.co.nz/feedback.php.

[ananda77]

Placebo:

The only logical reason to do something like that is that they have invested heavily and have plans ready to invest further into gas-fired power plants.

From a financial viewpoint it makes sense to run those plants as long until they are depreciated.

Imported LNG is most likely their cheapest (thus preferred) option.

[duncan macgregor]

When you invest in a system the cost of setting up etc, you have to let it run as long as you can. Contact have been buying power in, when it is cheaper than gas generation. Windpower is not the most economic system to set up, but is far cheaper than importing gas. It takes a long time to set up a wind farm, much easier to ship gas in and pass the cost on. TPW sit in the box seat as far as power generation goes a great long term buy. macdunk

[ananda77]

Furthermore in "Ten Steps to a Sustainable Energy Future"

Rudolf Rechsteiner (Swiss MP)writes:

"The potential of wind power is indeed enormous: All the electricity consumed by the former European Union (EU-15) could be produced, with two 5 MW turbines positioned per km2, in an offshore area of 200 km x 200 km..."

With so much ocean around New Zealand, instead of trying to invest short of 1 billion dollars into a LNG-infrastructure wouldn't it make more sense to use the above option???

source: http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/steps.htm

[ananda77]

Sorry duncan, but Rechsteiner would disagree with you re:

Windpower is not the most economic system to set up...and it takes a long time to set up a wind farm...

The economics of wind power are remarkable:

-investment costs of fairly less than 1euro/watt
-short building times (2-20 weeks)
-global availability, no emissions, no fuels and disposal costs
-low maintenance requirements and steadily falling generation costs thanks to increasingly efficient installations and mass production.

Wind power is fully immune to oil and gas price fluctuations. Wind hedging is gaining in importance on the US power market because natural gas, the widely preferred power plant fuel supply, is declining and experiencing alarming price rises and fluctuations.