alphaMS

15 Comments

    • Five Reasons to Buy Raser Technologies [view article]
      Abraham,
      Well, (pun intended) you started out using well field as the numerator and you have know switched to MW produced. You defined well field as a five –hole field.

      <<<However, you have the numerator (costs), but not the denominator (number of wellfields this represents).>>&g...

      <<<What we do know however, from general work in the geothermal industry, is that a 5-hole wellfield costs "approximately&am... $5 million.>>>


      The switch, <<<$5 million is a general round number figure used per 10 mhw resource. If they were to look at doing 20mhw for example, they'd incur $10 million and if memory serves, they are going to produce 22mhw of power there>>>

      There is over $20 million in expenses so far. I am not sure how many 5-hole well fields they have developed. Using your number they have developed (4 ) five-hole fields and have drilled enough holes for 40MW.
      This is not the case.
       Aug 19 08:54 AM
    • Five Reasons to Buy Raser Technologies [view article]
      Your write,

      <<<Also, the non-reimbursed development costs you highlight are a very good point. However, you have the numerator (costs), but not the denominator (number of wellfields this represents). This could be Truckee, Thermo (multiple sites there), and some driling at other locations - we just don't know. What we do know however, from general work in the geothermal industry, is that a 5-hole wellfield costs "approximately&am... $5 million.>>>

      I ask, how you came up with your $5 million number?

      <<<In the conference call raser pointed out well development cost of $20 Million that would not be reimbursed. How do you come up with your $5 million number. Seems way off.>>>

      You are suggesting that of the $20 million, only $5 million is for the Thermo property. That is beyond far fetched and reaches into ridiculous.
      To further support you number you say, "

      <<<What we do know however, from general work in the geothermal industry, is that a 5-hole wellfield costs "approximately&am... $5 million.>>>

      We don't know that--support your work. That aside raser has shown their numbers. I don't think any one will buy into the argument that 75% of the line item $20 million is for projects other than thermo. Should we call raser and ask them?

      The $20 million is just one example, if you listen to the CC, they point out other costs that will not be reimbursed.

       Aug 18 08:15 AM
    • Five Reasons to Buy Raser Technologies [view article]
      Abraham, back to posting under this user name eh? Why not Alexandra Minsky?

      Ok, comments, you section #1 you wrote

      <<<...if an investor really examines what happened, this stock sale exhausts RZ's recent shelf filing. Translation: there should be no more "overhang" of the company selling stock in the immediate-term.>>...

      What is there to stop them from filing another shelf offering?

      #2 It is only raser that has said they have the hottest geo discovery in 25 years, They also said they would have a hand full of automotive contracts by year end--2005. They also said they expected ML funding by last February. --There are more of these.

      Is there any support that the land value alone supports the current market cap? Did you just make that up? Please show your work.

      #5) you say.

      <<<The math, to those willing to do it, is very compelling. In a nutshell, Raser spends $5 million to drill holes on its property, and then receives $25 million in net present value dollars (it receives much more in actual dollars, but it's spread out over 10-20 years). >>>

      In the conference call raser pointed out well development cost of $20 Million that would not be reimbursed. How do you come up with your $5 million number. Seems way off.
      Further more there is no evidence as to what revenue and income they may receive.



       Aug 17 06:12 PM
    • Raser Technologies: A Short Squeeze in the Making [view article]
      UTCP comes through with a hugely successful geothermal facility (Chena) and for 2 years no one went to the effort to look at the technology?
      Possible, but do you really think that is the case. I guess you could call UTC power and ask them if no look at their technology. I doubt you will do that though


       Jun 16 09:22 PM
    • Raser Technologies: A Short Squeeze in the Making [view article]
      Abraham Gaines how are you doing? Why did you change usernames and start posting under Alexandra Minskey. In your next post could you please use spell check?

      One more question; you claim to be a skeptic--you then you go on to say the skeptics story is old and clearly shows lack of research.

      So from this can we derive your story is old and shows lack of research?       Jun 16 11:32 AM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      My previous post showed:

      <<<There is now way you can reconstruct the cash flow statement and come up with cash burn of $24 million/quarter.>&g...

      It should have read $14 million/quarter.

      I am sure no one believes Abe's bogus claim of $14 million cash burn per quarter. If you have any doubt about it call Raser and they will confirm without a doubt that past cash burn is nowhere near that       Mar 27 09:52 AM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      Abe buddy, you are digging a hole.

      There is now way you can reconstruct the cash flow statement and come up with cash burn of $24 million/quarter. I really don't know who you are trying to sham on that. Despite your claim to be a professional, your not. It is apparent to all that you are not. That was a nice ploy though to use the condescending tone and say it is apparent to the informed investor. Bottom line--you are wrong.
      But hey, walk me through it, line item by line item. There isn't that much there, it can easily be done.

      I checked Bloomberg there volume coincides with the two sources I quoted.

      finance.yahoo.com/q?s=...

      www.marketwatch.com/qu...

      www.bloomberg.com/apps...

      Bloomberg doesn't show avg volume, however you can check volume for any day via the chart feature and it will match the other two sources.

      Don't even try to go down that road that you have the "true institutional volume" that argument will not fly.

      My beef with you is you post things that are just flat out not true.

      Why?



       Mar 26 07:14 PM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      response to Abraham:

      Ok, one more for us to discuss, you said:

      <<<Short argument: The company has no hot water – how will they make electricity?>>&g...

      i don't think anyone has said raser has no hot water. It is pretty evident that there is a ample hot water in Nevada, Utah and other KGRA's. I'm not sure why you would even throw that out as a short argument--other than to try and paint the short arguments as baseless.
      If their is a related short argument it would be that raser has not given quantifiable results such, as temp, flow, and pressure. and time. Nor has raser addressed the issue of cold water, as another contributer point out, cold water is also needed.

      Hot water isn't enough. If it was, you would see UTCP Purecycle geothermal units being implemented in a number of locations       Mar 26 03:43 PM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      Response to razormd;

      Actually raser was familiar with geothermal going back to 2004 when they begin their bid for Amp resources. They would have been aware of geothermal since at least the time BC came on board, as he as a past employee of Amp.

      The cold water temp for the Chena geothermal plant is 39 degrees, it comes from glacier run off. Water temp that cold will be tough to find in Nevada.       Mar 26 12:06 PM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      For Abraham: You wrote
      <<<1) average daily trading volume - this was an approximation and meant to signal a rough range. Further as you well know, one can look at this over various time-periods. For example, from the period 1/3/06 until the present time, the average trading volume is actually 139,000. If you look at 1/3/07 until the present, the figure is 213k. I wasn't trying to misrepresent the actual trading volume - rather, for an institutional investor - one who tends to purchase in denominations of 50-100k shares, this was meant to represent a range. As institutions, we look at the trading volume and say to ourselves, "I want to make this position x% of my fund - how many days of volume will I represent." By stating "approximately 120k", that would give an investor a rough sense.>>>

      I would argue an informed investor would not look back to 2006 to calculate avg volume. Volume in 2006 has little if any significance to todays trading. That said, avg volume according you since Jan 3 07 is 213 K

      Yahoo shows avg for 3 months at 304K
      Marketwatch shows avg volume at 308K


      Where do you get your data to support 213K

       Mar 25 05:43 PM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      In response to Abraham Gaines,

      Here is your comment on cash burn:

      Short argument: They burn $12-14 million per quarter and don't have a balance sheet capable of absorbing those losses.

      Fact-based response: If taken on the surface, this is true – however doing so would be an incomplete analysis and would lead to an incorrect conclusion. While the company's cash burn to-date has been $12-14 million per quarter, ....

      My point is ---cash burn has never been $12-$14 per quarter. No one has presented an argument that cash burn is $12-$14/quarter.

      I challenged you to show where someone said it was that number (which you didn't) and I then challenged why you would say, ..."If taken on the surface, this is true"


      I never argued what cash-burn actually is--so please don't reiterate your number.       Mar 25 03:11 PM
    • Raser Technologies: The Long Case [view article]
      This is quite possibly one of the worst articles I have read. You are clearly violating seekingalpha’s online rules of conduct. How could someone who is supposedly an institutional investor write this garbage? You begin by saying there is a lot of <b>misinformatio... dominating the online forums, yet your “essay is wrought with misinformation. Let’s start with daily trading volume; 120,000 shares? Hardly, it is about 3X that. While this average daily volume error is miniscule, it shows your lack of attention to facts. Your first sentence; “Raser is a development stage company which produces and <b>sells steam-based energy</B> made from hot water found beneath the earth's surface.”

      Raser has not produced nor sold any energy. You know or should know that. To say they sell steam based energy is blatantly false.

      Several sentences later you mention they have produced no revenue. This is poorly written and misleading. The fist sentence of your second paragraph completely contradicts your first sentence in the essay.

      Many of the arguments you present to the short side have never been brought up. You presuppose softball arguments that do not exist so you can support your case for the long side.

      As an example:
      Where on earth did you come up with a short argument that the company burns $12-$14 million per quarter? I like to see just one online discussion forum topic where that was brought up.
      You then go on to say the cash burn number is correct. Are you capable of even the most basic understanding of financial statements? How, as an institutional investor can you come up with such inaccurate information?

      The rest of your “essay” is as poor and inaccurate as the few items I mentioned. If you are an institutional investor you should post which institution, as I am sure any informed investor would want to pull their funds from your institution.

      I have posted below a copy of the posting rules of conduct.
      You agree not to:
      <i>Post any comment that you either know or should know is false, deceptive or misleading, or misrepresent or deceive others as to the source, accuracy, integrity or completeness of any comment you post.</i>

      If you are an institutional investor, you know or should know that cash burn is not $12-$14 million per quarter.
       Mar 25 01:07 PM
    • Raser Technologies: A Stock for All Environments [view article]
      This article is inaccurate in so many areas it is laughable.
      First, Abraham’s numbers are wrong. The stock is not up 43% from Nov. 5th through Jan. 20.
      When the writer can not even get percentage increases correct, how can you possibly give any credence to any other financial calculations?
      Jan 22 10:29 AM
    • The Long Case For Raser Technologies [view article]
      I gave the author of this story ample time to respond. I doubt he will.
      Brent Cook was not the CEO of Pacificorp as claimed in the story. When I read that I became suspicious.
      I believe most of the numbers quoted (albeit very sketchy numbers) were plagiarized from a Murphy Analytics report.
      Nov 08 12:25 PM
    • The Long Case For Raser Technologies [view article]
      These numbers look great.
      What market price did you use to estimate 1.2 billion in revenue for 100mwh. The most recent contract that UTGH signed would not support that high of revenue. Did you assume it will operate 24/7 with no down time?
      When was Brent Cook CEO of PacifiCorp?
      Do you have any support for your 60% operating margins?
       Nov 05 02:58 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»