sicophiliac

Renewable Diesel: Biodiesel' s Nightmare

I think as long as diesel is 3 + dollars a gallon, there will be room for both biodiesel and "renewable" diesel. If one is economical at 1 dollar a gallon vs 2 dollars a gallon they will still both demand the market rate give or take for the product. Am I right? Also its not like this renewable diesel is going to have a limitless feedstock, raising cattle or livestock and processing animal fats and meat is energy intensive. What is happening it seems is that they are like BFRE mentioned above, capturing energy that would typically have been waisted. Given that animal fat is a waste product (at least i think so) anyways.

Economically Viable Alternative Energy: Nova Biosource

1000 gallons of water per gallon of biodiesel? I have never heard anything like that before about biodiesel. I suppose a lot would go into irrigating the crops but that number still sounds high. Another point for biodiesel that was not made is that its net energy return is around 3:1 compared to corn ethanol which is supposedly around 1.3:1 based on the reports out there. This ratio would be key for long term scalability of any source of energy. Its twice that of the oil sands in Canada with the current technology they use. I would imagine biodiesel from algae would have a substantially better net energy return given algae grows so much faster and apparently 50% of the biomass can be converted into fuel. Not to mention algae can grow from almost nothing and its unlikely much petroleum based fertilizers would be needed. One more plus is that biodiesel or diesel for that matter is much more efficient to burn than gasoline. A car with X hp and X acceleration could get say 20 mpg running on gasoline, maybe 15 mpg on E85. However running on diesel or biodiesel for that matter it would get maybe 30 mpg if not better and still run just as strong, not to mention the lifespan of the engine would be greatly extended as well as lowend torque.

KAL Energy: Avoid This Stock At All Costs

I think the main concern brought up in the article was the possibility of share dilution. Other than that most of the points made seemed to be criticizing the fact that KALG was a new company and did not yet have the typical laundry list of things that would make them a save established investment. I mean no earnings, no guarantee of financing yet ect ect. Is that not the case more or less with any new company ? Also and I am biased since I own some shares, what new start up doesn't engage in a little hype to build up market capitol ? In all honestly I cant see how saying "avoid this stock at all cost" can be justified.If you want a stock to avoid at all costs try EBOF for example. Its a risky play for sure but that comes with the territory of penny stocks. However, they seem to have quite experienced management and they do have a decent amount of coal in their blocks of land.

KAL Energy: Avoid This Stock At All Costs

Do you know if Indonesian coal from this region typically has a low strip ratio or not? Also if the strip ratio is low then in your opinion should these guys be able to profitably get this stuff out of the ground? Even the low grade coal.

KAL Energy: Avoid This Stock At All Costs

Ok forgive my ignorance but could you explain a bit more on what strip ratio is exactly? Is it the ratio of top soil needed to be stripped in relation to the amount of coal recoverable underneath? I wasnt too sure what was implied in your statement about the topography and its significants, I thought maybe if there were huge mountain ranges or canyons in the block it would make things a lot more difficult for them. That clearly is not the case but apparently smaller variations in topography are critical.

Looking at what you have said about the two blocks is it fair to say they have likely have a lot of the low grade coal and a little bit of the good stuff? I agree that the results from testing of block 16 will be interesting, they could very well make or break this company.

KAL Energy: Avoid This Stock At All Costs

I am curious if the grade of coal KALG has stated in the JORC report would be classified as lignite coal ? In response to kambingramah looking at Kal Energy's official website they do have maps that give topographical information on the blocks of land they have rights to. I have also google maped the rough locations of the blocks they have rights to and have found the topography to be relatively flat. Variations in elevation rarely go up more than 100 feet or so. Also they have some information on their site stating there are indications of a "low strip ratio" Perhaps somebody who is much more knowledgeable when it comes to geology and coal mining could take a look at that. BWT that pdf file on the Wara coal reserves wouldnt load worth a crap on my comp. I did some other research and found that there is some growing demand for the lower grade Indonesian coals due to environmental benefits of the low sulfer and ash content. Also Kambingramah you should look at the numbers on the test results from the coal from the other land block they have. In my admittedly ignorant opinion they look to be much better, higher caloric values/ lower moisture content ect.