Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Compliance Energy Corp CPYCF

Compliance Energy Corp Is a Canada-based exploration and development company. The company is engaged in the exploration and development of resource properties. The firm is an exploration and development company working on resource properties it has staked or acquired, principally on Vancouver Island. It has interest in Comox Joint Venture (CJV), which holds the Raven Underground Coal Mining... see more

GREY:CPYCF - Post Discussion

Compliance Energy Corp > IS Ambre Energy Economic Woe Raven's canary in the
View:
Post by mokita on Feb 13, 2013 5:50pm

IS Ambre Energy Economic Woe Raven's canary in the

https://www.sightline.org/ambre

REPORT:   AMBRE ENERGY UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED WITH U.S. COAL EXPORTING PLANS

Awash in Red Ink, Australian Firm Seen as Having Little Financial Ability to
Deliver on 2 Major Planned Export Terminals in Washington and Oregon.

SEATTLE, WA.///February 13, 2013///Ambre Energy, an Australian company that
is currently touting plans for a pair of controversial coal export terminal
sites in Washington and Oregon, faces mounting financial, regulatory and
other challenges that make it unlikely to deliver on its promises in the
U.S., according to a new report for the nonprofit Sightline Institute.

Available online at https://www.sightline.org/ambre, “Ambre Energy:  Caveat
Investor,” the report catalogues a number of money woes for the company,
including money-losing coal mines, large write-offs for failed overseas
ventures, major liabilities for mine cleanup and pensions, troubled assets,
high borrowing costs, and a need for $1 billion in new capital to make its
coal projects financially viable.

Highlights of the report include the following:

* Substantial losses. Since it was founded in 2005, Ambre has racked up more
than $124 million (Australian dollars) in accumulated losses, while taking
in less than $7 million in revenues.

* High borrowing costs. Ambre’s financial records show loans with annual
interest rates of 10 to 12 percent—strikingly high rates at a time when junk
bond yields have fallen below 6 percent.

* Money-losing coal mines: The company’s recently acquired U.S. mining
business has hemorrhaged money, and one of its two mines recently announced
plans to lay off nearly half its work force.

* Massive liabilities. Ambre’s recent U.S. asset purchases come attached
with massive mine acquisition, reclamation, pension, and medical obligations
of at least $240 million.

* Substantial capital needs. Ambre needs roughly $1 billion in additional
financing to move its coal export plans to fruition.

* Failed overseas venture. The government of Queensland, Australia recently
blocked Ambre’s proposed coal-to-liquids venture, forcing Ambre to recognize
a $10.7 million loss.

* Regulatory uncertainty. The company’s coal projects face lengthy and
costly environmental review requirements, permitting uncertainties, and new
questions about its plans to avoid federal royalty payments by selling coal
between its own subsidiaries.

* High-risk business plans. Even if Ambre can manage to bring its coal
terminals online, it will still be exposed to sizable risks from rail and
shipping costs, volatile international coal prices, and competition from
better-established coal exporting rivals on the Pacific Rim.

Alan Durning, executive director, Sightline Institute, said: “Ambre Energy
is a very dicey proposition for investors. State and local governments and
potential business partners should be aware of the severe financial risks
the company carries.”

Clark Williams-Derry, researcher and report author, Sightline Institute,
said: “Ambre Energy barely even qualifies as a bona fide coal company, much
less a powerhouse in the coal export business.  The company attempts to
portray itself as well-established multinational coal conglomerate, but its
financial records paint a picture of high-risk startup venture that had
never even produced coal until 2011.”

Tom Sanzillo, finance director, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis, said:  “Despite projections of robust short- and long-term global
demand for more thermal coal, U.S. coal producers are challenged to find
their permanent niche in the global marketplace. Slower growth in China and
India tighten demand, a condition that favors existing suppliers. Price
signals today do not present the same robust profit scenarios of even six
months ago. Port projects and the mining sector that underwrites them were
once filled with opportunity and optimism, but now face sobering
uncertainty.”
Comment by str8tgoods on Feb 13, 2013 7:12pm
How in the world can you compare Ambre energy to Compliane energy mokita?  They're obviously two different plays with different strategic goals. 
Comment by mokita on Feb 14, 2013 12:30pm
Critical Thinking 101:  Read CEC Tech. Report for risks and uncertainties that are listed as current  contributor's to Ambre economic woes:  : slump in global market, bleak forecast that contrasts with CEC's "robust economics based on outdated information and an analysis that Wood MacKenzie admits it is not responsible for and is valid ONLY when report was published in ...more  
Comment by 2guys on Feb 14, 2013 12:49pm
Look at the costs mokita, and you'll see that at even today's prices, Raven is more than profitable.   Ok, you don't like coal because you're convinced that it kills.     Have you forgotten what the Nuclear Power Plant meltdowns in Japan and Russia did to their population and to the Earth's atmosphere?    How about the Tar Sands?  How much ...more  
Comment by chrisale on Feb 14, 2013 8:54pm
(Not that you're going to see this response because you are ignoring me like we are in high school but  for others...) you just don't get it 2guys.  Coal is the #1 source of CO2 emissions in the world and because of that it is going the way of asbestos where it won't matter if you mine it with unicorns and fairies, no one will want the product. Yesterday the news said Thanks ...more  
Comment by mokita on Feb 14, 2013 8:58pm
check your math 2guys: CEC feasibility is based on sale price average of $174 a tonne; today's average is $100 a tonne. Production costs cannot be trusted:  CEC feasibility has so many missing items and is based on 2010 projections:  Missing items: security bond likely to be like Quinsams of around 7 million, compensation to FN for loss of Fish from contaminated watersheds, likely to ...more  
Comment by 2guys on Feb 15, 2013 8:52am
Check their average cost mokita, and then do the math.
Comment by mokita on Feb 15, 2013 4:51pm
   Quote from CEC Tech Report "The Project base case is financially attractive with an estimated pre-tax NPV (8% discount rate) of C$378million (100% basis) at an average realized coal price of C$174 per tonne (prices are FOB Port Alberni). The Project returns a non-leveraged, pre-tax discounted cash flow-internal rate of return of 28.7 percent. Selected financial analysis results ...more  
Comment by mokita on Feb 15, 2013 4:58pm
  Health, environmental damage could triple cost of power * "Public cost greater than cost of coal itself"-author By Scott Malone BOSTON, Feb 16 (Reuters) - The United States' reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities ...more  
Comment by 2guys on Feb 15, 2013 10:35pm
The project is intended to be 88% met coal and 12% thermal.   Avg. cost of this comes to I believe $76.50 per tonne.  Of course the cost of met coal is higher and the cost of thermal is lower.   Final costs depend what coal is produced and sold.  You should try producing facts mokita.
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities