Global warming - Best Companies

Hi YChromozone,

Have been following your information on CNM. I have also been following this stock for sometime now and have built up a holding.

You mentioned a while back about CETO and the fact that it has been sold off to REH on the AIM n London - which is correct. As part of this deal they received some stock in REH and bought some more at the time of listing. They still hold most of this stock but sold a few recently to fund the listing of their mineral sand assets on the AIM also.

As part of the REH deal however they also secured the following:

1. The rights to invest / partnership in any future project involving CETO.
2. The rights to invest into future renewable energy projects deemed appropriate on same terms as REH.

This should allow them over time to build up a portfolio of renewable energy projects in Europe, anything to do with CETO and hopefully the commercialisation of a small clean coal project.

It is still a small stock with a long way to go and I think a capital raising will be needed to fund some of the above, however a government grant should be forthcoming if the clean coal is viable.

I like CETO more for the clean desalination than the actual electricity. Here is a recent article in this regards on CETO.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/break...veiled-in-perth/2006/11/22/1163871469983.html

Good luck with it. I just like the sector in general and will keep sourcing alternatives.

Higgo

billhill said:

Hi Guys,
With the increased awareness of global warming in the last couple of years and the acknoledgement by governments that it actually exist i thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on the companies that may benefit the most due to possible changes in the climate and carbon legislation. Any ideas?

Billhill

Click to expand...

A SMALL RAMP...SLA...THEY USE CONIFER NEEDLES TO MAKE THIER PRODUCTS ..THEREFORE...CARBON CREDITS!...

Totally forgot. Platinum and palladium are used in just about all technologies that limit carbon emissions. Platinum producers might be good long term holds if you look at possible ever increasing demands for the stuff.

Sims Group Metal (SGM)

Recycling of metals uses a lot less electricity than extraction from the ground. The addition of a carbons tax / trading will boost the attractiveness of recycling , and Sims is well poised to take advantage of it. Even if carbon legislation does not come in for a decade, it's still a well run and managed company - and most importantly profitable!

Noticed today that the biofuel companies have done very well. The only reason i could find for the move was this link below stating the the US administration will push automakers to produce more flex cars. If anybody knows any other reasons for the biofuels push today please let us know.

http://online.wsj.com/google_login..../SB116519791952339652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

billhill said:

Noticed today that the biofuel companies have done very well. The only reason i could find for the move was this link below stating the the US administration will push automakers to produce more flex cars. If anybody knows any other reasons for the biofuels push today please let us know.

http://online.wsj.com/google_login..../SB116519791952339652.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Click to expand...

Not all have. The babcock & brown led one has been smacked a bit.

Found an article from about a year ago that highlights some other companies at least partially in the business of sustainability.

http://www.ecoinvestor.com.au/Editions/Eco_Investor_February_2006.pdf

Re: Water infrastructure

AWS's price perked up. With plans to open 8 new stores nationwide, surely, they must be on the right track, with government rebates for water conservation and recycling?

Or, is this just pure market speculation?

I'm still new to this (trading business), but certainly can see that global warming plus increasing population, water supply and capacity planning and such, would be of some interests(government and private).

Also, like the look of the EVZ price chart. Certainly, under the radar. But, certainly, steady as she goes...

I think the carbon tax system should be reformed. It should tax both power producer and the energy producer, such as coal miners etc.

By the same rule, the uranium producers should be traded like renewable energy producers because of nuclear power having no global warming gases emission, and it should take carbon credits from coal miners etc.

Any uranium miner should be considered as excellent investment in fighting global warming.

ASX:COZ - CO2 GROUP LIMITED

CO2 AUSTRALIA : The new ‘C02 Australia’ division of the C02 Group will provide environmental services, namely carbon sequestration. The company will generate carbon credits for clients through its biomass carbon sinks. COZ has just planted 1,000 acres of Malle eucalypt trees in country New South Wales. The company does not own the land but holds a forestry right with a 150 year restrictive covenant over the trees which are typically planted on farmers land. Carbon credits are sold to clients who wish to avoid paying the applicable penalty to the relevant government for producing emissions above an allowable amount. COZ has gained accreditation under the carbon sequestration provision of the NSW Government’s Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme to create carbon credits from forests.

I don't know about the best companies to invest in for global warming...but I'm going to start growing grapes for wine in southern Sweden. The climate is already mild in the same way as parts of England and this year December was the warmest it's been since records began back in 1756.

The world is changing!

Extract from TenBaggerQuarterly.com Dec issue:

Take special note of the Plascon section

BUY: DOLOMATRIX
ASX Code: DMX
It is not often we find a fast growing “toll road” trading at a
deep discount to true value. But Dolomatrix, a toxic waste
treatment company, offers just such an opportunity.
Hazardous waste treatment is arguably more of a “toll road”
than an actual “toll road”. Producers of toxic waste are required
by law to have it treated, yet few people will consent to a new
toxic waste dump opening in their neighbourhood. Hazardous
waste treatment is also a dangerous business, and obtaining a
government license is a long and costly process. The significant
obstacles in establishing new toxic waste treatment facilities
mean that incumbent operators effectively enjoy a legislated
monopoly, enabling them to earn incredible profit margins.

Dolomatrix has long been a very ugly duckling. The company
listed in 2001 to commercialise its “Dolocrete” hazardous waste
treatment process, which turns hazardous waste into safe solids
at low cost, but long delays saw the share price decline 97% to
15c by early 2006. However, the company’s fortunes have been
transformed by the recent acquisitions of hazardous waste
treatment firms BCDT Group and Chemsal Resource Recovery.

Highly regarded Chemsal currently operates two fully licensed
hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities in Melbourne
(Laverton) and Sydney (Weatherill Park), taking a “full service”
approach in handling everything from decontamination,
specialist waste transport and treatment to resource recovery.

Dolomatrix’s other major acquisition, the BCDT Group,
operates licensed facilities in Queensland and Victoria for the
destruction of toxic wastes contaminated with pesticides
including PCBs, HCBs, and DDT. Collectively referred to as
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), these biohazards have a
prolonged life cycle in the environment, and can only be
processed by specially licensed facilities. BCDT and Chemsal
operate the only Australian facilities licensed to destroy POPs.

In addition, BCDT’s Victorian plant holds the only Australian
license to destroy potent greenhouse gas trifluoromethane and
organic chemicals such as PCBs, halons (once used in fire
extinguishers) and CFCs (banned refrigerants).
[/B]
BCDT employs
its proprietary “Plascon” technology to convert these hazardous
gases and liquids into harmless solids.
There are now ten Plascon units around the world. A Plascon
plant is a solid little earner because under the Kyoto Protocol
developed countries pay carbon credits for projects that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions – such as destroying
trifluoromethane, which has a global warming potential 11,700
times that of CO2. At the going rate of over $20 per tonne of
CO2, the rate per tonne of trifluoromethane is over $200,000,
which exceeds the cost of destruction more than twenty fold.
Add that to the fact that Plascon destroys around a tonne per
day, and the economics for customers are compelling.
BCDT used to sell Plascon plants for a one-off fee of $1.3m,
but secured recurring revenues in a recent sale to Venezuela.
“Advanced discussions” are progressing for similar deals.[/B]

Dolomatrix’s original Dolocrete technology is also showing
promise. Management is “confident” of selling an exclusive
South African license for Dolocrete for US$15m, with
regulatory approvals already underway. Heads of Agreement
have been signed for Saudia Arabia, Thailand and Malaysia.

Dolomatrix management is forecasting “strong organic
revenue growth across each business unit” in FY2007, with
Chemsal building two new waste treatment plants and BCDT
expanding its Victorian facility. In addition, BCDT has won new
contracts and has secured increased treatment prices.

We forecast Dolomatrix will earn a profit after tax of $7.5m
for FY2007, rising to $11.5m in FY2008, from organic growth
as well as the realization of synergies from integrating
Chemsal, BCDT and Dolocrete. With a current market
capitalization of $96.0m, DMX shares are trading at a FY2008
forward P/E of 8.3. Given the low risk monopoly
characteristics of toxic waste treatment and strong growth
potential from technology licensing, we expect the shares to
be re-rated to $1.80-$2.50 over the next 18-24 months. BUY.
March 2006 December 2006
Dolomatrix
Issue 064 www.tenbaggerquarterly.com December 14th, 2006
11

mmmmining said:

I think the carbon tax system should be reformed. It should tax both power producer and the energy producer, such as coal miners etc.

By the same rule, the uranium producers should be traded like renewable energy producers because of nuclear power having no global warming gases emission, and it should take carbon credits from coal miners etc.

Click to expand...

Two issues to consider there. One is that any form of carbon tax only works if it applies to ALL countries since heavily polluting activity is easily shifted around the world.

For example, alumina is shipped from Queensland to Tasmania where it is refined into aluminium metal, virtually all of which is then sent back to the mainland or overseas. Likewise the manganese ore shipped from the Northern Territory to Tasmania where it is processed and 100% of it shipped to mainland and international markets. The sole reason for these plants being located in Tasmania comes down to one word - "Hydro". The aluminium smelter alone uses more power than every house in the state.

New Zealand has a large aluminium smelter for exactly the same reasons as Tasmania. Cheap hydro power. Likewise the smelters in Victoria, NSW and Queensland are only there due to cheap (coal-fired) electricity made possible by economies of scale in the massive power plants in those states (hence why there aren't aluminium smelters in WA or SA). Do anything that makes this power uncompetitive in the global market and the smelters go somewhere else. An economic loss to Australia whilst the pollution simply shifts rather than ends. Hence the futility of any form of tax affecting industrial energy use that doesn't apply to every country on earth (especially Middle East, Russia, China, South Africa etc).

The other issue is that there is a realistic possibility of coal becoming a low or zero emissions power source in the future via geosequestration. It would be problematic to tax coal destined for polluting use but not tax identical coal destined for non-polluting use, especially given that both uses may well be occurring at the same location and done by the same company.

Such a situation is already planned in Queensland. Same coal, same location of consumption, same company and the same product (electricity) produced. But some of the coal used will pollute and some won't. Hence it makes sense to tax the pollution rather than the coal.

I noticed that in george bush's state of the union address that he promoted the decrease in oil imports by 20% and replace this with biofuels and better efficiency. Searching news reports today he has been visiting duponts R&D biofuels facility in support of the industry. So is this just more political spin or is there going to be a serious push for biofuels, and what does it mean for australia. Would appreciate others opinions.

I like timber companies to benefit from actions to address global warming.

They usually offer good franked yields and relatively stable earnings. In the long run I think timber will be seen as the environmentally friendly building material of choice. It operates as a carbon sink, holding in CO2 for centuries. Also timber planations may eventually benefit from carbon credits under any future carbon trading regime. I have GTP, GNS and FEA myself.

I'm would like to see some earnings before I touch a Geothermal stock.

For people looking into good global warming & alternative energy companies i seriuosly recommend you take a look at EDE - Eden Energy. These guys have so many projects with massive potential but the real money maker will be Hythane and its proposed/associated carbon credits firstly in India. If they get this right than this could spread round the world like wildfire:

Check out their quarterly - http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070131/pdf/310r9kbmf79455.pdf

A great read and I hold for long term on this baby.

The issue of global warming really seems to be gaining serious momentum in the last year and particually last month or so. Interesting then that worlds leading environmental stocks gained over 150% for the year 2006 (see link).

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12461&channel=0

Seeing as australia has not had any real boom in renewable energy stocks and the global warming issue is probably only going to become more prominent, is perhaps now the right time to hop on some of the shares listed on this thread. Everyone on this site is talking up a biotech boom but maybe the boom will come from renewable companies or maybe a wider technology boom is coming. Anyone else thinking of some exposure to green stocks.

i like your thinking...
biotechs may boom, but its so hit and miss...

the main areas of focus are

solar
solar farms / columns
geo thermal
tidal
nuclear (only as a transition fuel for the next 30- 40 years)
wind (only cause it seems to be fashionable at present)

Everyone with an interest in this subject should read the below link - "Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change" by Sprott Assett Management

http://www.sprott.com/pdf/climate.pdf

Its one of the few balanced perspecives on climate change and its financial consequences so far. Their view on the future is:

- Nuclear for electricity generation
- Renewable energies - wind, hydro, biomass (however net energy benefit of biomass is debatable unless on a large scale)
- Clean coal technologies - liquification & gasification

does anyone follow Envirozel (EVZ) and wish to share their thoughts on the short - medium term prospects of this company.

I have done my own research but wish to hear from anyone closing following this stock.