Get started

Renewables

$178M mkt cap company signed $545 Million Partnering AgreementCup & Handle breakout as this company is getting re-rated after recent news release... Green Impact Partners Announces $545 Million Partnering Agreement Calgary, Alberta--(Newsfile Corp. - February 21, 2023) - Green Impact Partners Inc. (TSXV: GIP) ("GIP" or the "Company") is pleased to announce it has selected Amber Infrastructure Group ("Amber Infrastructure") as a strategic partner on its GreenGas Colorado, Iowa RNG and Future Energy Park projects, representing up to $545 million in total investment for a 50% project-level equity interest in each facility. Based in London, with offices in North America, Europe and Australia, Amber Infrastructure is an infrastructure investor with over $8 billion in assets under management. All of the documentation for the various agreements with Amber Infrastructure is being held in escrow and will be released and come into effect upon Amber Infrastructure advancing the purchase proceeds under the unit purchase agreement in respect of the GreenGas transaction described below, which is anticipated to occur on February 23, 2023.
TSXV:GIPLong
by wealth_bakery
STEM (Long) - boosted by the energy bill, lovely technical setupFundamentals: - in the near term, the market seems to have found a temporary area of consolidation; that gives the trade enough time to develop - the company is focused on the storage of renewable energy , thus it is a recipient of the US Inflation Reduction Act , which will substantially subsidise renewable energy companies - Although it may seem like a no-revenue growth stock, the firm actually has a P/E of 24 - the whole renewable energy sector has been one of the strongest sectors in the market Technicals: - are just beautiful - a rounding bottom reversal on the weekly; the breakout came on the day of the bill being passed (the fundamental reason behind a breakout always gives the trade more validity) - Weekly RSI around 60 and breaking higher. The stock also broke through the weekly 50SMA - The stock's relative strength against the S&P is just straight up and to the right - Bull flag (or wedge or whatever you want to call it) after the breakout, a clear sign of consolidation; a continuation pattern Trade: - I found an entry at $16 (black line) as that level represents strong resistance from the upper side, and we broke it yesterday right at the close. However, the trade is still very much open to an entry; you wouldn't be chasing at this level - Stop loss is tricky because the optimal stop loss (red line) is a bit too far away (14%). One way to play it is to use the $16 as a stop loss, though you risk a lot of whipsaws. - The first profit target I found is the green line (25%) Caveats: - Market turns to the downside and drags this sector with it - Inflation numbers are coming out on Tuesday; if we get a larger-than-expected number, probably leave the trade right away Follow me for more analysis & Feel free to ask any questions you have, I am happy to help If you like my content, Please leave a like and a comment, it motivates me to keep producing the ideas, thank you
NYSE:STEMLong
by jurajholik
Asset payout of .40 per share + US$55M allocated to cash balanceMarket is asleep on this screamer of a deal, in my opinion: ... PODA Announces Multiparty Sale of Intellectual Property Assets for US$100.5 Million PODA to receive US$55,275,000 and anticipates making a distribution equal to approximately CDN$0.40 per subordinate voting share and CDN$400 per multiple voting share VANCOUVER, BC, May 13, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- PODA HOLDINGS, INC. ("PODA" or the "Company") (CSE: PODA) (‎FSE: 99L) (OTC: PODAF) is pleased to announce that, together with Ryan Selby and Ryan Karkairan (the ‎‎"Owners"), it has entered into a definitive agreement dated May 13, 2022 (the "Asset Purchase Agreement") with a subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria") (NYSE:MO), Altria Client Services LLC ("ALCS"), pursuant to which the Company and the Owners have each agreed to sell to ALCS substantially all of the assets and properties ‎used in the Company's business (the "Purchased Assets") of developing, manufacturing and marketing ‎multi-substrate heated capsule technology, including, without limitation, the Owners' patents related to such technology and the Company's exclusive, perpetual license of certain of those patents pursuant to an amended and restated royalties agreement dated April 12, 2019 (the "Royalties Agreement"), for a total purchase price of US$100.5 million ("Purchase Price"), subject to certain ‎adjustments and holdbacks (the ‎‎"Transaction"). The Company carries on its ‎business pursuant to the Royalties Agreement and the Company and the ‎Owners have agreed to allocate US$55,275,000 of the Purchase Price to the Company (being 55% of the Purchase Price), with the balance to the ‎Owners.‎ "This agreement represents a significant milestone for PODA and its employees," said Ryan Selby, PODA's Chief Executive Officer, Director and Chairman of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"). "Our teams have worked diligently on this technology since the Company's inception, and we believe these agreements maximize its value for the Company and its shareholders." Transaction Highlights Premium Cash Distribution: PODA expects to make a cash distribution to holders of PODA's shares (the "Shareholders") equal to approximately CDN$0.40 per subordinate voting share and CDN$400 per multiple voting share‎, representing a 167% premium to the closing share ‎price of PODA as of May 12, 2022.‎ Unanimously Recommended by Independent Directors: the Transaction has ‎been unanimously recommended by a special committee of the Board, comprised entirely of independent directors (the "Special Committee"); Fairness Opinion: Stifel Nicolaus ‎Canada Inc. ("Stifel") has provided a fairness opinion in connection with the Transaction which provides that, as of the date of such opinion, and subject to the assumptions, limitations, and qualifications on which such opinion is based, the consideration to be received by the Company pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to the Company;‎ Commercialization Capabilities: the further development and commercialization of the multi-substrate heated capsule technology by the Company is subject to a number of risks (including its ability to secure necessary funding, which could result in dilution to holders of PODA shares) with no certainty of ‎commercialization or market success;‎ No Financing Condition: the Transaction is not subject to any financing conditions; Future Opportunity to Retain Exposure: PODA expects to retain approximately CDN$1 million in cash to explore ‎new business opportunities for the economic benefit of its Shareholders, subject to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement; No Holdback: no portion of the Purchase Price allocated to the Company will be subject to holdbacks or escrow; and Cash Consideration Ratio: given that the Owners hold legal title to the intellectual property ‎comprising the multi-substrate heated capsule technology, the Special Committee believes that receiving more than half of the Purchase Price reflects excellent value for the Company.
PLong
by wealth_bakery
LONGi is unstoppable, ride one of the best trains in townHi all, I've never posted my analysis about LONGi on this forum. In the silicon ingots/wafers industry there is a king, and this king is LONGi. It is quite clearly a "monopoly" and has been controlling the MONO(pun-intended) capacity and since it becoming the maintream now and for the foreseaable 3 years, There is no signs of any significant competition coming in to challenge its dominance. WIth continued further advancement and expansion of its capacity and continuous growth of the industry, it is clear the direction is up. FInancials post healthy margins, cashflow, and very reasonable PE ratio. Volatility in markets has created an excellent opportunity to trade a wonderful stock. Especially in times where funds are constantly pulling out during policy changes and fund repositioning. These creates perfect buy opportunities. Look to trail profits when a higher high has made of 5.00, It seems that the change in structure is happening in this order of the trend. I found this is a good range of TP
SSE:601012Long
by Joeyismoney
GXY - 29 MONTH DOWNTREND BROKEN!!!GALAXY RESOURCES (ASX:GXY) Has been locked in a fierce downtrend since Dec 2017 but has just broken out!! Targets As Below. 1. Break of long term downtrend and Volume returning to the market will see GXY build new Market Structure and Create Uptrend Potential. -Break 29 month Downtrend -Buying volume returning to the market -MACD spreading on Weekly and holding on Daily -RSI Trending up through Neutral Territory -EMA 20/50 are about to cross signaling trend reversal -Broken .236 Fib Retracement -Double Bottom at $0.705 -Targets .5, .618, .786 Fib Retracement (Also Equilibrium Levels) 2. Bull Trap Fakeout completes and prices squeezes into downward triangle corner, breaking 0.705 Support and sinking to 2015 NOV price. -Bulltrap -Double top off Equilibrium at 0.845 -MACD Cross and Spread -Crack 0.705 Support -Nothing to hold it until 0.465 -EMA's bounce and do not cross GXY and the Lithium Sector has been plagued by downward price action since false news of Global Over Supply was promoted in DEC 2017. Is the Sector finally about to turn the corner?? These Ideas are NOT 'Financial Advice'!. Scenarios are based off a mixture of TA and Fundamentals current at the time. All IMO GLTAH. Happy Hunting!!!
GLong
by Trader_Johnni
1
Brookfield Renewable Partners recovering from shock, new uptrendThe price of Brookfield Renewable Partners gained a lot of upward momentum before crashing down due to corona. Now that it's recovering, I believe that another rally is coming. The 50 SMA has in the past worked as a reliable support and will likely assume this role again. It is just about to cross over the 100 SMA, the RSI is far away from being oversold and the MACD looks like it's going to cross over the 9 EMA very soon. This would make for a solid long-setup. VF Investment cannot be held responsible for any financial damages suffered from following our well-funded but personal opinions and trading ideas. Please, maintain proper position sizing and risk management!
NYSE:BEPLong
by vf_investment
Brookfield Renewables: Good Buying Opportunity Off the DipMany utility stocks across the TSX and NYSE underwent a falling descending triangle - in fact, many of them seemingly corrected about 5% (ironically) on the same day and around the time (near when phase 1 progress was announced not long ago). Brookfield Renewable Partners (BEP) is one of the finest utility stocks as its led by Bruce Flatt who is regarded as one of the top real-estate investors in Canada of all time and he will never have any issue raising money should the company ever need-be for acquisitions. Acquisitions are king in the renewable space and this is a key pro for the company. Utilities have outperformed a little too much in 2019 as an entire sector in my opinion as a result of the uncertainty around global growth, and as a result I see the first half of 2020 providing somewhat muted gains for the sector as a whole, however, as we prove through 2020 midway, I expect economic data to wane once again and this will lift the sector up . Many utility stocks continue to trade at around 35-50 P/Es which is extremely high for the sector which was just regarded as passive income, not "wealth appreciation". Nonetheless, for those looking for a decent entry point in a top renewable utility sector (which will be the future), this is the time to monitor closely and buy a position in the stock. As always, never buy stocks all at once in one lot as tempting as it might be. - zSplit
TSX:BEP.UNLong
by PaulDeep19131
Speculating on global warming amount, and future trendHello, in this pseudo-science idea I try to get a vague idea of how unrealistic is thinking earth will just turn into a fireball, and quantify all this. It's all unprecise and no idea what the real numbers are but I'll work with worse case scenarios and min max, as to get an idea of what order of magnitude to expect. The idea is really not to get a precise estimate but an idea of the possible MIN and MAX. I'll assume the following: Between AD 1000 and 1800 CO2 atmospheric levels were around 280, and from 1800 to 2000 they rose to 400, let's assume all 120 was manmade (past 10,000 years levels have been very slowly going up so it makes sense to believe it was mostly manmade). We have enough fossil fuels to burn to raise earth atmosphere levels by 1000 ppm including idk 200 from melting ice. I haven't been able to find how much co2 would melting all ice release (what a surprise) and neither a good estimate of how much burning all reserves would do (you'd think they would bother looking at this if their lives were threatened). But considering 6.66 times what we emitted already since 1800 I think is fair. Some data: Earth's atmosphere contains 3,200,000,000,000 (3.2 trillion) tonnes of CO2 (0.04%). Earth mass = 5.972 × 10²⁴ kg. The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. No atmosphere there (10 metric tonnes...). Moon mass = 7.347 x 10²² kg (1.23% earth). Water is earth bigger warming contributor. When CO2 goes up, plants may be able to take more H20 in, also NASA has observed earth and it is greener. So, when CO2 goes up, water, the top global warming gaz, gets sucked up from the atmosphere. No idea how big of a difference this makes. Temperatures: Earth 289°K Venus 743°K Mercury 700 degrees Kelvin in the day, minus 93 K at night. Average temperature of 440 K. Mars 213 deg K or 218K??? Moon 379°K at day, 90°K at night. Pressures: Earth 1- Considering there is a direct correlation between CO2 quantity & temperature. a- Compared to Mars Mars is 11% the size of earth, and 95% of its atmosphere is CO2. There is 23,750,000,000,000 (23.75 trillion) tonnes. +6 degrees assuming all of those 6 degrees are cause by CO2, means an increase of 0.25263°K per trillion tonne of CO2. Also we assume earth has the same correlation. So say you increase earth CO2 up to 1400 ppm. The quantity of CO2 goes from 3.2 trillion tonnes to 11.2, or 8*10^12 tonnes are added. ==> +2°K/°C or + 3.6°F. An increase of 120 ppm using this formula would cause + 0.2425°C or 0.4365°F. Since industrial age temperature went up 0.7°C if I recall. So it seems plausible that a third of it was due to human activity (and 2/3 because of natural activities). Not sure how much it went up since the end of the little ice age in 1850. Mercury has +4 degrees. What if we assume Mars has the same? And so then CO2 only amounts to + 2 degrees? Then: + 1000 ppm in earth atmosphere ==> +0.666°K/°C or + 1.2°F Since the industrial age ==> +0.08°K/°C or 0.144°F Which seems plausible and reasonable. b- Compared to Venus Venus has ridiculously high levels of CO2. +503 degrees (K/C) for 460 million trillion tonnes of CO2. H20 is too small to be relevant here. So same, we just assume direct correlation. For every trillion tonne of CO2 added, temperature goes up 1,093478e-6 (0,000001093478) °K. + 1000 ppm ==> +8 trillion tonnes = 0,00000875 degrees Since the industrial age ==> + ~ 0,000001 degrees 2- And I won't go further but we could include planet size, atm pressure, other factors... For example, since mars is much smaller than earth, one could assume that 1 tonne of CO2 has a greater effect on Mars than on Earth. 3- What about comparing to earth? If we assume all warming since the little ice age was man made? First I doubt this is true. Temperatures were in the low area of support historically. And it started going up before emissions. But say we assume 0.8°K were the cause of human activities. In the 1950/1960 to 2000 period, when harmful chemicals were being released in the atmosphere (CFCs etc), temperature went up about 0.65°K. So outside of this we got a +0.2°K in 100 years? And temperature has flattened or barely went up since 2000. Well that depends how "adjusted" your data is. So without CFCs what? +0.25°K for a 120 ppm increase? It's all speculation, this is so unscientific. So at most +2.08°K for a 1000 ppm increase. This is consistent with the estimate using mars. For me, the absolute max, if all of earth warming was manmade is 2 degrees for an increase of 1000 ppm (8.33 what man has emitted until now). How much can CO2 concentrations go up realistically? Between 2000 and 2020 the level went up from 370 to 410, so +40. Between 1980 and 2000 the level went up from 340 to 370, so +30. Between 1960 and 1980 the level went up from 320 to 340, so +20. USA emissions have peaked in 2000 or the early 2000s and is declining. China peaked if I recall. Europe peaked. Then the big ones are India and Africa. Well anyway, let's say it keeps going up a bit then peaks at double what is is now, 80 every 20 years. Let's say for the next 100 years this is what we get. 5 * 80 = 400 ppm. This would lead to an increase of 400 ppm. Maybe a bit more with ice melting, but this won't be hundreds. We probably will get at most half of the 1000 I used in my examples. So if I were to bet money, I would not bet on an average of more than 1 Kelvin for the next 100 years. At the very most, but probably under that. The effect of CO2 on °K has to be more complex than a simple linear correlation, and there has to be diminishing returns. It is a shame we don't have historical water contents, not that I know of. All I know is that CO2 and H20 were super high billions of years ago when life appeared. But anyway, that 0.00014% to 33% of the rise in temperatures since the end of the little ice age can be attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 seems reasonable. 1 to 10% seems the most reasonable but this isn't a fact. Also there is the small detail that earth temperature went up sharply exactly as Chlorofluorocarbons levels went up, and after their levels topped in 1990, earth temperature topped... Tiny irrelevant detail I know. Here are all the greenhouse gases concentrations (except water): cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov Methane is pretty annoying I don't see how we could stop this one without all starving. Red meat is a big problem, and for some reason people are obssessed with red meat. We can't increase methane levels tremendously forever. I'm not too worried about CO2, we'll run up of fossil fuels eventually, and raising the levels a bit helps plants grow, I just don't see how bad it can be. CFCs and other crap (Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), PFC-14 (CF4)) have thousands of times the global warming potential CO2 has even according to "the establishment" that hates CO2, and stay in the atmosphere for millenias. BUT we finally stopped trolling and polluting the planet with this crap. That was really insane. Methane thought... that one could be a big nuisance. Agriculture is releasing levels so huge. It disappears fast but does it just turn to CO2? If it peaks at a few thousands parts per billion, that's only a few ppm, and this disappears in 25 years, it would not add much CO2. A constant methane level that does some warming and then a tiny increase of CO2 level, maybe that's not that scary. Over the long term thought what would happen? All of this also agrees with the global warming going on Mars. With all the crazies that think they are going to die you'd think we'd know more on the subject... www.nasa.gov You also got Pluto that is warming while it distances itself from the sun. www.newscientist.com But it could be a coincidence, that thing alarmists deny exists. Correlation does not imply causation, unless it fits your agenda. Also, there could be a snowball effect with CO2 increasing water level in the atmosphere, but if this was the case we can all be absolutely certain we would know about it. We would not hear the end of it. There is either no increase in water levels, or they are even diminishing. If it never gets mentionned there is zero data than it is that it does not fit their agenda. Ok I found something about humidity: www.climate4you.com Surface humidity stayed flat. It's tiring to have to fight throught tons of idiotic nonsense and fear mongering and half truths to get any crumbs of data. High up it has been flat or slightly downtrending. Actually went up a little when temperature did not. And down or flat when temperature went up. I figured CFCs caused the big uptrend in earth temperature from 1950 to 2000 but I actually found a paper claiming CFCs caused global warming? Weird I never heard of this... Censorship I guess. Haven't read it yet. phys.org So I guess the trend will continue, at least small: Slight cooling for the next decades as cancer chemicals in the air levels decline or maybe the warming trend overtakes the cooling one in any case I don't expect any major move, better farmland yields with more CO2, better living conditions as long as fossil fuel reserves are high. I also expect more "data adjustments", temperature charts with extreme isolated points rather than year averages, still no answer as to why ocean temperature went up, and more 12 year ultimatums lmao pathetic liers. Well that's enough thinking for now. All I know is I won't invest in renewable companies for now. Electric cars? Never. Biofuels are good but it's 50-100 years early. I really love the idea of hydroplants also.
NYMEX:CL1!Education
by MrRenev
3
THE END of the FOSSIL FUEL AGE?[MULTI-FACTOR Simple Crude Guide]Brief analysis on crude in 3 bullet points(chart will be updated continuously) ; Series on Commodities - 21st of November I do realize most people trade oil on daily frames. Oil prices heavily impact global growth, and this is the primary purpose of this chart. It's a necessity and it's essential to know the macro trend, even in trading. Before I get into the chart technicals, these are the few fundamental bullet points analysing demand and price action for the next 10 years: 1. Crude is expected to have an average drop of approximately 10% annually in demand going forward to 2025 (by multiple sources). This is nothing unexpected. Demand from emerging economies is still growing (India), however, more and more economies that are currently heavily dependant on crude are looking for alternatives (China). Overall, this should have quite a negative effect on crude . This can easily be seen by the performance of the whole energy sector(XLE): 2. Currently we are in the late cycle (Ref #1, Fed rates analysis) , and since the demand for oil is heavily cyclical, I am expecting that based on these current economic conditions- the global economy should linger until the 2020 elections, before something major occurs(arrows guidance on the chart). This is my investing tree for oil for the next 5 years for oil : ibb.co Geopolitical risks are included in the chart. 3. In terms of the supply, OPEC is certainly weakening. This implies that these countries have an incentive to push supply even further, i.e 2014. Moreover, crude production in the US has doubled. On the other hand, the rise of renewables as one of the outcomes of the last recession has been exponential. Nevertheless, we'll get to a point when lithium will certainly become too expensive . That's just how cycles work. My hope is that as the outcome of the next cyclical downturn, we will start focusing on nuclear energy, and develop safe and cost effective models (referencing small modular reactors here-SMR's) . Additionally, further enhancing the efficiency and use of other biofuels should be a must. To wrap up this oil investing guidance, it should be quite simply, since oil's correlation to the cycle historically is extremely high(depending on the cycle ~70%). There's evidence this has somewhat changed recently, perhaps because of the rise of renewables. The ESG trend should continue to grow exponentially . Nevertheless, oil consumption will never completely phase-out. The technical side of the chart is well labelled, it should follow the pitchfork, this is one of the better ones I've drawn so far. We are currently in a rising wedge, the outcome of the 2020 election should give a clue of the direction we're going. Currently it's neutral, leaning bullish. For the past 120 years, oil prices have behaved in ~29 year cycles, which would give us the bottom of the cycle at around ~2025. -Step_ahead_ofthemarket- ________________________________________________________________________________________ >>I do not share my ideas for the likes or the views. This channel is only dedicated to well informed research and other noteworthy and interesting market stories.>> However, if you'd like to support me and get informed in the greatest of details, every thumbs up and follow is greatly appreciated ! References and Disclosure 1. FED rates Supercycle : Disclosure : This is just an opinion, you decide what to do with your own money. For any further references or use of my content for private or corporate purposes- contact me through any of my social media channels.
FX:USOILShort
by step_ahead_ofthemarket
5