Lights go dim on another energy project Geothermal losses pile up

rollinbud

Active Member
A geothermal energy company with a $98.5 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration for an alternative energy project in Nevada — which received hearty endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — faces financial problems, and the company’s auditors have questioned whether it can stay in business.
Much like Solyndra LLC, a California solar-panel manufacturer with a $535 million federal loan guarantee that went bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) has incurred $98 million in net losses over the past several years, has substantial debts and does not generate enough cash from its current operations after debt-service costs, an internal audit said.
“The company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on its available cash and its ability to continue to raise funds to support corporate operations and the development of other properties,” NGP auditors said in a financial statement for the period ending March 31.
“Consequently, material uncertainties exist which cast significant doubt upon the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the statement said.
Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat who led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects, predicted in 2010 that NGP would “put Nevadans to work” and declared that Nevada was the “Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.”
Mr. Chu celebrated NGP’s potential in his June 2010 announcement of the loan guarantee, saying the federal government’s support of the company demonstrated its commitment to geothermal power to achieve the nation’s clean-energy goals.
But Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on regulatory affairs, stimulus oversight and government spending, is concerned about NGP’s finances and the timing of the loan guarantee.
“The company was in danger of defaulting on its financial obligation, and the [Department of Energy‘s] assistance served as a de facto bailout,” Mr. Jordan said. “After receiving a taxpayer-backed $98.5 million loan guarantee, the company is still struggling.”
He said the loan guarantee “essentially served to prop up an already-faltering firm.”
In January, Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican andchairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Mr. Chu that the NGP loan guarantee raised questions about why the Energy Department was investing significant taxpayer resources in a company with well-established financial problems.
‘Save the failing company’
At the time the Energy Department announced its conditional approval of the guarantee, Mr. Issa said NGP would have defaulted on a loan from TCW Asset Management Co., then its primary lender, “had DOE not swooped in to save the failing company with taxpayer money.”
A committee report said the loan did not finance any new construction and “did not help to create a single job.”
During a House hearing in May, Rep. Frank C. Guinta, New Hampshire Republican, asked why NGP needed a government loan in 2010 just a year after it had received financing to get its plant up and running. He said it didn’t sound like a loan but a bailout.
“I don’t see it’s a good practice for the Department of Energy to use taxpayer-subsidized loans to provide to an entity that already has an existing facility,” he said.

Mr. Jordan said the Energy Department handed out more than 20 loan guarantees to companies with an average credit rating of BB-, or “junk status,” meaning they were vulnerable to default if economic or business conditions changed. NPG was rated BB+, which is considered speculative or junk and a step below investment grade.
Mr. Jordan and Mr. Issa have questioned why taxpayer money was “put at such risk.”
Brian D. Fairbank, president and CEO of NGP, defended the company by saying its auditors were required to list all risks the firm faced because its stock is traded publicly. But, he said, NGP is making its payments on its federally backed loan.
“The loan is in good shape. The loan is fully supported,” he said, noting that the federally guaranteed loan went to an NGP subsidiary known as NGP Blue Mountain 1, for which he also serves as president and CEO.
The Energy Department guaranteed nearly $79 million, or 80 percent of the $98.5 million loan, financed in 2010 by John Hancock Financial Services. The loan is secured by assets from Blue Mountain 1 and gets paid from revenues generated by a 20-year power purchase agreement with NV Energy (formerly Nevada Power Co.).
“There is no question we benefited from the loan guarantee,” said Mr. Fairbank, adding that it helped them get the Hancock loan 4.14 percent compared with the 14 percent interest rate the company was paying on its existing debt with another lender.
Another loan
Mr. Fairbank acknowledged that NGP is not current on a separate high-interest $88.4 million loan from a Washington investment firm, which is not backed by the federal government and is subordinate to the federal guaranteed loan — meaning John Hancock and the Energy Department have first claim on Blue Mountain’s assets and earnings in a default.
JohnMcIlveen, a stock analyst at Toronto-based Jacob Securities Inc. who monitors NPG, said he did not think the federally guaranteed loan was in trouble because it “holds all the cards.” But he said he did not see the subordinate lender “getting out whole.”
He said Blue Mountain 1 is not producing as much energy as the company had hoped and needs $20 million to help increase its capacity, which could be difficult to raise.
Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow defended the loan guarantee by saying NGP was continuing to make its loan payments “on time and in full.”
Mr. Reid’s spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said NGP has received bipartisan support because “programs and incentives for clean energy have helped create jobs and make Nevada a growing leader in geothermal energy production.”
Mr. Fairbank denied knowing or lobbying Mr. Reid, but the House Oversight Committee said Ormat Inc., which was paid $80 million to build NGP’s Blue Mountain plant, has “strong ties” to the senator. It said two former Reid staffers, Kai Anderson and Paul Thomsen, work for Ormat.
NGP said it will hold its annual shareholders meeting July 24 in Vancouver, British Columbia, during which Mr. Fairbank is expected to discuss the firm’s debts, a recapitalization plan and steps that have been taken to reduce operating costs, including ending its registration and over-the-counter listings in the United States to eliminate the costs of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements.
Much like NGP, Mr. Chu praised Solyndra after the company was awarded its $535 million federal loan guarantee, but two years later it filed for bankruptcy. It remains the focus of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/lights-go-dim-on-another-energy-project/?page=2
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
I refuse to read that..say it in 25 words or less...thanks
Another energy company with a loan gaurantee may default on its loan the tax payers gave it

This might actually boost the default rate on goverment loans the Department of Energy has gauranteed to almost 2% of it's entire loan portfolio

More importantly
This can be overblown and used somehow against President Obama
Who will be called a socialist and Kenyan Muslim regardless of how it all turns out
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Another energy company with a loan gaurantee may default on its loan the tax payers gave it

This might actually boost the default rate on goverment loans the Department of Energy has gauranteed to almost 2% of it's entire loan portfolio

More importantly
This can be overblown and used somehow against President Obama
Who will be called a socialist and Kenyan Muslim regardless of how it all turns out
that is what I thought...More I hate Obama because he is not American and made my power bill go up. Thanks for the Cliffsnotes
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i believe that we should be doing all that we can to fall behind in alternative energy solutions. i would also like to talk about how companies never fail in a capitalistic society.
 

rollinbud

Active Member
i believe that we should be doing all that we can to fall behind in alternative energy solutions. i would also like to talk about how companies never fail in a capitalistic society.
No you believe in supporting 0bama no matter what. He is wasting billions of $$$$$'s we dont have. He has lied at just about every turn yet you hold on to your partisan B.S. party lines....
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
No you believe in supporting 0bama no matter what. He is wasting billions of $$$$$'s we dont have. He has lied at just about every turn yet you hold on to your partisan B.S. party lines....
Despite what Republicans and the tea party would
like to have Americans believe, taxes, spending and the deficit are all lower
than when President Obama took office.


Think Progress:

In January 2009, before President Obama had even
taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross
domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top
out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are
lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO
projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent
of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.

One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to
be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the
CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is
expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

Read more
Another notable figure: When President Bush came
into office in 2001, he inherited a $281 billion federal budget surplus from the
Clinton administration. By the time Obama took over eight years later, the
deficit was $1.2 trillion. An interesting fact given that conservatives love to
blame Democrats—and in particular Obama—for America’s current economic problems.
—TEB
 

Balzac89

Undercover Mod
I don't think you know anything about the real world rollinbud get off your computer sometime
 

kinetic

Well-Known Member
Notice how the GOP has ignored the 20% sales increase by GM, and their recent addition of 1100 employees, as well as the fact Obama created more jobs in 2009 than W in in 8 years....
 

tomahawk2406

Well-Known Member
No you believe in supporting 0bama no matter what. He is wasting billions of $$$$$'s we dont have. He has lied at just about every turn yet you hold on to your partisan B.S. party lines....
holy shit........a comment you haven't copy/pasted

its exactly what i thought it would be like
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
No you believe in supporting 0bama no matter what. He is wasting billions of $$$$$'s we dont have. He has lied at just about every turn yet you hold on to your partisan B.S. party lines....
nothing of the sort, rollindud.

i support investment into renewable, sustainable energy, no matter who makes that investment. hitler could make that investment and i would say that it was a good idea.

so take your partisan hackery and shove it straight up your prolapsed rectum.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
The Govt are NOT venture capitalists, this should be left to private firms. Pouring money down a toilet like this doesn't advance the Green Agenda whatsoever or help development of green power, it's a wealth transfer.

Duke, as for those statistics and charts you showed, they're so easily manipulated they don't count, relevance is something ignored in statistics to make them say what you want them too. You never mentioned changes in GDP, lower taxation revenue, how Obamas policies havnt actually made a dent on the "real" unemployment level.

You can blame Bush, but Barry has had 3 1/2 years now, he's inept.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The Govt are NOT venture capitalists, this should be left to private firms. Pouring money down a toilet like this doesn't advance the Green Agenda whatsoever or help development of green power, it's a wealth transfer.

Duke, as for those statistics and charts you showed, they're so easily manipulated they don't count, relevance is something ignored in statistics to make them say what you want them too. You never mentioned changes in GDP, lower taxation revenue, how Obamas policies havnt actually made a dent on the "real" unemployment level.

You can blame Bush, but Barry has had 3 1/2 years now, he's inept.
Disagree
Our goverment has funded a lot of things that you and I benefit from. Private firms will only do things for a profit incentive. Look at Brazil and what their goverment has achieved for them on the energy front

Spending is down in relation to GDP and that means a lot since GDP is down because of the recession


The "real" unemployment numbers? That should be copyrighted

So if the "real" unemployment is really much higher than it is now
using those same metrics used to determine the "real" unemployment numbers would mean
"real" unemployment was actually higher before the recession
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
If your unemployment figures weren't based on people "falling off" Social Security when it runs out then you might be correct...alot of people falling through the cracks there that youre completely ignoring.

Brought that deficit down yet? National debt? What has Obama ACTUALLY done except force people to buy health insurance (NOT the same as universal healthcare) and get kicked out of Iraq?
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
People fall off Unemployment for a variety of reasons. As a nation we are getting older. A lot of people retire, two income households have decided to become 1 income households. The fact is no matter what metrics you use to figure out unemplyment. Applying those same metrics to other times would produce the same results. Higher unemployment statistics

Spending is down. This is undeniable. And the deficit has been higher in the past and yet we are still here as a country. Kicked out of Iraq? We left. And still managed to leave behind 50000 contracters and military personnel

I agree with you. Our healthcare system even Obamcare sucks. But the fact is this is the best we can do right now with the Republicans in office. And without the mandate which is modeled on systems in Europe (germany?) and elsewhere. The new system would fail.

Tell me the truth
Are you forced to purchase healthcare thru your goverment? Even if you opt for a private policy. Are you still paying for the public option?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
No we just get butt raped and it goes into a general tax "pool". Nothing is costed (beyond a guess) and if they spend more they tax more. If you have private insurance you can claim for it against taxes, but with high taxes on consumption throughout our economy, everyone pays "somehow".

Obamacare is a washout, and it seems like Stimulus is more like Stimu-waste... you can polish a piece of shit, but it's still a piece of shit. I can't understand people making excuses for Obama and then theres Mitt Romney? Seriously?

Vote GJ, even if/when he doesn't win you can say you didn't vote for the bullshit salesman.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Romney

We went down this road before with Ralph Nader

The result was George Bush. It worked so well. Republicans actually funded Naders campaign in 2004
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Romney

We went down this road before with Ralph Nader

The result was George Bush. It worked so well. Republicans actually funded Naders campaign in 2004
It's thinking like that that's the problem dude, if everyone assumes that everyone votes based on who the winner will be rather than on principle, we're all gonna stay fucked for a very long time.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
It's thinking like that that's the problem dude, if everyone assumes that everyone votes based on who the winner will be rather than on principle, we're all gonna stay fucked for a very long time.
The only choice we have right now is
Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama

Idealism doesnt count right now
Those are the only two choices there are

any vote not for Obama is a vote for Romney regardless of whether it was his name punched on the ballot
That is called reality
 
Top