^^^ the basic question regarding any evaluation of the company's ability to provide 'good returns' to investors obviously involves a whole bunch of information that isn't publicly available. What price must this low carbon fuel be sold at in order for this company to earn a profit ? How much difference is there between the profitable price for this low carbon fuel and the price of standard jet fuel ? How much of this 'net' difference is the result of EU carbon taxes, EU green energy grant money, EU green energy tax credits, and other 'artificial' cost factors that are potentially subject to major changes after the next election cycle ?
As Americans have seen from Solyndra, simply having a 'better idea' is no guarantee that a company can actually create a sustainable profitable business model. It is also probably much more than mere 'coincidence' that a court ruling was issued last week that requires both EU owned and non-EU owned airlines to pay EU carbon tax on jet fuel when one 'end' of their flights is at an EU airport.
(snip)"US airlines have likely lost their court case against being included in Europe’s cap-and-trade carbon market next year. An advisor to Europe’s highest court has declared that European Union rules forcing foreign airlines to pay for their carbon emissions is within the law.
“EU legislation does not infringe the sovereignty of other states or the freedom of the high seas guaranteed under international law, and is compatible with the relevant international agreements,” said the opinion from Advocate General Juliane Kokott.
Although the opinion is not binding, judges at the European Court of Justice usually follow the guidance of the advocate general.
The move will see airlines based outside of the EU forced to buy carbon permits or credits next year for flying in and out of the region’s 27 nation member states.
Several American airlines and the Air Transport Association of America filed a suit in the UK against their inclusion into the carbon market after the country had adopted the EU directive for regulating aviation emissions
The main objection was that the EU was effectively imposing a tax over other sovereign state’s air space and the high seas, as well as breaching conventions in the Chicago Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Open Skies Agreement."(snip) from
http://cleanjet.opisnet.com/archives/445
Again the main economic point of the above is that the wider imposition of the EU carbon tax directly translates into a higher net cost for regular jet fuel ... which lowers the cost 'differential' versus this company's low carbon jet fuel ( that isn't subject to as much EU carbon tax ). If dependence on the future EU carbon tax level is the sole basis for profitability for this company ... and that carbon tax level is both subject to being overturned by world courts and/or devalued as the result of a general economic slowdown throughout the EU ( which reduces industrial demand for carbon thus reduces the value of carbon credits / price of carbon taxes ) ... then investing in this company is arguably a highly risky proposition.~
Bookmarks