The company indicates 86.8 mil in revenues from generation. And 57.9 mil in cost to generate those revenues.
Those cost include the manpower to run the plants, overhead in the main office, and some quantity of maintenance including drilling (individual wells have a mechnical life and must be replaced every 5-15 years depending on water chemistry.)
Most binary geothermal projects run at 82%+ for the cost of manpower and maintenance and this would make the necessary cost of generation 15.6 mil/Q. That leaves 40+ mil/Quarter for overhead and excessive maintenance and drilling.
They have been experiencing some problems at one plant that has cost 9 mil/Q but even if you consider the plant generation to be zero (which it's not) this still leaves ~30 mil/Q.
DO they have a larger than expected maintenance drilling program not mentioned????
Is management bloated and overpaid????
Are the home office facilities and perks too lavish????
I think they all point to some buisness journal, I think they may have there fact wrong about alaska (wattage wise at the very least). One plant that was having trouble had an 8 million dollar loss, if they turn that around then that pays for alot of the debt they just took on. They dont have to expand in the us to expand quick, In fact I would not rule out they could get involved with navada geo-thermal and there attempt to refi 12% interest (some reports suggest they pay as high as 14%). Looking at the news they just got concessions in chile wich has to import natural gas to run it's power plants. That would suggest that maybe the us doesn't have the best pricing unless they can get a low rate.