Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

FMG - Fortescue Metals

Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
Yep, firstly Forrest says it’s $50 Billion not $100’s of Billions.

But what is your point, I read that announcement the day it was released, it’s a non binding MOU, they aren’t locked into anything. Both companies are just committing to work with each other towards the goal of shipping hydrogen from Australia to Europe. If 2030 comes and FMG is only shipping 1 million tonnes instead of 5 million tonnes there is no penalty.

As I said FMG will just crunch the numbers on each project, line them up in order of most profitable, and start working on them, and as long as each one produces decent returns on capital FMG will do very well and financing them will be easy.

But, there is no penalty if they don’t achieve all projects they can dream up in the next 10 years, a big part of a company like FMG, BHP, RIO etc etc is lining up as many possible projects as you can and then have them compete for capital, and you allocate capital to each project based on its merit, when you have the funding to do it.
i am expecting finance to become scarce and very predatory , now FMG has a fair chance of being self-funding from here , so maybe down-sized future projects should be factored in ( and you can be delighted by any over-achievement )
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
i am expecting finance to become scarce and very predatory , now FMG has a fair chance of being self-funding from here , so maybe down-sized future projects should be factored in ( and you can be delighted by any over-achievement )
Well we will have to see I guess, I think there will still be a very active corporate bond market in the USA and Europe, interest rates will probably return to more normal levels, but there will be no change to the old system of financing companies and projects with both equity and bonds.

If worst comes to worst FMG can just increase the amount of equity in each projected if needed.
 
Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
yes FMG has the ability to say slash the div. payout to say 40% and progress these new projects

but maybe you need to watch the discussions in the recent WEF meeting , the gathering of senior bankers ( and former bankers ) including Mark Carney , on the planning of future finance and 'net-zero'
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
yes FMG has the ability to say slash the div. payout to say 40% and progress these new projects

but maybe you need to watch the discussions in the recent WEF meeting , the gathering of senior bankers ( and former bankers ) including Mark Carney , on the planning of future finance and 'net-zero'
If needed they could do that, but nothing fundamental about the investment world is going to change, there will still be loads of people looking to invest money and earn a return, and if they don’t want to do so by investing in bonds, then they will do so by investing in equity, and there is nothing stopping FMG bringing on equity partners if they needed to.

But the old rule will always be true, a certain sector of the investment world will want a certain degree of capital protection and stable income (insurance companies, pension funds, Banks, endowment funds etc) these groups will be attracted to bonds, especially so when interest rates return to more normal levels.

Then you will have others that are happy to take a bit more risk and have capital and income fluctuate, while getting a better average return over time, these groups will be attracted to investing in equity.

That’s not going to change.
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
maybe , time will tell

maybe that is just me because my parent and grand-parents were grateful for they coal the found near the train-tracks in the Great Depression
Not sure what your point is there, in the video I posted Andrew says he is also grateful for what the fossil fuels have provided over the last couple of hundred years, but it’s time to change, nostalgia over stories of relatives finding spilled coal won’t bring our economy into the future.

Check out this video if you want to see some of what is actually happening at Fortescue.

 
Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
i think coal's demise has been forecast prematurely ,

but time will tell , i also think Twiggy will regret this as there is a rather large untapped coal deposit right next door on the NST lease
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
i think coal's demise has been forecast prematurely ,

but time will tell , i also think Twiggy will regret this as there is a rather large untapped coal deposit right next door on the NST lease
I don't know about that, energy coal use has been in decline everywhere except Asia, and in Asia it has plateaued and looks like it’s about to begin declining to.

EF9ABC7B-58FC-4975-856F-52AE62F2F1A1.png
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
12,467
Reactions
4,809
Here is some interesting math. 14420 Mtoe (Million tonnes of oil equivalents) was reported as being used in the world...
1 Mtoe = 11.63 TW...
1 TW = 1,000,000 MW. So 1.677X 10^11 MW is how many MW the world uses... About 11% of the world energy production is renewable... So 1.49X10^11 MW of additional renewable energy is needed. If it costs $260 billion for 450 MW... Then $86,237,432 Billion ($86,237 trillion) would be needed to go all renewable energy... The gross world product is $75.59 Trillion dollars... If all of the gross world product would be used to convert to renewable energy, it will take 1140.85 years....

The human race better learn how to adopt to a greener earth with more water and more plant life if CO2 is that detrimental...
That sounds rather amazingly excessive doesn't ? That "somehow" the cost of the world going totally renewable will be $86,237 Trillion dollars. Particularly when the figure for the whole world GDP is $75.59 trillion dollars.

This is an impossible figure. Just common sense would cause one to reject the figure as clearly a mistake. Do you want to recheck your figures dat 111111111.. ?

For a more realistic appraisal check this out. (But lets stick to FMG ok ?)

 
Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
That sounds rather amazingly excessive doesn't ? That "somehow" the cost of the world going totally renewable will be $86,237 Trillion dollars. Particularly when the figure for the whole world GDP is $75.59 trillion dollars.

This is an impossible figure. Just common sense would cause one to reject the figure as clearly a mistake. Do you want to recheck your figures dat 111111111.. ?

For a more realistic appraisal check this out. (But lets stick to FMG ok ?)

it might be worth considering that we are on the edge of runaway inflation , $US 86 trillion might be Australia's national debt by 2032 , interest rates of 20% p.a. are not unheard of even in the developed world ( go back to the 1970's )
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
That sounds rather amazingly excessive doesn't ? That "somehow" the cost of the world going totally renewable will be $86,237 Trillion dollars. Particularly when the figure for the whole world GDP is $75.59 trillion dollars.

This is an impossible figure. Just common sense would cause one to reject the figure as clearly a mistake. Do you want to recheck your figures dat 111111111.. ?

For a more realistic appraisal check this out. (But lets stick to FMG ok ?)

Dat1111111111 is going to freak out when he realises that if everyone in the world bought a $5 Starbucks every day for a year it’s going to cost the world $14 Trillion dollars, and between now an 2032 that’s going to be $140 Trillion dollars, the world can’t possibly afford that many pumpkin spiced lattes, there fore Star bucks business model must be bunk.

Sell your Star Bucks shares before it’s to late people, they are going to send the world bankrupt.
 
Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
i don't have any Starbucks shares and am trying to think back ... maybe i have bought one Starbucks coffee in my life , i guess i won't be helping them stay solvent
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
12,467
Reactions
4,809
it might be worth considering that we are on the edge of runaway inflation , $US 86 trillion might be Australia's national debt by 2032 , interest rates of 20% p.a. are not unheard of even in the developed world ( go back to the 1970's )
Divs, imagine you go to a supermarket and fill up your trolley as per normal. You know that normally the ticket would be $140-$180.

The checkout assistant punches out a bill for $823.55c or ,say, $1506.80 or $10,643.55. You don't need a maths degree to realise there is something seriously wrong with the bill. Your sense of what a basket of groceries should cost is enough for you to say "please recount" - even if the assistant insists that the till never makes a mistake.

The analysis and calculations offered by Div are similarly ludicrous. There is no universe in which replacing the worlds current energy supply with renewables will cost S86,237 trillion dollars (in current value). Going back to the supermarket example it is the equivalent of the checkout operator insisting that the $10k bill is right because the till says so. I offered a competent source which illustrates how much cheaper renewable energy is that any fossil fuel based system.

Perhaps Dat can recheck his calculations and discover where he made a thousand fold mistake - and thats only in the arithmetic
 
Joined
20 July 2021
Posts
3,712
Reactions
4,902
and yet we live in clown world where even the Australian version of Bernie Sanders just became Prime Minister on a vote of less than 40% ( of first preferences )

i HOPE Dat111 is wrong , but look at the world around us
 

Value Collector

Have courage, and be kind.
Joined
13 January 2014
Posts
9,321
Reactions
4,589
Divs, imagine you go to a supermarket and fill up your trolley as per normal. You know that normally the ticket would be $140-$180.

The checkout assistant punches out a bill for $823.55c or ,say, $1506.80 or $10,643.55. You don't need a maths degree to realise there is something seriously wrong with the bill. Your sense of what a basket of groceries should cost is enough for you to say "please recount" - even if the assistant insists that the till never makes a mistake.

The analysis and calculations offered by Div are similarly ludicrous. There is no universe in which replacing the worlds current energy supply with renewables will cost S86,237 trillion dollars (in current value). Going back to the supermarket example it is the equivalent of the checkout operator insisting that the $10k bill is right because the till says so. I offered a competent source which illustrates how much cheaper renewable energy is that any fossil fuel based system.

Perhaps Dat can recheck his calculations and discover where he made a thousand fold mistake - and thats only in the arithmetic
Also, Inflation isn't an argument against investing in infrastructure at all, given that the price you could sell the energy for over the next 30 years would be increasing with inflation, then such an investment would be an awesome inflation hedge, much like someone that bought a house in 1990 for $70,000 is now renting it out for $20,000 per year, its much better than a term deposit or holding cash.
 
Top