Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 130 81.8%

  • Total voters
    159

Remove this Banner Ad

Most likely.

Big corporate investors are voting based on the views of the board not there investors.

My concern is that quoting these numbers are not reflective of what all direct and indirect individual investors think.
Well they are refusing to allow a shareholder vote on the climate plan in 2023. I wonder why?

If you are genuinely interested then there is some good info about it online. Like this one from the Centre for Corporate Responsibility that helped inform investors prior to their vote

 

Log in to remove this ad.

I believe Germany has spent half a trillion dollars to have more expensive power without reducing their emissions.

All in the time they could have built over 30 nuclear power plants and be running cheaper, reliable and totally green.

Thats what people talk about it not working
This is all either lacking context or inaccurate. Nuclear energy is often much more expensive to produce than renewables. Let alone the cost of a reasonable sized nuclear power plant can head $30 billion and the construction can be beset by technical problems and extensive delays on a decade or more on average to build.
 
ffs mate. Read my posts before you hit the reply button and start jumping on keys.

My issue with Woodside is not their current production of gas (I'm not sure I've read a single post on here saying we don't currently need gas to meet energy needs! Please stop pretending that is what you are responding to). My problem is that their climate plan is appalling. It has been heavily criticised by anyone and everyone with an ounce of knowledge on the topic. All resource companies need to be considering their total impact on the environment, including the impact by their consumers (phase 3). To say "we want to do something on that but we haven't thought about it yet" is not good enough in 2022. It's why ~49% of their own investors told them their climate plan isn't acceptable. They aren't alone on an island with this criticism but they are in the name of this thread and the others aren't.
I have read your posts genius and my points are still the same until you actually make an attempt to comprehend what I'm saying. The demand for fossil fuel with so many countries transitioning means that to more plans like the plan Woodside plan is exactly what is required. Currently and for the next 8 years at least WITHOUT MORE FOSSIL FUELS the cost of energy will skyrocket by so much that transitioning will come to a stop. That's what has already happened in Europe with Russian gas and the cheap low emitting coal becoming unavailable.

If you actually checked a fact like I've been saying you might realise that Australian coal is also lower emitting and relatively cheap when compared to other coal mined across the world and that's why China and India buy so much of it. Not just in the short term but for at least the next 8 years+ Australia needs to mine fossil fuels.

By the way investors must be so concerned about climate change. Pretty much every fossil fuel company is having one of their best periods ever in terms of profit ad share price.
 
Not my point, never mind.
No I got it but that's just not how it works. It's the same voting mechanism they use for anything - and most companies use something similar. It seems you want to invent reasons to invalidate it just because you don't agree with it personally? Even if you doubt the scale of the number clearly a heap of investors are concerned. And Woodside is obviously worried because they aren't even allowing a vote next year. I'm keen to hear their reasoning for not doing anything. But it seems they are more keen to just avoid the conversation atm.
 
Mock it all you wish. Freo doesn't have the luxury of being too picky with sponsors. We get the scraps.

It makes it easy to fund an alternative if you care enough to.
The idea that major sponsors that are prepared to make long term commitments are easy to obtain is pretty delusional. Ironically with the world's demand for fossil fuels expected to increase while RE infrastructure being built across the world if we dropped Woodside the most likely replacement would come from the fossil fuel sector anyway.
 
The idea that major sponsors that are prepared to make long term commitments are easy to obtain is pretty delusional. Ironically with the world's demand for fossil fuels expected to increase while RE infrastructure being built across the world if we dropped Woodside the most likely replacement would come from the fossil fuel sector anyway.
Doom and gloom always comes when sponsors are determined inappropriate (ie tobacco). It's a very good area and organisation adapt well enough.

Fossil fuel demand is trending in the opposite direction though. Either way renewables are the best solution at this point. Significant change doesn't come without some disruption.
 
...actually make an attempt to comprehend what I'm saying... The demand for fossil fuel with so many countries transitioning means that to more plans like the plan Woodside plan is exactly what is required.
Yep clear as mud.

Which plan(s) are you talking about? The climate plan that I was talking about or some new plan?
 
This is all either lacking context or inaccurate. Nuclear energy is often much more expensive to produce than renewables. Let alone the cost of a reasonable sized nuclear power plant can head $30 billion and the construction can be beset by technical problems and extensive delays on a decade or more on average to build.
Nuclear power is the cheapest to deliver consistently. Renewables are absolutely cheaper to produce but they never have the delivery factored in, or the cost of battery to sustain it.

Nuclear will fix the problem.
 
No I got it but that's just not how it works. It's the same voting mechanism they use for anything - and most companies use something similar. It seems you want to invent reasons to invalidate it just because you don't agree with it personally? Even if you doubt the scale of the number clearly a heap of investors are concerned. And Woodside is obviously worried because they aren't even allowing a vote next year. I'm keen to hear their reasoning for not doing anything. But it seems they are more keen to just avoid the conversation atm.
You are pretty abusive for someone who constantly writes replies clearly showing you don't in reality get most of the points being made here. Woodside and other mining companies are not worried in any way about their financial security for their forceable future. Even if shareholders left you are talking about a company that has the most profitable year in its history.


Even if a ton of shareholders left you are talking about a company that has the most profitable year in its history. Any price drop would be gained back in quick time.
 
No not too picky. Picky though. Use some of them critical thinking skills.

I have trouble getting over that Freo sponsorship is hard to come by big bucks and the group upset with the one we have managed to keep for a long period of time couldn't even find a replacement for a couple million a year.

... but could find the value in expensive court cases they lost to Woodside.

Please big daddy court make them do what I want. Then please big daddy court of public opinion make them do what I want.

Just find a replacement so Freo doesn't have to wear the cost of them saving face against Woodside
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yep clear as mud.

Which plan(s) are you talking about? The climate plan that I was talking about or some new plan?
To be clear so you don't get confused. I was talking about their climate plan in terms of not reducing mining production to what you would like.
 
You are pretty abusive for someone who constantly writes replies clearly showing you don't in reality get most of the points being made here. Woodside and other mining companies are not worried in any way about their financial security for their forceable future. Even if shareholders left you are talking about a company that has the most profitable year in its history.


Even if a ton of shareholders left you are talking about a company that has the most profitable year in its history. Any price drop would be gained back in quick time.

Those people who bought WPL not all that long ago have made 50% on their investment and about 15% return in dividends in a year.

Almost makes me wonder if getting people to sell their shares is good business.
 
To be clear so you don't get confused. I was talking about their climate plan in terms of not reducing mining production to what you would like.
Um. Do you know what a climate plan is? I can say with absolutely certainty it isn't focussed on reducing mining production when it is an O&G company :) In fact I'd put money on the word 'mining' not appearing even once in the plan unless it is part of the words "undermining" or "determining".
 
BS. I’m an engineer at a rather large oil and gas company (or should I say, Energy company) that may or may not sponsor Woodside, and there is no way we consider ourselves a mining company or part of the mining industry.

yes, it is all part of resources industry, but mining is a separate industry.

FWIW I expect public pressure will continue to grow and most sporting teams and comps will move away from fossil fuel and high carbon industry sponsorship within the next couple of years. And that’s a good thing.
Don't mainland sites fall under the mines regulations ?
 
Anyway. If freo lose sponsorship it just means that woodside shareholders will just get a little fatter..🤣
After spending the day driving around manilla getting sulpher poisoning. What have walham and Cummins done for the environment ? 0. Do something responsibile , stop breeding. It's our only way out turkeys... 😂😂🤯 1 babe = double your footprint fuchers
 
Try telling anyone in Europe now RE works for base load power. Its a provable massive failure now and if you check emissions across Europe and cost of energy jumped significantly due to how brown coal stations were brought back online to meet the energy requirements. But yeah ignore all those issues and pretend their's no issues with relying on RE without actually checking the real world examples across Europe. Nuclear energy is the only long term solution for Australia to reduce it's emissions and not have massive issues with power reliability. RE waste technology has improved massively in recent times and there is far more issues with the toxic waste per unit of energy produced with solar panels and wind turbines.
Most of europes current issues are Russia pipeline gas related. That was relatively hard to foresee and plan for.

I will be extremely surprised is nuclear makes up a significant portion of Australia’s power. It might for other more densely populated countries but not us. We are far more likely to utilise renewable plus personal car batteries for residential and small commercial demand (charge battery during day or high wind periods, discharge at night), and mix of hydro, other stored energy (molten salts etc) and hydrogen from hydrolysis for larger use.

nuclear is expensive and will remain expensive. we‘ll be less than 10% nuclear even in 30 years time. Don’t forget it’s still illegal in Oz.
 
The extraction of lithium produces a lot more emissions than coal and gas combined in terms of the per unit of energy produced. RE is a disaster all over Europe not just for price but because the cut in emissions expected from RE has not occurred in reality and that's without even taking into account the production emissions that occur in the places manufacturing solar panels and car batteries. Nuclear is the long term answer.
Lithium is used to store energy, not produce it. Sorry, but you have clearly demonstrated your lack of understanding of this subject.
 
If you actually want to know, it’s 49% of total shares held. Not by number of shareholders.
That is my understanding. Can you answer this ?

IF a large corporate investor, say a super fund, takes a sizeable stake in Woodside, and votes along these lines, who decides how that vote should be placed ?

the board of that large corporate investor or the potentially, thousands of individuals super fund members ?
 
That is my understanding. Can you answer this ?

IF a large corporate investor, say a super fund, takes a sizeable stake in Woodside, and votes along these lines, who decides how that vote should be placed ?

the board of that large corporate investor or the potentially, thousands of individuals super fund members ?
Unless you are too young to not have a super fund then you know the answer to this. Have you ever voted at a shareholder meeting at the companies your fund is investing in? Of course not. You are paying your fund to invest and act in your interests in regards to the shareholdings in your portfolio. What you can control is which fund you are with and your investment plan. Or you can self manage your super and do whatever you like.
 
The extraction of lithium produces a lot more emissions than coal and gas combined in terms of the per unit of energy produced. RE is a disaster all over Europe not just for price but because the cut in emissions expected from RE has not occurred in reality and that's without even taking into account the production emissions that occur in the places manufacturing solar panels and car batteries. Nuclear is the long term answer.
True, nuclear fusion is the answer.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

Back
Top