Play Nice Is it time to replace Woodside as sponsor?

[BanjoRules]

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.

Again, you are not addressing my point.

Maybe I can put it this way in a question to you.

Do you feel it is an issue if the board of institutional investors hold a disproportionate amount of power compared to individual shareholders, and exercise that power even if it is against the interests of their own individual shareholders/members ?

 

[arsesmart]

‘Really good thing’: Diamonds’ top partner backs activist athletes as sponsors commit to netball

 

[dockerfemme]

The energy transition is my favourite topic, so here are my thoughts.

arsesmart I think that dismissing nuclear as taking too long is not looking at the big picture. I believe the Finkel review identified that to transition to a high level of electrification we need to treble our electricity generation to meet our own needs. This means we can stop using gas in our homes and all have electric cars. I don’t believe this covers increased manufacturing of clean products.

To achieve this trebling with wind and solar, my arithmetic says we will be building wind and solar at the same rate until 2050 as the Labour federal government hopes to build between now and 2030. I don’t know how much more transmission would need to be built after 2030. There will be a need to rebuild most of the currently existing wind and solar between now and 2050 and there will be a need to start a replacement program in 2050 of stuff being built now.

All of this means that we could spend the next 10 years deciding to incorporate nuclear and still have time to build a couple of nuclear power stations before 2050, which is a useful timeframe.

For the record I think that Federal Labour targets for the NEM have close to zero chance of being met. The current situation of worker shortages and supply chain disruption make it pie in the sky.

I totally agree with sherrif that lack of fossil fuels is currently negatively impacting the energy transition. I think this is likely to continue as those with some sort of responsibility will be working away just to keep the lights on, and everything will be so expensive nothing can be afforded.

Blaming the current situation in Europe on Putin is not looking at the big picture as well. There was some chaos in the UK and Europe in September and October last year, similar to the events on our NEM at the beginning of June. There was an extended period of low wind, gas reserves for winter were utilised, gas prices were sky high, some factories closed their doors for a period, this had knock on effects to other industries etc etc. So the UK and Europe were fairly much on a Knife edge in terms of energy. Putin made what was already a high risk situation worse, but the high risk situation already existed.

There is no real world experience that shows that wind and solar leads to low electricity prices. Places with high penetration of wind and solar such as Germany, Denmark and California all have high energy prices. Australia is exceptionally well placed for wind, solar and land and maybe we can make it work, but it is no gimme.

As sherrif said, real world experience of wind and solar shows that plenty of gas is required and dependence on gas is high. This is where UK and Europe went wrong I think, they reduced their own gas production, reduced their own gas storage, all to their own (and the Ukraine’s) detriment. Batteries and pumped hydro may do the job in the future, but it is a big unknown.

One last thing, I am really glad I live in WA as I think the NEM is a mess. The idea that you can dramatically change something technically complex, when all different bits are owned by different organisations that want to make a profit and many government or semi-government departments have some sort of say in its operation and the strategising is done by a committee of energy ministers is just an accident waiting to happen.

One more last thing. I think the energy transition for Australia and the world needs a bit of pragmatism. A couple of sayings I like that have relevance here are ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ and ‘in the battle of physics and platitudes, physics always wins’.

 

[mightymouse75]

Not excusing walham for being a ******* prat do you think Gina just had second thoughts about handing over $15 biguns.. tight fisted biddy..

 

[myfreodom]

Again, you are not addressing my point.

Maybe I can put it this way in a question to you.

Do you feel it is an issue if the board of institutional investors hold a disproportionate amount of power compared to individual shareholders, and exercise that power even if it is against the interests of their own individual shareholders/members ?

Possibly but without a feasible way to do it otherwise I'm not sure what difference it makes? Could there be individual members of funds that don't agree that they voted against the climate plan? Yes. But equally there could be individual members of funds that don't agree that their fund voted for the climate plan.

My question to you is what difference does it make to the original point I made? A significant number of investors are voting against their climate plan aren't they? It's not just Woodside, it happened at Santos earlier in the year as well.

Plenty of the early conversation in this thread was about Carmen et al having no skin in the game - ala hypocrites. Now that I present that almost 49% of votes at their shareholders meeting was against the climate plan, the convo now pivots to... "well are they legitimate shareholders?"

I'm sure if I spent the time to prove they are (or a significant proportion are), you'd then try and discredit them with "well they must be looney lefties so their opinion is clearly biased".

This is the same method of people refusing and disregarding the facts that led to Trump having so many supporters. (not calling you or anyone else on here a trumpster just to be clear)

Have you read any of the expert assessments of their climate plan? I suspect if you did you'd have a clearer understanding of why the votes were so heavy against it, and perhaps also why a few of us on here think they might not be the best sponsor for Freo moving forward.

 

[arsesmart]

The energy transition is my favourite topic, so here are my thoughts.

arsesmart I think that dismissing nuclear as taking too long is not looking at the big picture. I believe the Finkel review identified that to transition to a high level of electrification we need to treble our electricity generation to meet our own needs. This means we can stop using gas in our homes and all have electric cars. I don’t believe this covers increased manufacturing of clean products.

To achieve this trebling with wind and solar, my arithmetic says we will be building wind and solar at the same rate until 2050 as the Labour federal government hopes to build between now and 2030. I don’t know how much more transmission would need to be built after 2030. There will be a need to rebuild most of the currently existing wind and solar between now and 2050 and there will be a need to start a replacement program in 2050 of stuff being built now.

All of this means that we could spend the next 10 years deciding to incorporate nuclear and still have time to build a couple of nuclear power stations before 2050, which is a useful timeframe.

For the record I think that Federal Labour targets for the NEM have close to zero chance of being met. The current situation of worker shortages and supply chain disruption make it pie in the sky.

I totally agree with sherrif that lack of fossil fuels is currently negatively impacting the energy transition. I think this is likely to continue as those with some sort of responsibility will be working away just to keep the lights on, and everything will be so expensive nothing can be afforded.

Blaming the current situation in Europe on Putin is not looking at the big picture as well. There was some chaos in the UK and Europe in September and October last year, similar to the events on our NEM at the beginning of June. There was an extended period of low wind, gas reserves for winter were utilised, gas prices were sky high, some factories closed their doors for a period, this had knock on effects to other industries etc etc. So the UK and Europe were fairly much on a Knife edge in terms of energy. Putin made what was already a high risk situation worse, but the high risk situation already existed.

There is no real world experience that shows that wind and solar leads to low electricity prices. Places with high penetration of wind and solar such as Germany, Denmark and California all have high energy prices. Australia is exceptionally well placed for wind, solar and land and maybe we can make it work, but it is no gimme.

As sherrif said, real world experience of wind and solar shows that plenty of gas is required and dependence on gas is high. This is where UK and Europe went wrong I think, they reduced their own gas production, reduced their own gas storage, all to their own (and the Ukraine’s) detriment. Batteries and pumped hydro may do the job in the future, but it is a big unknown.

One last thing, I am really glad I live in WA as I think the NEM is a mess. The idea that you can dramatically change something technically complex, when all different bits are owned by different organisations that want to make a profit and many government or semi-government departments have some sort of say in its operation and the strategising is done by a committee of energy ministers is just an accident waiting to happen.

One more last thing. I think the energy transition for Australia and the world needs a bit of pragmatism. A couple of sayings I like that have relevance here are ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ and ‘in the battle of physics and platitudes, physics always wins’.

Virtually everything you wrote there lacks context, is inaccurate or vague feelpionions. Nuclear power takes a very long time to build (average plant = 10 years = too long), is more expensive per W than many renewables and beset by difficulties from laying the slab to disposing of the end product. Good luck with that. Cheaper is not the most important thing and transitions in something as significant as power supplies never comes easy or fast, but transitioning to alternatives is important and urgent.

I guess people may see it as a way you can just keep rolling along as we are so get sold onit, but nuclear fusion is more a chance of being a major solution to addressing the climate crisis than nuclear fission.

Anyways, it's really a sideline to this thread, so I'm not going to indulge in it any more here.

 

[Van_Dyke]

Ok, seeing this thread has become a more broad discussion about energy transition and climate change, until we have any further developments with Woodside's sponsorship of the club, we'll be taking this thread to the politics thread.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Two more years of Woodside. JLo really meant it when he said we want stability this off-season hey?

Like what Van_Dyke said above this is to do with the sponsorship deal between Freo & Woodside, so please keep the chat about that. We have a whole Politics thread for the wider discussion that may come with this topic, so don't make me tap the sign.

Fremantle and Woodside Energy extend partnership

The partnership between the Fremantle Dockers and Woodside will enter its 15th year

www.fremantlefc.com.au

 

[mike91]

Fantastic for the club! Commonsense prevails

 

[holybishop]

Excellent. I had no issue moving on Woodside if someone offered more, but would have been disappointed if we left $$ on the table. Appears that Woodside offered the most and we stared down the fake members.

 

[Taylor]

I hope we leveraged the alternative sponsorship* deal arranged by the activists to replace Woodside into Woodside paying more for sponsoring Fremantle.

* there is no evidence of this existing

 

[holybishop]

The West reporting it's $2m a year for two years. Do we know how much Bankwest is paying?

 

[88mph]

Piss weak.

 

[greatgatsby]

Good news.

 

[mike91]

Piss weak.

Literally the opposite

 

[Demons09]

Sets up the Tash Peterson streak at Optus.

 

[ubiquitous226]

Sets the Tash Peterson streak at Optus.

Andrew Forrest should get Harvey Beef to stump up!

 

[mightymouse75]

Good work Freo
Cooking with gas

 

[mattis117]

Excellent. I had no issue moving on Woodside if someone offered more, but would have been disappointed if we left $$ on the table. Appears that Woodside offered the most and we stared down the fake members.

The club actually looked into it and it turns out most of the people on the 'petitions' were either fake people or weren't even club members. How embarrassing for those fake w***ers.

 

[mattis117]

Piss weak.

Haha, I would say bold. Staring down the hypocrites and not caving like others have done.

 

[Big Animal]

I was hoping Carmen Lawrence was going to stump up 2 mill of her own but obviously didn't so we'll have to stick with money from the company that produces the product all of us in WA use as an energy source to enable us to go about our lives until a suitable alternative is available.

 

[poshman]

Stoked!! Now a few more project launches by woodside in the next decade and some cushy ambassador deals to help ease the cap please.

 

[cactuscall]

Best thing the club has done all season. I was worried we would crumble under the perceived pressure, but instead soaked it up and got on with it to get the result I think most of us wanted!

 

[anchor man]

Stoked!! Now a few more project launches by woodside in the next decade and some cushy ambassador deals to help ease the cap please.

Phew, for a minute there I thought said STOKES. Damn I was thinking someone must have done something very very very radical to get him on board.On board!!I thought, maybe a seat on our Board.
But was so pleased you said stoked.
I can breath again now.

 

[Paracleet]

The length of the extension tells me this will be the last and if we hadn't managed to drop out of finals this year I doubt it would have happened at all.