Henry Report

Aussie, the infrastructure you speak of is already working to full capacity. The 50 bil that RIO says they won't spend in WA was to be on infrastructure which they can build elsewhere. A JV with Vale in Brazil? South Africa where there is a workforce (ex gold mines) already? A new rail line from India? How cheap is that?

Our trumps until now have been the workforce and stability of government. Well Rudd has just renegued on his part of our good hand.

Good luck getting projects up in India, South Africa and South America. I travel to both regularly. Its problematic. Ask yourself why they havent done it already if its that easy. Prices have been bubbling along for years!

Yes we are running at high capacity but atleast we have mot of the basic infrastructure in place - we can add berths, add rail etc - but most of it is there.

The fact that we are running at high capacity tells you something - The demand is huge and the demand is NOW!
 
Hi all,

It all sounds so easy for the miners, they just pack up their bags and move elsewhere. What, we are only going to make $6b instead of $10b pa!! Let's go where we can easily get the resources elsewhere. :rolleyes:

If the resources were so easy to mine and transport and were just lying around all over the place, the prices would not be as high as they currently are. The 50% price rises from one year to the next could not happen if it was that easy.

In terms of resources that are economic to produce, we are possibly coming close to 'peak everything', in which case allowing it to be taken away without maximum benefit locally is probably a mistake.

However, what a dumb way for the government to go about it, this mob really are stuffing up big time. Or is it just inexperience??

bye

Nice to hear some voices of reason.

Most people here scared to speak incase the called a commie!

This could be a stroke of genius. This was never going to be an easy / popular thing to pull off. Let things die down - closer to the election explain it a bit better.

The big issue rudd never saw coming is Greece...this could derail sentiment against this tax. Why? people get scared of change and like lberal politics in times of change. Im sure Rudd would have prefered last weeks economic conditions.
 
Shipping from West OZ compared to Arfica can differ by 20 up to 50 bucks per ton...

While the Super Tax adds a mere $400/t.

I'm willing to bet that both RIO and BHP have some projects ready to go in Africa or India. I don't know how big a resource but NSL has an iron project in India able to ship ore now. Build a rail line and they could ship a lot more. Even if they these are smaller and could be exhausted in ten years, they may break the will of the Oz government, which would be worth it.
 
Steve - thanks for tip. With due respect this IS my day job. The importnt price is the landed price in China. Therefore shipping is a factor. Shipping from West OZ compared to Arfica can differ by 20 up to 50 bucks per ton...

(10-30 percent of the landed price)

The other factor in price is quality - Australia has some of the best quality whch can make a 10 percent (if not bigger difference)

Price is important with regards to the bottom line of companies no so much about the competititon.


Not trying to debate the finer points of price, if you say you know the $'s involved better, that's fine. But my point still stands of $X or $X+20%. This is IF after all the specifics you're referring to ends up to be the case (taking into account ore grade, development costs etc), why would a company spend money where it will presented with less return on their investment - whether it be iron ore or candy bars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve - did you not say in a previous post

"its really not that diffucult to understand surely?" I little condescending.

Steve - Lets see what happens to these projects...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve - did you not say in a previous post

"its really not that diffucult to understand surely?" I little condescending.


Steve - Lets see what happens to these projects...

Because you don't/didn't seem to be getting my underlying point that I'm talking about the end result - after all economic, political and social variables are considered - if project X in Aust. has less ROI than project Y in Lapland as a result of the new tax (if it happens), then why exactly would a company choose project X still? This may not turn out to be the case as miners haven't really given us financial data on it, but if it does...

Absolutely, who knows what will happen. Tax may never get off the ground, I'm just throwing out my opinion on what may happen if it does. Believe me, I still want projects like Olympic Dam etc to go ahead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
400 bucks per tonne? hehe

Obviously I mis-read something but I have read a lot. Is price around $200 today? This tax will wipe out more than the freight costs you mention. Under the old annual contract China negotiated a FOB price and picked up the extra costs from Brazil. They aren't fools and know they must have multiple sources of supply.

Haven't you realised yet that gubments are tax junkies? They put on this tax and will spend it ALL and commit for years out. What happens if/when there is a downturn? They certainly won't give it back because they have committed it for super forever. Our mines will be the first mothballed and we will be like Greece today.
 
They have limited sources of supply

90 percent of the worlds iron ore is controlled by 3 companies and 2 major regions.

India also provides iron ore. The rest of the world supplies negligible amounts.
 
This thread has become interesting now some numbers have become involved.

I too get involved in a lot of feasibility work for new mines. I am extremely sceptical of a $10-$30/tonne freight differential between Africa and Australia for shipping to China. Cost of production is around $40/tonne these days in the first place. Anyway, China isn't the only market in the world - not everyone has to ship there.

Much of my work recently has been in West Africa and South East Asia, where large miners have been gearing up for years now and spending a lot of money on feasibility work. It takes a long time to develop a project in such locations because of the trailblazing nature of the developments but that doesn't mean people aren't doing it. It also doesn't mean they won't get up in the not too distant future. You only have to take a look at BHP's bubble diagram of new development to see where their options lie overseas and how much money they have been spending firming them up.

One of the keys here is delay and uncertainty. IMO, the impact of this will be:
- For existing and already committed projects, not very much: the miners will just take a haircut and remember the experience for next time.
- For new expansion projects of existing facilities, depending on how far in the money they are, a marginal slowdown provided significant new infrastructure spending isn't required. Consdering we are already pushing our infrastructure to 100% there's not a lot of scope in this area.
- For significant new developments with significant infrastructure requirements, which by definition are marginal projects (or they would have already been built), they will just stall (get "shelved") until certainty on this tax is provided one way or the other. That could be two years away if the Chairman gets re-elected.
- For exploration and feasibility work (my part of the value chain) this is a massive risk. We are already seeing clients asking about how to slow down their development and just do the compulsory bits. What were urgent timelines are now getting talked about differently (ie "how can we make this cheaper to develop?" instead of "how can we make this faster?"). Not what we like to hear! :mad:

The problem is, even if this tax idea gets withdrawn, that dot point about Australia having a stable legal / fiscal system has just got scrubbed out and it will take years for people to forget how close we came. This is not just about what the govt is doing this time to this industry - it's about if they can do this to existing projects, what else are they going to do next time?

Reform in this area could have made sense and been acceptable if it was about govt sharing risk and reward but this just hammers the good projects and does nothing to help the marginal projects (even hurting them further actually with the stupid definition of a super profit being anything above the risk free rate). There is no scenario where more development can flow out of this, a most likely scenario where most of the new developments get shelved for an extended period while everyone waits to get a sense of whether the govt is going to try it on again and a strong possibility that we won't see a major new resources project get up at all in Australia in the next two years until it passes the Senate. :eek:

This is not just industry spin - the size of the government's grab here is just too big whichever way you look at it. IMO that's not acceptable.
 
Rudd's policies are treason so I do not accept he is mainstream. He is playing the "tax the rich" card to appeal to his traditional union base and the "intellectual" lefties and public servants who will love the idea of being the new middle class with guaranteed benefits while the rest of us worry about the economy. Do you see a similarity with Greece here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, I gotta go back to my friend Giann, I just like the guy

Here we go, shoot me if you are not happy......

"What is going on..?

If you follow the markets, you would have woken up to the shockwaves that happened on Wall Street last night.

The Dow Jones was down an amazing 1,000 points in early trading!

The biggest ever drop since the 1987 crash.

WOW!

The good news though is that it recovered and ended up 350 points down at the end of trading.

There are not many days in the financial calendar where you would call a 350 point drop in a day a "good day."

However, after the shenanigans of the morning, you'll probably agree with me that yes indeed, it ended strong (bit of an oxymoron, but true).

Reason for the massive volatility?

The Greeks, The Spaniards and The Euro.

So what?

Well, there's money to be made with volatility.

My thoughts, closely monitor the Greek banks, there is a massive buying opportunity right now. You could double or triple your money.

Nah, not interested in that?

Ok... Sell off the Spanish banks.

Heaps of profit in that.

Even that's too hard?

Do some technical analysis on the Euro and sell that off when it break through a decent support level (Don't know what that means? Education, my friend).

Still too hard?

Last one...

Go on a holiday to Europe.

The Aussie dollar is up about 29% against the Euro... Which drives your holiday dollar a lot further.

Yes, it is the best time to go to the Greek Islands, financially, that we've had for over a decade. I'm thinking about it.

But closer to home, we of course have had our own dramas over the last few days, ever since Rudd, Swan and Henry came up with a new tax blueprint.

The word "tax" for me hold no positive connotations. I always get nervous, even when they say that they're going to lower tax.

What I found interesting about the new tax blueprint was the massive effect it had on the resources sector all this week.

$14,000,000,000.00 (14 billion dollars) was wiped off on Monday after Ruddy announced the super resources tax.

Imagine if someone came into your home and said, "We know you're making a profit, and you've got a decent surplus... We're going to increase your tax by 40% because you've been good at making profits."

You wouldn't stand for that, would you?

But that's what they did with the resource companies, gone in there and said, "Makin' too much money... Give us some."

There's another group of people who go around doing that, they're called the mafia. For them it's illegal, but if a government does it, it's ok.

But you're probably thinking, "Jon, they're big companies, they can afford it, we should get a piece of the pie."

You know what that's called?

Communism.

Ok, a strong word. Maybe we should change that to modern day socialism.

Here's how the resource tax works...

They give with one hand a little, and take with the other a lot.

Ruddy justified the tax by saying that the royalty tax will be removed and this new super-tax introduced.

It might on the surface sound like a fair swap, but here's how it works out.

If you're a start-up business, and you're not making profit, the royalty tax hurts because you have to pay it either way.

So the government's thinking is, "We can help the new businesses get off the ground, become more efficient, and when they start making money they'll be able to pay us more in the long term."

It sounds like it's fair enough - don't you think?

Help the small companies in the early stages and get paid lots more when projects come into full production and fruition.

But companies aren't stupid. Their agenda is to maximise profits, minimise expenses and keep shareholders happy.

Tax is an expense... and a big one at that.

Big companies aren't going to take this super-tax lightly, they'll do whatever they can to hide profit, pay executives bigger fat salaries, move their focus to overseas projects where the returns on capital are higher and by and large, Australia becomes the laughing stock of the world as our smart resource businesses sell out.

So nobody wins.

I think the boys in Canberra, if they're not careful will cook the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

Ruddy's already doing a back-flip on the super resource tax, quickly trying to patch up the mess that he's created, giving excuses already and suggesting that he wants to work with the mining companies to figure out the best possible solution.

After all, the new tax blueprint was only a suggestion. It still has to be signed off in parliament.

But Ruddy put himself in the corner, didn't he?

After that announcement on Sunday night, surely he would have expected a sell-off the next day in the resource sector...

If he says he expected it, then he's personally responsible for the billions of dollars that shareholders lost through the early part of this week. I'm talking about every day Australians who have invested in the recovery and put all their hard-earned money back to work after the dramas of 2008.

I'm not talking about the fat-cat executives, they'll make money whichever way it goes.

But back to Ruddy's dilemma.

If he says he didn't expect it, then that highlights how stupid the government really is to expect otherwise.

Either way, it was poorly executed and presented.

Knowing how the government does stuff through its advisory channels, it would have all been arranged behind closed doors with very little consultation with the industry - and based on theories and spreadsheets.

There is a thing called reality which works a little bit different.

I wonder how many people who are close to this legislation bought put-options on BHP on Friday afternoon..?

Their friends and families would have made a killing.

In time though, we'll see how dumb politicians really are when it comes to light that potentially related parties took advantage of this information.

It's called insider trading and you go to jail for that. But maybe politicians don't, not sure.

So why am I telling you all this?

Well, you have to get smart about investing and keep your finger on the pulse. No point blaming the governments as to the reason you are poor or not progressing, or not moving forward financially...

It's your responsibility to manage your own money and take advantage of quirks like these in the market.

Lots of people would have made money on Monday, a lot of money.

Simply by following some basic stock market principles and understanding how to make money when the market goes down using either options, futures or cfd's.

Also, there's never been a more important time in Australian history to make sure that you don't fall victim to these socialistic acts of the Government, to steal the wealth of its citizens under the pretence that they're making it a better place for all to live.

So be warned. I think this is the first of many attempts by the government to fill up their coffers with money they don't deserve.

Your job is to get smart, grow your wealth and protect it like a hawk.

That's all for today.

Jon Giaan
 
Not trying to debate the finer points of price, if you say you know the $'s involved better, that's fine. But my point still stands of $X or $X+20%. This is IF after all the specifics you're referring to ends up to be the case (taking into account ore grade, development costs etc), why would a company spend money where it will presented with less return on their investment - whether it be iron ore or candy bars.

maybe because you are looking at it from an owner business point of view.
You run your own business, so you know what its like to sink capital into a venture.

Others look at it from an academic point of view, but dont have personal capital tied up.

I've read some of your other posts with interest, and agree fully.
But then i am also in business for myself.
 
Imagine if someone came into your home and said, "We know you're making a profit, and you've got a decent surplus... We're going to increase your tax by 40% because you've been good at making profits."

You wouldn't stand for that, would you?

But we do. It's called life, I mean, ordinary taxation. The more you earn the more you get slugged.

And goshdarn, even the sky hasn't fallen down.
 
Aussierogue, I can offer some explanation on the tendency of some folk, (whilst involved in a..."debate" or discussion), utilising the "name calling" card; ie "communist", "socialist", "hitler and nazi" is another frequented, variations can be added, depending upon the creativity of the said individual, eg; "lattee sipping, idealist socialist, wafting, speeling la la's"..

The fact that others may join in is herding...safety in numbers, which you no doubt realised anyway. (It's interesting, huh). People are so damn interesting. Often it is representative of a strong emotion surfacing and the ability to articulate in a level, constructive manner plummets. If I was good at plotting graphs, we would see an inversion table, emotion rises, articulation decreases...(in some). Hence, resort to name calling.

Also, the other thing is, some just like to be "right"...that can transcend almost any issue they discuss, not necessarily politics, or religion, for example, but they are topics which tend to get more emotional.

It can reflect a person's toolbox of life, what they resort to, eg in articulation and self worth, ability to reason, have rational discussions without blaming one another, name calling..

"Reductio Ad Absurdum"

It is a variation of Godwin's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwin's_law

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[3][2]

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads, wiki talk pages, and social networking sites

You might enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec8oLHZFhpo
 
Last edited:
maybe because you are looking at it from an owner business point of view.
You run your own business, so you know what its like to sink capital into a venture.

Others look at it from an academic point of view, but dont have personal capital tied up.

I've read some of your other posts with interest, and agree fully.
But then i am also in business for myself.

True. Looking from an academic point of view I understand there are arguments for both sides, heck from an extreme point of view you could go the way of Russia and start nationalising all the private co's that did well in the 90's when Russia was on it's knees (though I'm sure there are many who would argue they aren't doing this). But BHP isn't looking from this point of view, and they're the one with the billion$ to spend.......somewhere.
 
if the current mining companies moved to other countries because australian mines are not as profitable as other counties (lets say instead of making 10 billion they can only make 6 billion after the tax and they can make 8 billion in other countries), there will be plenty more companies that will come and take their place, after all what companies don't want to get a piece of those 6 billion dollars? The mining companies can threaten to leave but they won't cause they know that as soon as they walk out the door, someone one else will already take their place.

I agree with the idea that if the minerals and metals belong to the Australia, then the Australian government should be able to take some of the proceeds from the mining and use them to built up the country. Not sure whether this government will be responsible enough in using the tax money though.

Please don't use socialist or communist name calling because it's just silly. We have in this country a lot of good things that can be "labelled" socialist/communist idea, like for example: medicare, public schools, police force, the armed force, the firefighter, etc. We don't need to pay for all that because they're paid for by taxes. I'm sure you won't want to live in a country where you have to pay for a private-run police force or private-run armed force but that's what would happen if you insist in living in a 100% capitalist society.
 
by the way, I think some people are mislabeling the "golden goose". The golden goose are not the mining companies, the golden goose are the minerals and metals that the mining companies want.
 
I agree with the idea that if the minerals and metals belong to the Australia, then the Australian government should be able to take some of the proceeds from the mining and use them to built up the country. .

Is the government putting anything into finding/mining these minerals and metals?

Not sure whether this government will be responsible enough in using the tax money though..

I'm sure. They're responsible for using the proceeds of the rent tax to buy votes to pull them through the next election. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor in Robyn Hood style.

Could Ruddy be on his last legs? How many more of his policies do we have to endure? We have already experienced schemes that electrocute workers, now we have the prospect of a tax that will threaten to take jobs and investment away from the economy. Then we had the education revoluton which, among other things attempts to measure and rank the performance of schools.

Enough of this political muppet show....
 
Back
Top