Welcome back to The Rated Change with York Wealth
Management. As advisors to some of the wealthiest
families in the country, The Rated Change is
a podcast designed to help you in the pursuit
of building long -term wealth through the insights
of some of the brightest minds in asset management.
I'm your host, Murdoch Gaddy. And today's rock
cast, we're welcoming back a fan favorite, Todd
Warren, partner and head of research at Tribeca
Investment Partners. Todd. We're Australians.
Everyone loves resources, mate. So really good
to have you back on and I'm looking forward to
this. Yeah, thank you for having me, mate. It's
always nice to have people actually want to hear
our story for a change. Absolutely. Resources,
having the time and the sun. For people that
are joining us for the first time, do you just
want to give a bit of your background? Who's
Todd Warren? What do you do? Yeah, sure. For
my sins, I'm now... Well, 2026 marks my 30th
year investing in resources, believe it or not.
So I've seen the good times and the bad. I've
seen, you know, what was the China urbanization
story. I've seen the other side of the manhorn
after that. And obviously the interesting volatility
we have today. But yes, I've been working in
resources markets for a long time now. I've been
at Tribeca for... six years and before that spent
20 -odd years at Colonial First State in their
resources team. So yes, have my sins, spent a
long time in resources. I started out with an
Afro and look at me now. Absolutely. So Tribeca,
just run off again, what funds do you currently
have? Has there been any new additions? Yeah,
so we, well, Tribeca started out life 26, 27
years ago, managing an Australian small caps
fund. And then in the middle part of last decade,
we launched a global natural resources product
that's a go anywhere in the resources spectrum
product anywhere around the world, anywhere in
the size spectrum, any commodity, anything that
we dug, pumped or scraped from the surface of
the planet is fair game for us. We also run what
we call the Nuclear Energy Opportunities Fund,
which was an offshoot from the Resources Strategy,
and that's, well, by its name, clearly focused
on the nuclear thematic, everything from uranium
exploration through to nuclear power generation.
We launched about, what are we now, four and
a half years ago, a strategy very much focused
on electrification and decarbonisation called
the 2050 Strategy. And then outside of the other
equity strategies, we've also got a couple of
strategies that are run at our Singapore office.
That is an Asian infrastructure fund and an Asian
credit fund. So we've got both the equities and
the credit side covered. But the important thing
is that we don't try and be all things to all
people. It's a matter of really running specialist
products we think are fairly difficult to replicate.
Well, this is going to be fun. It's always fun
chatting to you, but I'll give you the choice.
Which one do you want to unpack first? Well,
let's stick with resources. That's where my passion
is and it's where there's certainly no lack of
news items to discuss in that spectrum right
now, obviously. So with what's currently happening,
so what we spoke about two years ago, so a lot's
happened. The uranium story has been very interesting
in the past years. Why don't we just dig into
that one? What's happening essentially in that
portfolio? Yeah, by all means. Well, it's been,
as you say, an interesting time in uranium. We've
seen more and more certainly governments around
the world really get on board with the nuclear
power thematic, at least from the perspective
of that realisation that... We desperately need
nuclear power as a backstop, a baseload power
support for the increasingly prevalent renewables
and, of course, the intermittency of renewables
that have their place but need that consistency
or backup of nuclear. It's obviously long dated,
but to that end, we've seen more and more investment
from governments around the world, albeit not
necessarily here in Australia. which is somewhat
the bane of our existence because it's become
a political football. But in more recent times,
we've also seen the very reason why it's difficult
to increase supply, where the uranium commodity
price has been quite strong, and yet the very
few, and we don't have that many to be fair,
very few uranium producers have proven just how
difficult it is to bring new mines or indeed
restart old mines. back into production. So,
you know, we think the thematic is really developing
a pretty strong head of steam and has, frankly,
still many years to play out. Importantly, I
guess the more recent demand side, which has
really sort of lit another fire under it, has
been the advent of data centres and AI and the
reality that the nuclear power can form a very
big support for the generation piece that...
that these hyperscalers are being forced to contemplate
off -grid solutions that might look like a nuclear
power facility as their backup. Yeah, it's funny
enough. Like you speak to someone and you just
start remembering kind of what you spoke about
two years ago. It's amazing how the brain works.
I think back then, I think Amazon or someone
with the equivalent, it was probably Amazon,
was smart enough to essentially purchase land
and build a data center next to one of the US
nuclear power stations. Do you remember that?
And that's kind of put essentially, you know,
it's signaled to essentially the world that a
lot of the energy infrastructure is not able
to handle it. Meanwhile, everyone's pushing,
you know, wind, solar, this and the other, but
the grid just really can't handle it. Do you
think that is now becoming, it went from the
outsider and, oh, my God, is that now the game
for data centers that, you know, if you can access?
nuclear power to essentially run these large,
you know, energy consuming data centers. Is that
the way forward that we're currently seeing?
And because of that, is there now, has the politics
kind of changed and shifted? Have people started
to wake up and realize that, you know, installing
other nuclear power stations in the Western world
may now become an option when in some places
like Australia was just a hard no? It's still
long dated, don't get me wrong. But yeah, to
your point around, you know, insert name of hyperscaler
here, they are recognising that nuclear is a
fantastic long term solution for them. You know,
if you look at, you know, Microsoft as a case
in point, now Microsoft were one of the very
vocal and leading companies, frankly, with regards
to their decarbonisation pursuit. It was only
actually in the last couple of years that we've
actually started to see their carbon footprint
go up. And why is it going up? It's because their
power needs are going up and they're having to
consume, you know, baseload power. And that baseload
power is coming in the form of coal -fired power
or gas -fired power. Now, we need every electron
we can get our hands on. Don't get me wrong.
And I'm not for a moment suggesting this is renewables
versus nuclear. It's not. We need both. We need
all of them. But coming back to what I was saying
earlier around the generation piece, to your
point, grids are not capable of supporting the
massive increase we're seeing in power demand
from the existing infrastructure, let alone the
exponential increase we're going to see in demand
as these data centres are increasingly installed.
I mean, you saw it just on the headline literally
in the last couple of days. that Meta are going
to install somewhere between 5 and 7 gigawatts
of power to drive their latest hyper -sized,
hyper -scaled data centre. So that's just one
example. To your point, there are so many. So
the beauty of nuclear is that it is, from a carbon
perspective, very clean. It can be, you know,
on a grand scale installed, importantly, also
off grid. You can actually separate it from the
grid. So, yes, we've seen old nuclear facilities
in the US had their lives extended or indeed
restarted. And we think that thematic will continue,
frankly, for years to come. So how's Tribeca
getting asset exposure to uranium? Is there a
lot domestically or are you looking mainly offshore?
It's a bit of both. A bit of both. I mean, it
is a casing point of the resources sector. You
know, the Australian market is one of the key
resources markets, one of the key uranium markets.
Canada, of course, is the other. But there are
a few US names, particularly from the SMR, small
modular reactor perspective. There's a few US
names starting to pop up, at least from a generation
perspective. In terms of the uranium miners in
the Aussie marketplace. We were long -term supporters
of BOSS. They're going through some operational
challenges at the moment. More recently, we've
been supporters of Paladin being the relatively
liquid and larger scale uranium producer listed
here in Oz. Offshore, Cameco being the Canadian,
Bellwether is a great go -to name for very liquid,
large exposure to uranium. well, what is probably
the best undeveloped uranium asset on the face
of the planet being NextGen's asset in the Athabasca
Basin, we think is fantastic. And certainly in
an environment where they've just essentially
had the last of the permitting hurdles crossed,
it does clear the pathway for the development
of what will be a very large, low -cost uranium
mine. Yeah, energy is the topic of the world
these days, isn't it? It's just funny how politics
kind of gets involved. We went from being the
largest coal exporter to pretty much them shutting
it all down. We have the most amount of it. Pocock's
in the news. Good old Pocock. I'll tell you what,
he's a funny guy. That meme he's doing around,
what was it about the beer? It was $2 .5 billion
worth of taxes, and he worked out that it was
about $1 .7 billion worth of... Taxes we get
out of selling natural gas. And isn't there,
he put it up recently. There's a ticker showing
essentially that each hour or something they've
been talking is costing Australia like $300 million
or something. Have you seen all that? I haven't
seen that. No, it's, look, yeah, that's the reality,
right? So, you know, the resources sector is
a big taxpayer. So you're starting to press a
bit of a hot button for me personally. But this
is a sad case that we've got in the resources
sector where in fossil fuels land, it was seen
as the demon and biggest carbon contributor.
And then that sort of broadly parlayed into all
mining is bad, which is... clearly fairly short
-sighted um i'm obviously somewhat biased but
it's a short -sighted view in my view um so we've
got yes so no i say it makes no sense it's kind
of like woolworths banning plastic bags mean
while you're going to woolworths every all the
fruit and everything and vegetables all wrapped
in plastic correct correct well correct and and
you know it's all we're able to talk about is
turning off our coal -fired power but you've
got to have a solution you've got to have an
alternative and There's a reason why the government
keeps kicking the tin down the road and extending
the life of our various coal -fired power plants
because we just don't have the near -term solutions
just yet. We may as well get into the strata
humors, Iran, the fuel crisis, but may as well
start at a different angle. I think there was
once upon a time 12 refineries in Australia.
Now there's two. Right? Surely we'd have learned
our lesson from, you know, from COVID times and
essentially, you know, with the cars, you know,
you can't get past essentially create them. Why
did they shut down refineries? Essentially, we're
an island. And is there any chatter of, you know,
opening up refineries again because of the problem
we're in? Well, I mean, there's... There's a
few connected arguments here. You know, one of
them, of course, is fossil fuels, I think, more
broadly. But, yeah, you would think we'd learned
our lesson. But sadly, you know, we sit here
in Australia, as you say, as an island with very
little in the way of our own refining capacity.
And yet, you know, as a G20 economy, we've got
one or if not the lowest level of inventories
of refined product, which, yeah. beggar's belief,
frankly, and sadly is not easily solved. What
it does do, and it's not just refined product,
this serves, I guess, as a handy reminder of
a couple of things. Number one, commodities have
got significant strategic value. And number two,
it's not easily solved and supply remains a big
issue. But also that we are... on other geopolitical
players who don't always have Australia's best
interests at heart. So when, you know, when the
shit hits the fan, you know, the problem we've
got here is that, you know, we've got a pretty
weak geopolitical hand in some respects, albeit,
you know, as we're hearing from our government
at the moment. Maybe we can use our bargaining
chip being our supply of LNG, for example, to
some of these other suppliers of our refined
products. So we're not without bargaining chips,
but the issue we've got is that they're not easily
solved either. You know, you can't, when you
break down these supply chains for crude and
refined product, the reality is it takes a long
time for, you know, a very large crude carrier,
VLCC, to sell from the Gulf to a refinery in
Asia. to refine the product and then have the
refined product sold to Australia. So even if
a tanker leaves the Gulf today, we're not receiving
those refined products for probably six or eight
weeks, best case. Yeah, and then I was chatting
to a mate who... I love this guy. Guy's hilarious.
But he essentially broke his ships for a living,
like the large shipping containers where you
sit the cargo ships on and all the gas carriers
and the oil carriers. And what was very interesting
and inside on the contracts is when they sell
them, essentially all the fuel is on the buyer.
But if a scenario like this happens and they
can't access fuel, then essentially the liability
shifts to them and their backup plan is purchasing.
uh texas western crude right but the delay the
delay on the time is like you know another potentially
you know another couple of weeks so it all just
kind of costs and costs and costs um yeah where
do you think this is you might as well get into
it uh love an opinion um where do you think this
iran conflict's going um i see it more not necessarily
you know on the On the complete politics, but
where do you think it's going from a resources
standpoint? Because to my understanding right
now with Australia, there's a little island which
says if you go through the main gap, then essentially
we'll blow you up. But if you essentially go
through a little toll booth, we'll let you through
for a $2 million ticket per ship, which is just
insane. So how much damage is this doing to essentially
the sector? Oh, well, it's massive. It's massive.
And this is an extraordinary choke point. And
the Iranians are doing a wonderful job of parlaying
a palace situation into an economic advantage.
You know, the reality is, and your listeners
will know this, it's been well reported that
between 15 and 20 % of the world's oil and LNG
sails through that very small elbow of water.
So, you know, when you can very easily... ships
from sailing through. It's obviously a massive
impact on the global oil or energy markets more
broadly. With regards to their ability to constrain
it, the reality is they don't need to stop every
boat. They don't need to take a pot shot at one.
And obviously all of them are seemingly at risk.
So that's where the challenge lies. Yes, you're
right. The main shipping channel does not sail.
between two Iranian islands. But in terms of
the Iranians letting boats through, you know,
they're essentially saying, yeah, you can come
up, you know, if you're a friendly buyer, i .e.,
you know, a Chinese or an Indian, for example,
crude buyer or a fine product buyer, you can
sail your boat through, bring it up past this
island, we'll check that it's the right boat.
And, yes, you can wire us two million greenbacks
and we'll let you through. So, yes, that is,
well, that's the story. I mean, it's unconfirmed,
but, you know, the Iranians overnight came out
with a policy essentially trying to firm up their
control of the Strait of Hormuz. And you would
have seen the US put 15 conditions on the table
with their negotiations. The Iranians came back
with five, of which one of them was we control
the Strait of Hormuz. I believe they used the
word sovereignty. They wanted to actually claim
it. Yeah. I mean, yeah, clearly a non -starter.
Yeah, pretty much. Yeah, sovereignty on essentially
Australia, which controls 20 % of all the supply,
and you're seeing essentially the choke points
happening right now. Surely they can't let that
stand. It's kind of like the equivalent of, you
know, the Suez Canal when that went down. Well,
you're correct. So you're correct. That is a
choke point. I mean, the... You cannot have,
as you say, a sovereign controlling this amount
of the world's crude, despite the fact they don't
produce that much. There's no way the other Gulf
countries would approve that. But I guess when
you've got a cornered, dare I say it, irrational
party, don't ask, don't get. So there'll be a
deal done that I expect. No, you cannot have
them having sovereign control over that straight
of waters. Why don't we discuss helium? I haven't
discussed helium with you before, but it kind
of all ties in. I've got a good mate at another
shop, you know, who loves essentially the helium
story, and there's a good one in Australia. RAS,
am I saying this correctly? RAS Lafarn Industrial
Center, Qatar. I'm absolutely reading this. Normally
accounts for roughly one -third or 33 % of global
helium production. Yeah, all of Qatar's helium
is extracted there as a byproduct of gas and
LNG. Processing is dedicated to helium 1, 2,
and 3 plants. Is that right? 63 million cubic
meters. World total is 190 million. So 33 % is
coming primarily from Qatar. Does Tribeca have
any exposure, you know, to those assets? No,
it's a short answer. No, is the short answer.
Do you have any exposures to the assets that
are outside of there that will benefit from the
shortage? We don't at the moment. We have had
in the past. Helium as a commodity, as a pure
play, is very difficult because to your data
you've just laid out there, the lion's share
of the world's helium comes as a byproduct of
liquefying natural gas because it's the helium
that comes as part of the production stream of
the gas. So there are a few earlier stage helium
explorers listed on the Australian Stock Exchange,
which are obviously hopeful of tapping into this
thematic. But it's your early stage. They're
not in production, hoping to be obviously at
some point, but obviously hoping to play that
longer term thematic. But yeah, look, clearly
helium is one of the potential. I suppose, from
a longer -term outage at these LNG plants, for
sure, and it's one that's not often talked about.
It's an interesting space, the gas, just all
the energy space. But whilst we're just on the
topic of the politics, and I mentioned POCOC,
obviously, you know, politicians make noise,
things don't happen, people come to a compromise.
What would be the impact? This is just for me
personally. What would be the impact if, say,
hypothetically, they got through? a 25 % tax
on, you know, exports of, you know, oil, gas,
you know, that type of thing. What would be the
impact on the share prices of essentially like
Australian gas companies and oil companies? Well,
I guess if you instantaneously impose a tax on
a product, if it's in the source of supply, you're
automatically increasing the cost curve, right?
So you're structurally raising the cost curve,
which in theory either makes less supply economic,
so it takes supply out, or it forces the price
to go up in order for the product to be produced.
So, and you're assuming demand remains inelastic,
which... given the uses of helium. It's not just
in balloons that go into your five -year -old's
party balloons on a weekend. Most of it, you
know, it's either into, you know, aerospace or
medical applications. The elasticity of demand
is light. I mean, it's inelastic. So, you know...
Theoretically, it should be good for the price.
Well, wouldn't you think that potentially a better
way to do it would just technically be like an
Australian royalty on the profits instead of
like, you know, whacking on essentially a cost
item? Yeah, well, I mean, you need to engage
many of the producers here for this and ask the...
Ask the Queensland coal producers. No one wants
to give up what they own, mate. Look, personally,
I've got a lot of money in this space as you
guys as well. So that's what I was trying to
understand, right? On one hand, it's good for
the country. On the other hand, you take your
money out of investors' pockets. So I'm just
trying to gauge essentially what's – because
everyone's seen this stuff in the news. Well,
to be speaking, some sort of profit royalty is
– It might be scalable based on the level of
profit received is more tenable than just raising
your cost base. So it really depends. The way
the royalties were structured in Queensland essentially
has made much of the coal industry, well, certainly
not going to invest in any further growth and
making their cost bases structurally higher because
it's a revenue royalty rather than a profit royalty.
What's Tribeca currently doing in the oil and
gas space? assets you're currently holding why
don't we start with what domestic assets you're
currently holding yeah sure so um we've really
i guess over over time you know we are a fundamental
investor so we've focused on where we think they
are the best well, gas assets initially, where
we think there's a long -term play on resource
quality. And for us in Australia, that's, you
know, we've been shareholders in Tamborin for
a long time with the Betaloo Basin assets that
they have. There's a fair bit starting to happen
there. And the other play in Australia at the
junior end of the spectrum is Omega, Omega Oil
and Gas. They've got... pretty attractive asset
suite in the Taroom Trough in Queensland. Now,
both of those are not in production as we speak,
but have, as I say, an excellent resource base
that we think is going to grow, but also is attractive
from a scale perspective and sort of a bit like
coal seam gas was, you know, last decade in Queensland,
where the big players ultimately end up taking
over there. I've heard some people say similarities
to Amiga and the Beetlejuice Basin to like the
early days of Woodside. Is that inaccurate? And
what they mean by that is it takes that a great
asset took forever. The capital expense is insane.
It takes a long time, but then eventually when
it gets up and running and the money comes, it's
a good asset and then it takes time to eventually
get there. It's a decent analogy because you
think about, you know, for Woody's, well, you
know, whether it was Bass Strait, which is, you
know, deep water, difficult to develop, you know,
many, many decades ago, or it's Northwest Shelf,
you know, which ultimately became one of the
company makers for Woodside. Now, the reality
is Northwest Shelf is near precisely nothing.
So, you know, you have to spend, as you say,
a huge amount of money. not just drilling the
wells, but then, you know, putting in a huge
LNG facility on shore to liquefy the gas and
send it off to market. So, yes, big, expensive,
not for the faint of heart. Now, the Beetaloo
Basin is, you know, has one of those similar
qualities. It's precisely close to nowhere. And
so, you know, the similar challenge that we've
faced and the bears have said. the Beedaloo Basin
will never be developed because it is close to
nowhere. But what we are seeing increasingly
and what's really, I guess, lit a bit of a fire
here, I mean, this has been around a long time,
don't get me wrong. Beedaloo Basin has been seen
as a prospective gas play for many years. But
what seems to have lit a fire here is the interest
of US players who have come in and are applying
US technology, US equipment, big rigs, big frack
spreads. to drill out what they think looks geologically
the same as the Marcellus Shale in the US, which
has become a multi -BCF, billion cubic feet a
day gas field, biggest gas producer in the US,
and made gas a cheap and prevalent commodity
for US consumers. And it's them who brought their
capital and expertise into Australia, which is
really, I think... the next move for the Beedaloo
players. Now, the Teroom trough, Omega, it's
not as geographically isolated. It's southwestern
Queensland. It's actually not that far from some
of the infrastructure that went into place to
build out the coal seam gas plays in the liquefaction
trains in Gladstone. Should it be developed,
you'll see the gas from the Taroom trough most
likely feed into either the domestic market or
into the LNG plays in Gladstone. Or if they're
liquids, well, hell, there seems to be a bit
of a shortage of oil around at the moment, so
I'm sure there's plenty of buyers domestically
for that. I love this space, as you know. May
as well dig into Tamborin a bit more because
there's a lot actually happening. It's been many
years, many, many years, hasn't it? Yes, some
long years, you might say. Some long years, you
know, in the cocoon and it looks like it's about
to emerge. So what's happening there? I've heard,
you know, Inpex, Dally Waters, you know, Sheffield's
done a thing, you know, potential association,
you know, with the old empire right now. So that's
happening. Do what's really funny about, it's
almost like tribalism. The Republicans are Democrats.
The early days of Tamborin versus Empire Energy,
which is now Beetaloo. But I kind of like the
analogy I heard the other day. It's, you know,
the Beetaloo kind of needs to work together because
there's so much infrastructure and everything
required. And if you all kind of pull in and
off we go. And I kind of. think that's – isn't
that what's kind of happening now? It's like
Inpex kind of getting involved and, you know,
it's all kind of the entire region. As you mentioned,
there's nothing there. There's now many different
interests are now making this possible. Well,
you're right. I mean, yeah, it's been a long
road, as you say, and for a few different reasons.
I mean, there was – you know, you've also got
Santos up there in the eastern side of the basin
and – They were actually drilling wells with
Tamborin as a joint venture partner and they
had some not inconsiderable land access issues.
So that slowed them down. You've had previous
landowners on the western side of the basin struggle
either because of land access issues or lack
of capital. And that lack of capital thing is...
can sometimes be a difficult one to navigate.
And as I touched on, you know, what's happened
more recently has been the entry of the US players.
And you touched on the impacts. Like that's,
this is where you really start to get moving
because it's the big guys with the deep pockets
who are desperately chasing molecules, right?
So again, coming back to the point around what's
going on in the Middle East, you know, and at
Woodside, for example, building out LNG trains
in Louisiana in the US. We're trying to get away
from geopolitically unstable places. So if you
are Impex, where do you want to source your LNG
molecules from? Do you want to source it from
Qatar or do you want to source it from the US
and Australia? I'm going to back Australia in
that horse race and the US as well. So aside
from the... the proximity. I mean, Australia
is obviously the closest of all those three suppliers.
So Inpex knows where they desperately need more
gas. And they already have, as it happens, an
LNG facility that they put in place with the
ICTHUS LNG project up in the Northern Territory.
So they could add an extra train there. You know,
you've got... them now investing in the Beetaloo
Basin via the Daily Waters farm in. Look, this
is big, big, deep pockets that play the long
game and recognise, you know, the scale of this
asset that just needs capital applied to it.
How much more capital do you reckon? Is it just
indefinite? Or at some point, do you reckon –
I want to go around this. Is it just an indefinite
requirement of capital or is it like the story
with CSCL? It gets to a point and then 10 % of
all revenue essentially goes to the R &D and
it kind of builds up itself. Yeah, okay. It's
like the Sulrat Basin with Santos, like similar
thing. Yeah, yeah. So these wells are far, far,
far, far more productive than a CSG well, far
more. These are big wells. As I say, if you look
up the Marcellus Basin in the US, we're talking
multi -BCF per well potential here. Now, it costs
you an awful lot more to drill than a CSG well.
So there are swings and roundabouts. But again,
so if you think about what's happening in the
Marcellus Basin where... For a long time there,
that was remote and didn't get developed because
it was costing so much. But ultimately, the infrastructure
gets built out. But if you can bring down your
cost of drilling a well from, let's call it $30
million a well today because you don't have the
right kit, to let's call it $10 to $15 million
a well, and you're producing, as I say, literally
tens of millions of cubic feet a day, multi -BCF
per well, this makes CSG look like, you know,
kiddies play. These are big, big wells. Now,
you don't need to drill as many wells to then
feed your LNG train in the Northern Territory.
Now, the LNG trains are the big capital programs.
To your point, what is the capital here? LNG
facilities are very capital intensive and it
goes back again to the point about Northwest
Shelf. Once the capital is injected and built
and these liquefaction trains are in production,
the capital cost is just the the cost of drilling
those wells that comes down significantly as
your scale goes up so um it's not it's not infinite
it is a big number it's going to cost billions
of dollars don't get me wrong um but this is
the whole point around if you're a if you're
a little junior emp company you can't you don't
have access to billions of dollars but if you
can prove that the assets there that the geology
works that's when big company with a big checkbook
comes in and says, fine, we'll develop that for
you. And the small EMP guy gets soaked up. I
suppose the questions everyone's asking is essentially
there's three main options. It's either, what's
the whole reason why? It's either pre -raise
using someone else's checkbook, but that means
technically, you know, a buyout. Or essentially
maybe a takeover down the line and it gets swallowed
up by one of the majors. You know, people may
or may not want that. Or, you know, do they do
it slow and have the means? And then the question
becomes, they keep saying, you know, quarter
three is when they're going to flow gas. And
if they flow gas, does that mean there's enough
revenue coming from that to essentially, you
know, the $70 million required to essentially
pump a couple of wells every year? So I'm just
wondering. You know, if you've modelled this
out of having conversations, you know, what do
you think potentially might happen? Well, I mean,
this is the challenge you're facing, any junior
mining or energy company for that matter. You
know, do you trade today, you know, bird in the
hand or is it two in the bush? Clearly, if you
decide to go the latter and build it yourself,
Spend the money yourself. You've got more control
and you've notionally got a higher percentage
of a pie, but you've also got a lot more risk
on your hands. As we talked about, you know,
these things are not without risk and it takes
a long time. So, you know, what's your cost of
capital? How long can you wait? So sometimes
it can be better to trade today and take those
dollars or you do, you know, as obviously Tambor
and or, you know, Beetaloo are trying to do and
that's... you attract capital, you get someone
else to pay for the cost of drilling a well to
establish an interest in the asset. And so you
as a Tamburan, you maintain an interest in the
rocks, in the asset, in the ground, and you get
someone else to pay their way, they cover the
entire cost of the well to build up their stake
in the well. So that's the path that Tamburan
are on at the moment. and trying to get others
to essentially play their way forward. Ultimately,
you know, the long -term game here is I don't
think Tambourine remains in existence. I think
they will get taken out. The question is when.
When the right number is put on the table is
the answer to that. But, you know, there's probably
a bit more gas to flow just yet. Then the bigger
question is will there be an option to or will
we be forced to take cash or will we get the
ability to roll into the parent? That's going
to be the bigger question. Oh, 100%. Now, what's
the parent? Is the parent a US entity where you
don't want to hold the US stock? That's a question
for retail investors here, which can be a difficult
one to answer. Unless they do what they do with
Tamborin and essentially, oh, well, one listing
and then you have the ability to have it in Aussie
dollars. But then the other thing as well, from
a resources standpoint, the US dollar. Let's
discuss this. It's a great pivot into the currency.
It's just gone from 60 cents to nearly 72 back
into the high 60s. So what's that doing for the
industry? Well, in Australia, you're obviously
earning Aussie dollars so it's not such a big
deal and your costs are all largely Aussie dollar
based. It's a challenge if your revenue streams
in US dollars. or your costs are in US dollars.
It depends where you are located in the world.
For the Aussie guys, it's not an issue. You know,
I think if you're producing a commodity, and
I'm stepping away from Aussie gas for the moment,
if you're producing a commodity that's priced
in US dollars, then, you know, you actually want
a stronger US dollar, right? So it's a bit of
a swings and roundabout thing. So it can be a
bit of a natural hedge. You know, I think – People
are not familiar with a natural hedge. I used
to be in foreign currency, but this is a big
one. So what is a natural hedge? Like as a fund
manager, what is a natural hedge for people not
familiar with it? So for us in resources, typically
speaking, you know, you've got – your revenue
stream is priced in US dollars. So commodities
– outside of Australian gas, commodities are
typically priced in US dollars. So you hear about
the gold price, for example. The gold price is
quoted on the evening news in US dollar terms.
Now, if you're an Aussie producer, you actually
receive Aussie dollars for that. But if the US
dollar price is going up and the Aussie dollar
is weak, those US dollars convert into a bigger...
Aussie dollar revenue line. So you actually want
a weak Aussie dollar. It actually works to your
favor because it drives up your revenue line.
Now, the natural hedge is your costs are based
in Aussie dollars. So it sort of works against
that flow. So you're hedging away your revenues
and your costs without having to actively do
anything yourself is what I mean by a natural
hedge. The other thing to think about in resources
more typically is that the US dollar tends to
be strong at a time when commodities are weak
and vice versa. So if you're a commodity producer
or a commodity investor, investing in commodity
companies, a weak US dollar typically means a
stronger commodity price and a stronger environment
for you as a mining investor or an energy investor.
thanks for that since we're still on the on the
politics side and then there's so many more so
many more commodities to cover but i think this
is a good way to get into it is uh the u .s uh
announced a change to essentially what strategic
reserves or you know strategic commodities uh
what was and like as an example it directly impacted
uh silver and that was wild to watch right so
can you explain give a are now considered strategic
resources and how is that affecting those commodities?
Yeah, for sure. This is a big one. It's essentially
like rewritten the map. This is huge. And this
is something that's not understood or appreciated
in my view. And that is that commodities have
a strategic value. You know, we in, and we, I
mean, we in the developed world, have happily
outsourced the supply of our commodities, broadly
speaking, to China. Now, China play a very long
game and they have monopolized the supply of
many commodities, not all commodities, to be
fair, but many commodities because they recognize
the strategic shortage of them or indeed the
importance of these commodities for the future
world. Now, there are many commodities that they
process and they are the best part of 100 % or
at least more than 90 % of the world's supply.
Now, I'm talking about processed copper, lithium,
graphite, rare earths, insert name of commodity
here. There is a big problem in that China. controls
the supply of these commodities. Now, we have,
as I say, been asleep at the wheel, or at least
happily outsourcing that supply for many, many
years. And it was really, I mean, we started
to recognise this as the world started to cotton
on to the fact that we're going to need a whole
lot more commodities for electrification. But
it was actually seemingly only in the last sort
of 12 months when the Trump administration, and
we just Park your views on Donald Trump for a
moment. The Trump administration very early on
in this current administration came to the realisation
that they are in an untenable situation where
their biggest political adversary, potentially,
biggest economic adversary, is also controlling
almost 100 % of many of their critical commodities.
It's an untenable situation, right? Wars have
been fought unless. 100%. Exactly right. So,
I mean, we saw in July last year. Well, that's
the whole reason why they went into Venezuela.
So this is, I mean, we're over the can of worms
here. I'll back off the Venezuela one for now.
But, okay, just since I over the can of worms
to anyone listening, right, you know, so it says
the Trump government, again, park your views
on Trump for a second. What do they do? It's
like a siege, right? So you get all the food
you need in. So they cut deals in NVIDIA, put
the tariffs up, you know, shore up the ship.
decrease the debt so they're strong, look after
the middle class. And then you go, right, now
I need to take out my enemies or get ourselves
in a better position. So China, to your point,
has every single resource known to man, but what
don't they have? Access to cheap fuel, oil and
gas. So what do they do? They cut off, they went
to us and essentially cut off the people that
were dealing to them, Venezuela, Iran, Russia.
Exactly right. Yeah. Now that is spot on and
there's, you know, certainly, we're not a lone
voice in having a view that what's going on in
Iran is not obviously just about Iran. Venezuela
was the entree. Iran is the main course. And
there is a much bigger game at play here between
the US and China. You know, the US is obviously
desperately trying to assert some degree of power
where they can. And it is part of a bigger game,
bigger geopolitical game of chess that will play
out obviously over a long time. Because at the
end of the day, to your point, China obviously
sources, they don't have an infinite supply of
domestic oil and gas. They do source it from
other places, including Russia. But they do control
many other commodities. So how does the US exercise
that power or try to rebalance that power? So
what commodities are now considered a strategic
resource that weren't before and how has that
impacted those commodities? Well, it varies by
country, to be fair. You know, each country has
its own designated list of critical commodities.
But in more recent times, you know, major commodities,
not the esoteric one, but major commodities like
copper. Copper has only recently been added to
the US list of critical. commodities. You know,
the others which you'd not surprisingly hear,
you know, stuff like lithium or rare earths or
the like are obviously important. In more recent
times, you know, there's the recognition that,
you know, defence applications are actually what
sort of... really drawn a spotlight to this rather
than electrification. So it's gallium, it's germanium,
it's rare earths for smart weapons, it's tungsten,
it's all these various commodities, which again,
guess what? China dominates significantly the
supply of. So that's why we love the concept
of investing in producers. these commodities
or developers of these commodities in locations
other than China. And, you know, we're going
to increasingly see a premium paid for non -Chinese
assets or at least, you know, commodities that
are being supplied by non -Chinese companies.
You know, the reason why the US offered MP Materials,
the US company MP Materials, approximately double
the spot price for their rare earths, I mean,
US -based rare earth mine. They offered to put
a floor in the rare earth price of $110 a kilo
when spot was 60. Now, that's the first. It's
wild. It's good, though. It has to occur. It
has to occur. Otherwise, you're just going to
give it away. That's right. Or more importantly,
like, you know, love the JP Morgan guys, they
can just, you know, have a crack at the silver
price, whatever they want, short it all the way
down, then bring it back up again. 100%. That
huge short squeeze in the silver price happened
intentionally because everyone realised we can
no longer play this game anymore. If there is
essentially a flaw in the silver price and we're
not out by that town, we're stuck. Yep, yep,
that's right. And that's right. So the Chinese
put export controls on silver. Why do they put
export controls on silver? Because silver is
not just a speculator's dream. It's actually
a really important commodity for... You name
it with regards to soldering or circuitry or
solar panels. On the demand front, is it accurate?
I'm a jack -of -all -trades or whatever it is,
wear too many hats, read too much information.
Is it true that with all the requirements of
silver for the electrification of the world and
all the tech, is it true that if they wouldn't
have made all the products right now, that's
literally like all the silver that gets mined
for the year would just be gone? in the silver?
Yes and no. I mean, the majority of the world's
silver is mined as a byproduct of gold mining.
It's actually not primary silver mines. So there's
a weird geologic quirk that there's actually
very few primary silver mines. They are in Central
America and North America, so up in Mexico and
a little bit into the US. Other than that, most
of the world's silver comes from gold mining.
So actually, the challenge you face is trying
to determine what the supply will be because
it will actually be a function of the gold price.
That's interesting. I learned something. Actually,
I probably did know that. I always thought it
was actually the main thing. When you go after
gold, you're going after copper, as the saying
goes. But I forgot about the silver. Well, that's
true. Copper can be a byproduct as well. Or actually,
often copper mines have… Gold is a byproduct.
But, yeah, silver is most commonly a byproduct
of gold. Sorry for the tangent, but let's get
back to the rare earths because this one is really
interesting. So it's $100 essentially as a floor
price. And what's been the impact of that? It's
driven the spot price to something approximating
$110 a kilo. Wow. It's a surprise. So, yeah.
So I guess, you know, one of the ultimate ironies,
rare earths are not very rare. you know the the
processing of rare earths so rare earth ore can
be found in many places around the world but
the processing of those rare earths into the
the oxides that are required for you know permanent
magnets and the like is largely or uniquely done
in china because it's a dirty process it's also
done in some parts of southeast asia but it's
a dirty process um so uh What have you bought
after this came out or if you thought this was
coming out? What wasn't in the portfolio that
you've now acquired in order to benefit from
this? Yeah, look, we own, so we bought into Linus
being the obvious, the very obvious analogue.
So outside of China. MP Materials and Linus are
essentially the only rare earth producers, rare
earth miners outside of China. So you've got,
as I say, the Mountain Pass mine in the US and
Mount World, which is the Linus mine in Western
Australia. They are in production today. So there's
actually very few ways of getting exposure to
rare earth mining today. What's the other one?
Is it Brazilian rare earths? Is that the one?
Yeah. So outside of those, there's a bunch of
Australian – development hopefuls. And there
is an area in Brazil called the Caldeira where
you've got Brazilian rare earths, you've got
meteoric, you've got viridis. So there's a few
of these junior developers who are hoping to
build new rare earth mines. And those Brazilian
projects are in what's called ionic clays and
they are reasonably high grade. And in our view,
the most likely to be the next cabs off the development
rank. Interesting. You made a comment before
that rare earths aren't necessarily something
you dig out of the ground. It's something you
get and then you have to manufacture the process
and then convert it to something that's usable.
We haven't discussed titanium. Have you got any
exposure to titanium? And I think from memory...
The only one really currently available that's
changed the process has been, I think it's IperionX,
IPX? Yeah. Have you got any exposure to IperionX?
Not IperionX. We own a company called 6K Additives.
So similar theme. So these are metal powder companies.
So IperionX is producing. How does it work? Is
hydrogen that converts the – are they grounded
up in a powder and they do something to it where
they can change the scrap? Because to my understanding,
making original titanium from scratch, you're
potentially losing like 80 % of the commodity
in the process. Yeah, so that's right. So casting
was your traditional – casting and pressing was
your traditional source of titanium parts. That,
to your point, if you imagine you've got a block
and you cut a piece out of it to get your titanium
part, there's a lot of wastage. And that's what
Iperion X talk to. What we are going, and the
next step in terms of trying to improve that
yield of each unit of titanium is 3D printing.
So it's additive manufacturing. So what you do
is you take… So you can 3D print titanium now?
Yeah. Yeah, so titanium parts using titanium
powders you put into a, well, pretty specialised
3D printer to print parts. That's right. Wow,
could you imagine a tank? Some of these tanks
are like, you know, it's a collapse of bridge.
But if you've added a tank, that would be lighter
and stronger. So what was the name of the company?
Yeah, 6K Additives. It's listed on the ASX under
the ticker 6KA. It only relatively recently IPO'd,
but it's a US -based entity. I'm writing that
down. Please do. So like Hyperion X, Hyperion
X has their own technology to undertake this
process. 6K Additive has their own technology.
And what they do is you're essentially taking
– yeah, you can take waste. So coming back to
your point around how much wastage there is in
your standard casting of titanium parts, they
can take that waste, convert it into a powder,
and then sell that powder. to your additive manufacturing.
You know, Apple using titanium, you know, titanium
goes into your Apple Watch and your phones and
whatnot. You know, if you get your yield, you
know, a multiple of what you get from casting,
clearly there's a massive benefit of that. So,
yeah, so 6K can do titanium and then a raft of
other metals as well that they can extract from
their technology. I'm trying to put you in the
hot seat, but 6K and IPEX sound similar. Since
this is a manufacturing process, isn't there
intellectual property involved? So are they completely
different in their processes or? Yeah, the technologies
are different in how they undertake that process
of creating the powders. So it's creating the
powders is the key here. And there is a yield.
um component to the powder as well because the
3d printer requires a very um uniform uh powder
so not not just in terms of the size of the the
sphere the powder sphere but also this um the
the uniformity of the shape of that sphere so
uh if you have a um much more uniform sphere
that comes out of the bottom of your your powder
manufacturing process, you get a higher yield.
So, yes, there's an angle there too. I have to
disclose, I personally own Hyperion X. I'm just
curious. Now I'm just curious. Yeah, absolutely.
Talking my own book, you know, we're human beings.
But I'm just curious as why did you choose, say,
6K over, say, Hyperion X? which, as you mentioned,
6KA is just IPO'd. HyperionX has been around
for a while now. What made you essentially choose
that player over the other or instead of just
buying both? Well, I guess for the time being,
we think there's a bigger value proposition in
6K. So it's a whole lot cheaper than HyperionX.
Now, HyperionX, you could argue, are further
advanced at this stage, but post -IPO, It would
appear that 6K additives now have the funding
to essentially grow to produce a very similar
amount of titanium powders as Hyperion X, but
trading at a fraction of the market cap. On the
other positive, I suppose, instead, like Australia,
if this works, and it's in Australia, is the
manufacturing in Australia? No, it's in the US.
So it's US with US, an interesting amount of
US government funding as well. Well, that's a
shame. I was kind of – I like the angle of essentially
Australian -made. So, you know, war kicks off
already. Well, they can bring their technology
here. They can bring their technology here. But
for now, they are a US -based entity listed on
the ASX. But, yeah, US -based manufacturing and
obviously tapping into what is clearly a pretty
big market. It's a pretty massive market. You
think about everything that's made out of aluminium
that you could potentially make with titanium.
Correct. It's fascinating. All right, well, what
haven't we covered? All right, what's your opinion
on gold? Come on, for the gold bugs out there.
Mate, you're going to hate me. I was actually
– I had this conversation with a client just
about two hours ago. They said, what's your view
on gold? I said, well, it's kind of ironic that
the commodities guy in the room is going to tell
you he doesn't have a view on gold. The point
being that, I mean, I can build a supply -demand
model for any commodity, right, other than probably
gold. Because let's be honest, the biggest demand
driver for gold is not an industrial use, it's
central banks. Speculative, yeah. Now, I'm not
saying that central banks are going to be selling
the gold that they've bought more recently. In
fact, I think that de -dollarisation trade, that's
moving away from US Treasuries to... or some
form of non -fiat currency is real and it's happening,
the trains left the station is not coming back.
So that will continue. I just can't tell you
whether I think gold should be $4 ,500 or $5
,500 or $4 ,000 or $6 ,000 or whatever the number
is in between. Now, I own gold producers, I own
gold explorers, but I own those for reasons external
to whether I think the gold price is going up
or not. That makes a lot of sense. One thing
I wouldn't mind discussing is royalties. Just
try Becker. I love royalties, but there was a
particular case that came out in Australia that's
going to get challenged in the high court. What's
it called? I'll find it. But it's essentially
going to challenge whether or not a royalty is
considered intellectual property or essentially
a contract. When a miner dies now, that's just
happened. While I find that, does Tribeca have
any access to mining royalties? We don't own
any royalties to date. We don't currently invest
in any royalty companies, not to say that we
haven't in the past or won't in the future. To
your point around royalties, yeah, they can be
a magnificent investment. from the perspective
of long -dated, don't leave you exposed to capital
overruns and operational missteps and theoretically
give you complete upside to exploration success
later in an asset's life or asset life extension.
I'm pitching you what you already know. What
has been more challenging in recent times has
been just the valuation proposition. and just
saying cheap evaluation propositions in explorers
or developers or producers rather than the royalty
companies. But that's not a fundamental view
that we don't like royalties. When you buy into
some of these companies, do sometimes the availability
to purchase into royalties appear? So I guess
two aspects to that. Number one, when you buy
into a producer who has a royalty held by someone
else, that can be a detractor. So that's one
way of answering your question. With regards
to companies owning royalties, it's kind of unusual
to – you see companies – Sorry, I didn't mean
buying into a company that owns their own royalties.
I mean, is there any chances like on any of the
juniors which you pick up? and then they require
a source of funding and then potentially – Oh,
look, that can be a source of funding. Yeah,
look, it can be a source of funding. Yeah, absolutely.
And, well, crikey, we've just seen BHP sell one
to Wheaton Precious, right? And in that instance,
to be fair to BHP, that is 100 % an oh, wow.
That is several billion dollars of – newly daylighted
value. It certainly wasn't reflected in their
share price and is now in their hip pocket. So
it's extraordinary that they were able to do
that. But it sort of goes back to the cost of
capital argument as to why you'd also might contemplate
buying a Woodside here today for the infrastructure
value. I mean, it's a cost of capital argument,
right? So Woodside has a cost of capital of X
and an infrastructure player has a cost of capital
of, you know, half X. So they can afford to pay
more for assets that just have a very steady
income stream and they can therefore come in
and either buy infrastructure assets from Woodside
or at least invest alongside them to produce
them. For a Wheaton Precious who has a, you know,
that implied IRR of that stream was... maybe
2 % at best. But when your cost of capital is
1%, it's a good deal. But it's certainly BHP's
cost of capital is more than 2%. So it makes
sense from a financial alchemy perspective. So
look, I don't necessarily have an issue with
it from a junior company utilizing a revenue
stream that might be non -core. And we talked
about it before with regards to byproducts. If
you are building a, let's say it's a copper mine
and you've got a gold by -product, certainly
having some partial streaming of your gold to
a royalty company might enable you to get that
production into existence that you might not
otherwise have the ability to fund. Yeah, royalties
are interesting. I suppose another way to think
about it is, well, what are you looking for?
Are you looking for capital growth to participate
as the mine grows or are you happy? with potentially
less, but income compounding every, you know,
every single time you get a check and it just,
you know, compounding income and you get the
same amount every single time. Well, sorry, a
percentage of the sales every single time. Yeah,
yeah. It depends. Well, it does. And so, well,
those royalties vary in shape as well, right?
Well, it did well for the Reinharts. It did very
well for the Reinhardts. It did very well for
the Reinhardts. Exactly right. Exactly right.
So, you know, therein lies an example of future
value unknown at the time. And now whether you're
getting a flat dollar amount per tonne, pound,
ounce, or whether you're getting a percentage
of revenue, two very different things. Very different
things. I'll take the percentage. Thank you very
much. 100%. Every day of the week. Yes, so a
client sent me this through. So it was the Kirker
Locker Gold decision, extinguishing royalties
in insolvency. SCL Australia Limited. So what
it said is the consequence, because they were
ruled to be contractual, the court found they
could be extinguished underneath a deed of company
arrangement. during a company's insolvency restructuring.
That's in Australia. That just happened in December.
We think potentially that it may only impact
the small miners, but my understanding is a lot
of the royalty players in the market have all
got contingency hold to the parent, like say
Santos or something like that. And it's not impacting
Canada and America, but it may be upheld. Find
out. It's a big one for anybody. It is a big
one. It's a very, very, very, very big precedent.
Yes, be careful. Be careful out there. Any other
thoughts on what's happening in the world today
and any other views? We've touched on the strategic
value of commodities. I think what's happening
in the world today, Crikey, there's a lot going
on in the world today, but I think what's for
us, the demand side is being focused on. from
a risk perspective, what's happening in the Middle
East and how that might impact demand and high
oil prices and blah, blah, blah. What's, I think,
being forgotten is the supply impact. You talked
about second -order effects and something like
helium. I'm sure you know it. Your listeners
may not be aware that more than 50 % of the world's
sulphur goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Guess
what? You need a whole lot of sulfur to make
sulfuric acid and you need sulfuric acid to make
copper. So, you know, if you're looking down
the barrel of a significant delay of ships transiting
the Strait of Hormuz carrying a significant component
of the world's seaborne sulfur, we are looking
at a significant supply interruption for copper.
Now, that's not being talked about, right? Not
much. Yeah, I was just thinking about all the
impact because, you know, property booming right
now in Queensland is doing well. You've got the
Olympics coming through, but that's going to
require a whole bunch of… A whole bunch of copper,
a whole bunch of all sorts of things. Well, at
the end of the day, the entire electrification
journey, we talked about grids earlier. The world's
grids remain massively underinvested, right?
So the US power grid… the EU power grid. I mean,
these are both 40 plus year old pieces of infrastructure
that are designed to last for 30 years. They
are creaking massively. Now, how do you address
that? Well, you've got to go and put a whole
bunch more transmission lines and distribution
lines. And they are obviously aluminium rich,
they're copper rich. And every piece of circuitry,
every new device you've got, it's all requiring
a huge amount of copper. So there's a reason
why just about every big mining company on the
face of the planet desperately wants more copper.
But guess what? They're going to buy it because
it's cheaper to buy than build. So that's why
you want to be exposed and why we're increasingly
exposed to the developers and explorers out there
because they're the ones that are going to get
bought because it's... For the guys like BHP,
they want more exposure to copper. It's actually
their portfolio of organic opportunities is pretty
thin right now. So they will be coming shopping
for it. They're going to buy it and we want to
be invested in those names they're going to buy.
It makes so much sense. They're essentially selling
it off to someone that wants to take the financial
risk and have a crack at it. And then just like
Tamborin, if it gets to the point and now it's
proof of concept, it's starting to flow, fatten
up the land for slaughter. Yeah, yeah. So, I
mean, the copper price must go up from here,
talking about the strategic value of commodities.
In our view, it has to go up to incentivise more
supply. The demand side is being focused upon,
but the supply interruptions are not. I talked
about the Strait of Hormuz. The three largest
underground copper mines in the world all had
significant interruptions last year. They were
out of action. Some of them are still out of
action. You know, there's a reason why copper
went to $6 a pound because it wasn't just the
demand side. In fact, demand actually wasn't
tremendous. It's the supply interruptions. So
supply is a massive challenge. It's a huge challenge.
And, you know, the average timeframe today to
go from first successful exploration drill hole
to first production of a copper mine is now 16
years. 16? One six. 16 years. I thought gas in
Beedaloo was long. Yeah, yeah, 100%. Yeah, this
takes it to a whole new level. That's a whole
new level, 16 years. 16 years, 16 years. So it's
hard. It's hard. Now, it's hard because it takes
a long time to, you know, drill it out and prove
that it exists and it's hard because it takes
time to permit and it's hard because it takes
time to fund. But at the end of the day, mining
company management teams and boards have been
told for… 15 years now since the GFC, post -GFC
rollover, that they're terrible allocators of
capital. They've been told, whatever you do,
we want you to pay a dividend, buy back your
stock, pay back your debt. Whatever you do, do
not put it in the ground because you are a terrible
allocator of capital. So guess what? All their
incentive schemes have changed. And now you've
got a situation where they're being paid for
a return. of capital rather than a return on
capital. And it's why we've got a situation today
where BHP, as I say, is desperate looking for
stuff to buy because they haven't been putting
their money in the ground. So it's... It's extraordinary,
right? That sounds like the good old story of
like the entrepreneur builds it and then the
entrepreneur dies and then essentially the banker
takes over with unfortunately not as much creative
genius and then they don't want to lose anything
so they don't do anything and then keep it all
safe. But then it goes the way of a BlackBerry
because they just don't know how to innovate
and actually, you know, and Steve Jobs comes
in and reinvents a brand new wheel and then they're
cooked. And they created the problem which they
were trying to avoid. That's right. That's right.
So we've got the incentive structures are all
wrong. And that potentially will change. But
it comes back to my point around time it takes
to build a new mine. It takes so long to address
this issue. So anyone who's got the perception
out there that they think $6 copper is enough
to incentivize masses of new supply, I don't
think it's the case. The market will do what
the market does. But what was the expression?
Show me how someone's remunerated and I'll show
you how they behave. Spot on. That's it. Well,
on that note, it's bloody awesome and always
great having you on. I love speaking to you,
Todd. If anyone wants to learn more about Tribeca
or reach out to you, how can they find you? So
tribecaip .com .au is our website. We've got
some information on there on our products. You
can find out about all of our resources funds
and our uranium products and our 2050 strategy,
et cetera. Or you can reach out to our investor
relations team and they'll put you in touch with
me. Nice. And also for Retail Investors, it's
listed as well. 100%. Good point. I should have
possibly said that. Good thing you're on the
roll. So, yeah, Tribeca Global Natural Resources
Limited is a listed investment company listed
under the ticker TGF on the ASX. Daily liquidity.
Trading at a discount. All right, Todd. Well,
thank you very much for coming on The Rate of
Change and I'll catch up with you soon for sure.
Pleasure. Thanks, Murdoch. The Rate of Change
podcast is presented by its speakers. The views
and opinions expressed in this podcast are those
of the speaker in their personal capacity and
do not represent the views of York Wealth Management
Pty Ltd, its shareholders, directors or any other
third party. Any discussion of financial products,
investments, credit or property opportunities
in this podcast is provided strictly for general
information and discussion purposes only. Nothing
in this podcast constitutes general advice, personal
advice, financial product advice, credit advice
or a recommendation. Before making any financial
or investment decisions, you should seek advice
from a licensed professional who will consider
your objectives, financial situation and needs.
Australian listeners can obtain further information
about choosing a financial advisor by visiting
www .moneysmart .gov .au. For clarity, the Rate
of Change podcast is a business owned and operated
by Murdoch Venture Capital Pty Ltd. Any client
relationship or referral that arises through
the Rate of Change in connection with services
outside the scope of financial services requiring
an Australian financial services license, including...
Without limitation, private credit, property
development or other non -AFSL activities shall
remain the sole property of the rate of change.
Where listeners wish to obtain advice in relation
to their investments or other matters that fall
within the scope of financial services requiring
an AFSL, the rate of change may refer them to
York Wealth Management Pty Ltd. York Wealth Management
is referenced in this podcast solely in its capacity
as sponsor. References in the introduction to
the rate of change with York Wealth Management.
are sponsorship acknowledgements only and do
not imply ownership or control of this podcast
by York Wealth Management. To learn more about
York Wealth Management as a sponsor, please visit