Todays many people i am sure have done the maths on this and i for one can't see why it's not being jumped on.
Example say a large trucking fleet operator using upwards of 30million litres of fuel per annum would produce over 80000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year. This comes at a huge cost to the environment and the fleet operator who would have to purchase carbon credits at say a modest $20 per tonne costing $1,600,000. Why throw away $1.6 million? Compare this to the operator who has no need to purchase carbon credits and can in fact sell $1.6 million of carbon credits thus producing an advantage of $3.2 million and who also is involved in the manufacture of part of their own biodiesel such as is the case with Mitchells. They will then have created a $3.2 million differential and an additional saving of upwards of 50% on saving on their overall fuel costs. But even if we make this an extremely small saving of say 10% on the above fuel bill then there will still be a saving of nearly $4million plus the $3.2 million giving a saving of $7.2 million in total.
'a rabbit out of the hat"?? well the FMG deal is not dead as far as i can gather and tallow is not the only raw material they can work with.
TEK Price at posting:
1.2¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)