InvestorsHub Logo

uksausage

01/27/23 8:12 AM

#49685 RE: Jack_Bolander #49681

once again it wasn't a surprise to those who do DD but technically is the JV scraped or just they didn't continue to the next phase .

PLUG can still, and will, deliver electrolysers to FFI under the original terms (200+MW I believe). Fortescue were building the factory the JV was to fit it out. Now FFI want to build their own electrolysers it doesn't take a genius to know they would need to terminate the agreement why pay to build a different electrolyser , may be only recently was the decision made for PLUG to not adopt that technology?

I also suspect we will be supply the electrolysers for FFI projects in the US so they can qualify for IRA incentives - should they get FID.

Andy probably got frustrated with all the talk and no action by Twiggy. I think only one project has got funding so far, so when were those electrolysers needed?

It will be interesting to see what develops with the relationship. If FFI do do what they are trying to around the world how many liquefaction systems may then need?

mikman77

01/27/23 8:12 AM

#49686 RE: Jack_Bolander #49681

Andy walked away from China years ago and proved the right call...I believe this decision with ffi will prove to be good as well. Agree that the plug should be more transparent hence where do you begin to correct the issue with transparency?

velcro

01/27/23 9:20 AM

#49691 RE: Jack_Bolander #49681

Right Jack. No Fortescue treats stockholders same as the Muddy Run cancellation.
The Board must cancel Andy Marsh leadership (such as it is).