Email Facebook Twitter

Tech company Mporium delivers an outstanding set of Q1 results says CEO De Groot
IronRidge Resources CEO hails spectacular lithium project and money making potential for gold

Member Info for BigBiteNow

Premium Member

Send a private message to BigBiteNow

Member Since: Fri, 31st May 2013

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 1,334
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 153

Last Posted: Thu 16:15

Post Distribution over the last 30 days

Thu 16:15

@Wolster I would suggest that the majority of the plans and the cash to achieve them are now all in place. It is now a case of sitting tight and allowing the plans to be executed. I would say that you will need to wait at least 18 months before true judgement could be given on the deals this BOD has now closed.

I appreciate the past is full of missed deadlines but the past didn't involve the activity that two heavy weight partners are now adding in the form of OXY and ONGC. So it deserves to be set apart for at least that sort of time period in my view.

AMER is heavily oversold right now and that will change.
Thu 16:07

@Lindon In parts I agree with you and I do recognise that BMN have missed dates and that they have handled these delays with less maturity than their development as a business warrants. The boy has become a young man and that man needs to now act his age.

However, the punishment now outweighs the crime and the time gap between recognsing the problems faced at Vametco and publishing the outcomes, has perhaops led to a disproportionate response by the market.

I do not believe that the current pricing achievements of 2019 are being respected or even looked at. The current V price is stealing all the headlines and asserting more downward pressure on the SP than currently appropriate.

Furthermore, the market looks to be factoring in 2018 production of 2,560mtv until it knows any better, which means any improvement on this isn't priced in right now. I expect a solid improvement on this for reasons posted earlier.

There appears to be a perceived loss of direction, which itself is a falsehood driven by the news gaps and sudden strong downtrend in V prices, and is preventing the market from now seeing the potential, perhaps even making it question it, although again there is an argument for laying thsi at the BODs doorstep and their current policy on communication.

However, the missed self imposed deadlines when analysed more closely are actually connected to matters, which do not have a great deal of influence on the current valuation. That is not to say they don't matter, more that they are more minor in their influence on the overall plan.

A dividend policy is a strong move corporately but it was never going to be paid the day it was announced because it was a policy with no timelines communicated. The same applies to electrolyte samples which are for a plant that we know will not be in operation until the end of 2019 at best and should not derail the show.

So I am back to the V price and the fact that its elevated state was protecting the continued reductions in full year guidance.

However, as i say it is a card that has now been overplayed and the Q1 update I believe will go a long way to demonstrating that.

I believe very strongly in this story and for me there is more room for the potential that the plans that have communicated can deliver. I believe they will be come to fruition, I have no doubt about that. Energy storage is very real and VRFB technology is a stronger technology in that field and a fully integrated vanadium play that controls the one element that has held their development back, has such a strong chance of success that for me it has now becomes inevitable.

That potential, that growth, along with the known developments to date (Electrolyte plant, Eskom and Brits are all happening) means there is plenty of room for forgiveness and the ability to ignore the ignorance of the market and await the retur n of its senses.
Thu 15:40

PS I see little value in attempting to take the cash flows that would create any further than EBITDA because the company will be investing large sums of what it is achieving back into the business in order to grow. So the use of anticipated profit figures and PE ratios is for me of little use at this time and does not reflect the scale of the growth and the potential that adds to the investment.

If the same theory was applied to Apple or Facebook at the start then they would have been worthless for a very long time.
Thu 15:37

I would add that this is merely my attempt to logically assess what is very limited information.

The key is that the current production figure is circa 2,800, so they only need to find 200mtv of improvements across the entire year to deliver 3,000mtv. Its not all that big an ask really seeing as they appear to be demonstrating a far better understanding of the problems they have had now.
Thu 15:34

@Wul_1976 As onefcc has already alluded to, i am as sure as I can be that production was already at a minimum of 2,850mtv. So the transformation programme is all about the move from that level to the advertised 3,400mtv (90% nameplate) goal.

There are better mining experts out there than me but the list of actions associated with the transformation programme looked to be mkre about scheduling than maintenance based, which lends itself to limited downtime on the plant.

That said, the plant suffered a number of unexpected shutdowns in 2018, which i am sure BMN will be wary of when signalling what they will achieve in 2019. So I expect a range to be published this time around rather than an exact number, which will take into account this possibility, just like Largo Resources do.

I would however expect a circa 2 week maintenance period to be included in the 2019 schedule.

Also, the last item on the list states "Sustainably increasing the kiln feed rate." It is about how slowly/quickly this increase is introduced that could have the greatest impact on things.

I would be willing to believe that by H2 the transformation programme should/could be fully realised. If so then the plant should in theory be operating at 3,400 mtv, which would achieve 2 quarters of circa 850mtv per quarter.

I would think that Q1 should be able to achieve 700mtv with Q2 a little better. However, when we consider that the maintenance should come in H1, if that is when the transformation programme is most active, then they may lose a little of that added production. So for me a H1 target of 1,400mtv would be about right.

That would place full year guidance at circa 3,100mtv. So guidance stating 3,000-3,200mtv should be achievable

It of course all depends on how quickly the transformation programme takes shape and affect and how much maintenance is needed to achieve it.

I certainly believe 3,000mtv is the base case production figure, which even at $60 per kg FeV for 2019, should deliver over $90m in EBITDA, given the weaker Rand and the savings on operating costs and royalties etc.

That would be a very solid outcome for Vametco and BMN given that the majority of that cash would be available for re-investment in the company's expansion plans.
Thu 15:00

Appreciated Wolster but in my eyes a 7,500bopd exit rate for 2019, given what is expected from CP0-5, the OXY portfolio, and Put 8 in 2020, is for me a very solid result.

The SP is not respecting the progress that this company has made in 2018 nor the way that 2019 is developing. It is not uncommon and if the SP was more reflective of the progress then the sentiment on this BB would be different also.

You are calling out the BOD for not doing their jobs properly and what I am demonstrating is that the reality is far better than the reaction warrants.

Put 8 is a prime example of this, which has suffered from an operator that clearly didn't want to progress the asset. Now that AMER are taking control they can bring the same attitude that they have previously brought to Platanillo, and exploit the benefits of 100% ownership and immediate $3.50 transport related access to the OBA.

The approvals to do that are outside of their control, hence the 'anticipated' drill date slipping to H2. However, it is for good reason because of the control and opportunity that operatorship now brings.

You may not wish to recognise that and simply call it a delay or lack of BOD effort but that simply would not be true.

If the approvals come through fairly quickly then Put 8 will get drilled in 2019 and the revised target will be met. There is little more the company can do on that front other than communicate this better, which is one element that has certainly been poor.
Thu 14:32

I'm sorry but whilst there is room for criticism here the bearish attitude is for me a false one and out of kilter with the reality of what is actually happening.

1. The 3rd party oil is being 'stopped' by the need to gain regulatory authority to become a transporter of oil. We have been told in writing and in the latest interview, that this authorization is in its final stages and the company expects to commence transporting oil in the coming months, which is consistent with the guidance that was given perviously (H1 2019) and has not deviated from this course.

2. The question was raised about the Platanillo work programme and where the new well will be drilled.

The above update from 26th March clearly states the order of play.

Platanillo 2
Platanillo 7
Platanillo 26 (new infill well)
Platanillo 22 and 21 sidetracks.

So the new well is at Platanillo 26.

3. Production. When one has a close look at the production numbers available and takes this into consideration when listening to the interview with Mr Piper yesterday, then it becomes clear that the numbers being employed are conservative and do not include for the potential that the above workover programme at Platanillo can deliver.

From the Final Results 2018

"Following exploration success at our third field, Indico, total production from CPO-5 reached over 1.275m barrels of oil at the end of 2018 and average Q1 2019 production was 1,600 BOPD net."

Mariposa-1 produces at 3,150 bopd, which is 945 bopd net to AMER. That means Indico delivered on average 655bopd net from the 1,500bopd net that it is now producing.

So before we go any deeper into things, total production has automatically increased to circa 5,450 bopd in Q2.

However, the Platanillo 8 workover has clearly added upto 820 bopd, which is reflected in the improved throughput at OBA. This is now averaging 3,190 bopd for Q2 but that is heavily affected by the first two days which on average delivered 2,060bopd each. scratch those two days out and the average is 3,350bopd.

So there is an argument for adding at least 300 bopd to total. So we are at 5,750 bopd with a 5 well workover plan ongoing that includes at least 1 new well + CP0-5 and Indico-2

Mr Piper talked (conservatively) about 2019 production being between 5,000-6,000bopd without any further additions.

With Q1 production at 4,600bopd the other 3 quarters automatically deliver 5,800 bopd just to achieve the mid-point of that figure.

That is the conservative known to date figure prior to the drill programme.

For all the focus on what isn't being achieved, what about what will be because the above equates to a +7,500bopd production figure and +6,000bopd year end achievement at +$70 brent, as a minimum + those 3rd party oil sales.

That sort of minimum outcome delivers a far better outcome than the doom and gloom
Thu 12:47

A few days ago I posted a brief history of the deal that brought Vametco into the fold.

I described how BMN structured the deal in order to avoid substantial front end dilution but ensure that over time, they would secure the full 74% that they are entitled to hold.

I also talked about how leading up to the deal, there were very limited clues as to the eventual outcome, be it in SP movements or indeed the words or even actions of the business. The only clues were the repeated mention of brownfield processing in their presentations and reports. That was it, depsite the SP being on its backside, the company waited until it was right for them to announce it, and the rest is history.

That is how BMN operate. They don't bang the drum of what they might do, or would like to do, they just make very simple statements and then leave everyone waiting, guessing, searching, until they deliver upon it.

Even when BMN delivered Vametco at 26.6% the thoughts turned to fear of YD and how BMN would ever take control of Vametco. As it turned out the path was set long before the initial deal was announced.

This isn't to say that BMN aren't capable of failure, that they get everything right but in terms of deal making that is the evidence we have and its very positive and productive, if you are a shareholder when these things come to fruition.

The focus on the current vanadium price and the perceived lack of newsflow is for me a severe disservice to the progress made and the actions that BMN have taken to set up themselves and their shareholders. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for what they have achieved and what they have demonstrated they are capable of.

It is all too easily said that BMN have generated the sort of cash flows that enable them now to really attack the resources and associated opportunities that this creates. That they are the only pure play vanadium producer with a fully integrated model, be it a work in progress. That they are on course to build the only electrolyte facility in the entire southern hemisphere.

That they have deliberately partnered with the IDC to not only drive the energy storage industry in S.A. but to lever Eskom towards instigating a major programme of battery storage and better still push the Energy Ministry to include energy storage in its latest IRP.

If investors think for one minute that BMN weren't centre to that, that they just got lucky, that the timing of BMNs ability to tender that project just happened to be the same as its needs, are not looking hard enough at this story.

So for all the daily analysis of the SP and silence I would say this. When BMN is most silent it is normally when they are working at their very hardest, and it historically leads to much greater things than many here could ever wish to fathom because it has highly likely been a long time in the making.
Thu 09:22

Whilst an older presentation, slide 4 of the enclosed Sound Energy presentation demonstrates what I have been talking about in terms of the Tendara pipeline

Here also are some further details on the Maghreb pipeline.

Another key takeaway here is that which was touched upon by CFO Julian Maurice-Williams in his interview with Proactive yesterday. The close proximity to Europe is just as critical as the increasing demand and healthy pricing that exists in Morroco and CHAR gets at that market through the Maghreb pipeline, just like Sound Energy are doing.

This especially tue becasue as the enclosed article below describes there is a political battle going on between Algeria and Morroco over the current Maghreb pipeline that runs through Morroco.

Algeria in 2018 announced that they were planning to complete a new pipeline that will bypass the Morroco section and avoid the need to pay Morroco its 0.5MMm3 gas fee.

In addition, Morroco as of 2021 will take ownership of their section of the pipeline.

Sound Energy who are mentioned in the article, are reported tom have conducted a gas research study that says that Morroco may be able to do without Algerian gas by 2021, although this is deemed optimistic.

Furthermore, Sound Energy are quoted as follows ;

"Sound Energy, due to the volume of future gas discoveries, has already planned to connect it to, if necessary, export its gas to the European continent via Spain."

There is much to like about this situation and the options and reassurance it gives that a field development at Anchois would meet high demand, good pricing, be affordable and also very attractive to what should be multiple potential partners.

To top it all off, they only need to drill one appraisal well at Anchois 1 and hit Gas Sand C, and the top end phase 1 90MMscf/d is very much on. That level of supply potential will make the costs associated with getting the gas to market viable and highly attractive to the market at large.
Thu 09:02

On friday i posted some rough figures associated with the costs of developing a 4 well field at Anchois and flowline to landfall. The $360m estimation (including contingences) did not include for any possible gas processing plants costs.

CHAR are clear that the current outlinbe plan includes "Central processing facility at landfall to ensure export quality gas" (See slide 8 below).

If we review slide 9 we can see that there is a "planned gas plant" right at the point that the gas makes landfall. I struggle to believe that this is pure coincidence so I would expect that it is the proposed processing plant that CHAR mention.

On the right hand side of the map we can also see that Tendara is marked up with a 120km proposed pipeline to the Maghreb-Europe pipeline system that runs from Algeria through to Spain and supplies Europe with gas. Tendara is of course the flagship gas field of Sound Energy. They being one of the companies employed in the comparison on slide 6 of the above prsesentation and holding circa 170BCF in 2C resources.

The following enclosed link describes the deal that Sound Energy concluded for the 60MMscf/d gas processing plant and the 120km pipeline from Tendara.

What Sound Energy have done is agreed a deal with a consortium to finance and build the $184m gas plant and pipeline. Sound Energy pay nothing towards the build costs. Instead the facility will be run by the consortium for 15 years and Sound Energy will pay a fee, which will never be allowed to be more than $45m per annum (likely a lot less). At the end of the 15 years the plant is turned over to Sound Energy.

It will of course cost them more in the long run but they save on front end costs when they are likely to hurt the most. This is a strong endorsement of the demand and interest associated with Morrocan generated gas.

What it also demonstrates is that a gas plant and 120km pipeline costing $184m in capex is viable when producing 60MMscf/d to feed the Maghreb-Europe pipeline.

Now the CHAR feasability study involves greater costs at sea (my estimate $360m) but designates a 90MMscf/d gas processing plant at landfall. There is an argument for increased costs for a plant that would be producing 1.5 times what Sound Energy are building because one successful appraisal well at Anchois on Gas Sand C will deliver that.

However, it is also very clear from the CHAR presentation slide 9, that any gas pipeline that then went on to connect to the Maghreb would be a whole lot shorter. By my estimates we are talking 30km at most.

In my view what this demonstrates is the appetite for CHAR gas, the further viability of the project and the sort of options potential partners may just bring to the table.
Wed 16:26

I see that CORO shares are up 20% today, valuing the company at 20m. A thus far 3m reward for closing out the deal for a 15% stake in the Mako field, which is costing $2.85m in cash and $1.85m in pending dilution.

Thus far CHAR has risen 21.95% today, which places the total value of the company around 2.75m above cash, which is essentially the value attributed to date to the Lixus license, that has no cash outlay or dilution attached, and is a lot bigger and carries 75% ownership and operatorship, rather than 15%.

I am in no way criticising CORO at all. I am merely pointing out that CHAR has a long way to go before it even recognises the 'acquisition.'
Wed 16:15

Just as a note of interest the Sol-1 and Aguila estmiated drill times are included in the Indico tender.

Page 71 states ;

"The first well to be drilled is Indico-1 for which tentative date of spudding is June 2018. Tentative days for
drilling and testing / completion of Indico-1 are 39 & 43 and for rest two wells Sol and Aguila are 32 & 24
days each.

So they shoul be a fair bit quicker to drill although Mr Piper does not mention Aguila. He states "our next well is going to be Sol... and then we hope to get back to Indico in the 2nd half of this year"

A successful spud by the end of April would see Sol-1 completed by late June bringing the possibility of a start at Indico-2 by late July.

That should leave room for at least 1 more drill on CP0-5 with this rig in 2019, which I would think would be the second appraisal well.
Wed 15:44

@Wolster I do worry that some investors who contribute here are so angered by past performance that they are skewing the facts to feed that.

I agree with you on item No.1, it was poorly timed and porrly thought through in my opinion but it was the exact same timing as last year, and the BOD would argue that the successes at CP0-5 and the accetive deal making on the other assets, demonstrated by the OXY deal, warrant their rewards. Personally, I would have preferred a more testing reward system than thta which we have seen. So yes black mark there.

On the other 2 items I simply cannot agree with your conclusions. AMER is not operator so the theory does not wash. In addition, I have demonstrated already quite clearly that there is documented evidence that ONGC is planning a much larger drilling programme at CP0-5 but has to make land aquisitions to achieve it. That document takes precedent over any other theories, particularly when they are driven by emotion.

Having listened to the interview once more, it is clear that Indico appraisals will be re-visited later in the year. If Sol-1 is a success then iot may just be that they plan to stay down there, which will increase the drills at CP0-5. After all ANMER have stated in their full year report that the drill plans remain fluid depending on the successes with the drill bit, as Calao-1 has proven.

Right now they are looking at the high end of 5,000 to 6,000 bopd for 2019. A good result at Sol-1 and Indico-2 appraisal could see them hit 7,500 bopd this year, without doing anything else. That would be solid progress.

However, Mr Piper is clear that the other Columbian assets are still on for later this year. Trust is questionable on that because the plan has already changed a couple of times. Put 8 has a very solid reasoning for being delayed. That being the increase in ownership and the need to gain regulatory approval.

If nothing else happens on Put 9 and 12 this year, I would be fine with that if Put 8 drilling does start and comes in. At 100% ownership it has the ability to deliver strong cashflows, which will equal the bigger finds at CP0-5.

So whilst i have soem concerns, there is still a lot to play for with AMER and a little (more) patience should see a very good result here. I know you don't want to hear it but it is in my opinion true.
Wed 15:11

Apologies my last paragraph there was not designed to ignore the failings of the company. JW stated that he was going to talk to ONGC about increasing the rig count. ONGC are demonstrating that they are clearly planning to do so.

The 22nd Jan RNS stated the following ;

"In addition, the partners are evaluating a further increase in drilling activity for 2019, targeting an accelerated appraisal/development of the Indico field, the NE structures and other prospects associated with Indico down-dip and Mariposa offsets. This may involve the contracting of a third drilling rig."

The ONGC tender for the land acquisition demonstrates that ONGC wish/need to acquire the land associated with this above accelrated plan. So it is down to how long that process takes.

Therefore, i remain of the view that it is a little harsh to attack JW for a perceived failing, when their is clear evidence that progress has been made.

If I was going to criticise the BOD for anything at all it would be their failure to communicate changes to the drill programme clearly and the fact we have to learn of the decision on Sol-1 via a video interview with the head of PR, which in itself is rather ironic don't you think.
Wed 14:59

Tender once again for those that haven't seen it. Page 58 is where I extracted the quotes from.
Wed 14:58

@Bigsmoke I am not going to sit here and tell you that all is rosy in the AMER kitchen but at the very same time I am not going to allow myself to fall too far down the rabbit hole of discontent.

The ONGC tender for land acquisition is where I focus and it is very clear as to the intentions of ONGC Videsh, when it says the following ;

"Development and exploration of CPO-5 block is presently at full swing with recent success of commercial hydrocarbon in Mariposa-1 and Indico-1X well. Building up the surface facilities for commercial production from these wells need construction of roads, production facilities and drilling location areas for exploratory as well as development wells. Presently 10 exploratory locations have been proposed/released in different areas of CPO-5 block in addition to land required for oil production facilities, of discovered wells."

"According to approved work program of CPO-5 block in 2019 two exploratory locations were firmed up for drilling. But with the major discovery in Indico-1X well, brings up new scenarios for drilling of at least 4 wells in 2019 in NW part of the block. The joint development of Mariposa-1 and Indico-1X and possible lay out of oil pipeline increases the LAQ work by multiple times."

"In SE part of CPO-5 block, 4 exploratory locations are lined up for early drilling within extended phase II
period of the block."

The bids are only just being reviewed and I would think this work would not start before June 2019. It iks clear that the land acquisition is required to allow further exploration to take place, as well as the build up of production facilities. That is why i mentioned earlier that a possible reason for moving on to Sol-1 is that they are not ready to take on another 5,000 bopd of production from Indico-2.

Whatever the case may be, they are demonstrating that right now they have authority to drill Sol-1 and Aguila as part of the "approved work programme" for 2019. However, they wish to make all preparations for a possible start on at least 4 wells in 2019.

However, the key for me is the "Presently 10 exploratory locations have been proposed/released in different areas of CPO-5 block in addition to land required for oil production facilities, of discovered wells." and the "SE part of CPO-5 block, 4 exploratory locations are lined up for early drilling within extended phase II period of the block."

That all points to an expanded drill programme that could start in late 2019 but most likely will be implemented and costed for 2020.

We can argue the toss over what was promised and when but the key point is that ONGC are showing clear signs of preparing for a much larger drilling programme and that is for me well worth the wait.
Wed 13:47

@Bigsmoke I appreciate what you are saying and AME have been very positive on that front. I think it is a little unfair to focus in on that point too much because the BOD has long been criticised for not being positive enough, so something has to give.

Furthermore, AMER stated that they felt the play warranted a 2nd and even 3rd rig and that they would be discussing thei with their partner ONGC. I don't believe it was promised anywhere but am happy to be educated if I have missed something.

In addition, as I have said earlier, it is clear from the ONGC tenders that they are planning land acquisitions that allow them to increase production, export more oil, and bild more platforms. So the intent is clear that more rigs are coming it is just about when.

Lastly, JW talked about the additional rigs prior to the Calao-1 result, which has clearly undermined the Pavo-Real data, and perhaps limited the scope for additional rigs in the near term. Clearly there was more expectation given the size of the oil find at Indico 1 and with merit. This may well be a case of redefining that data to establish exactly where the oil has migrated to, which means caution ahead of furthe rig commitments.

I feel strongly that 2020 will see much greater activity at CP0-5 and it will be worth the wait. In the meantime, the SP has supportive events and achievements to warrant a higher outcome for this year, so I am happy to sit and wait and review towaqrds the end of 2020, because I believe the rewards will be worth it, despite the perceived over-promising that you have highlighted.
Wed 13:12

@Wolster I would look at it another way. We know ONGC are tendering for contracts associated with land acquisitions for additional surface level facilities, pipelines and drill locations. It may be that they are buying time to achieve this prior to delivering an appraisal well programme of 2 wells that will highly likely add significantly to the 5,000 bopd coming out of Indico at the moment. Not certain but a valid argument.

However, it really does look like ONGC want to establish the size of the play, which must be a set up for the larger expansive drill programme that the land acquistion tender states is the case.

Lastly, the drill rig at Indico was tendered on a 3 drill programme, which was Indico, Sol and Aguila. So it is only doing what it planned to do from day one, be it a large rig or not.
Wed 13:04

@JP2000 et al.

Having listened to the interview I foudn myself feeling a mixture of positive and negative feelings. On the negative side the company looks to be jumping around a lot and that is undermining the message they are attempting to convey. Having just released their full year results i was disappointed to find that they had communicated that Sol-1 was next in the anaylsts call.

On the positive side of things the OBA pipeline is underestimated and is looking like being a more permanent fixture once the approval to transport oil is given. Mr Piper strongly indicates that as long suspected, the RODA pipeline is the wek link in this, and further investment will be commited once deemed valid. I would think that local operators would be keen to employ the pipeline, just like any other cost saving transport and at the referenced $10 difference, I would think my previously communicated $5 a barrel is very much on.

At 4,000 bopd and $5 a barrel we are talking over $7m a year in revenues with very littel to pay other than tax, and very little risk or need for AMER to maintain production.

On the anticipated production, it is important to understand that 5,000 - 6,000 bopd for this year is significant because Q1 is already in at 4,600 bopd. That means the remaining 3 quarters will need to deliver 6,000 bopd in order to hit the middle point of that guidance. This means that the strongest production is starting when oil prices are at their highest.

He also says that this figure does not involve any further production and there is an additional well about to spud on Platanillo. So more production to come.

The 5-6 well achieved programme for 2019 is now looking around about what we can expect.

Platanillo = 1
CP0-5 = 3-4
Put 8 = 1 (approvals aside)
Put 9 and 12 = 1-2 (Potential issues with the local indigenous people)

It looks very much like ONGC want to spend this year investigating the extent of the play so that a more involved programme ca be signed off for nmext year, and that makes sense to a producer who is knocking out 235k bopd. A little frustrating for AMER shareholders but it allows Indico to run at full tilt and the coffers to be built up for what will be a very busy 2020.

I am sticking with my plan of assessinng this post 2020. I see a great deal of value in CP0-5 but am equally excited by Put 8 now that it is 100% owned and Bienparado is right next door to the OBA pipeline inlet. Put 9 and 12 will have me getting more excited when the civils are confirmed but with OXY in play the local issues have the very best chance of being concluded in the right way.

That said, there is still the chance that an extra rig is brought in for Indico if Sol and Aguila turn out to be finds and good ones at that.

When Put 9 and 12 do get going, then OXY at $50 billion turnover do not look like the sort of company that is going to want to rest on their laurels, so the 500-600m prospective resources there could be a game change
Wed 12:44

@Daisan I agree and that is why I strongly believe that BMN is a long temr investment that should not be allowed to be shaken by what are right now short term pricing events. So long as the cash flows are robust and the plans on track, then there is nothing standing in the way of this compamny achieving its medium term plans and reaching that 10,000 mtv goal.

By being active and involved in the development of VRFB projects, and moving to supply electrolyte, BMN will be an enabler of the very industry that will drive their 10,000 mtv of demand.

If FeV prices do remain low then BMN through its electrolyte facility can supply up to 400MWh of electrolyte at lower cost effective prices, to those companies that need it in order to expand their busineeses and compete with lithium-ion based competitors. Whilst doing so they can enjoy greater profits through the electrolyte and scale up production asd their efforts bear fruit and those customers come looking for more electrolyte.

That is a very simple explanation but sometimes business is that simple. With those direct links to the VRFB industry i can see a very plausible path to 10,000 mtv, even without too much effort with their own VRFB development and avenues into Eskom.

So for me the 10,000 mtv will happen because BMN have set themselves up to drive their own demand, with or without the steel market.

If the demand is there, the ability to scale up through lower cost brownfield is there, and the funds are there to achieve it, then it is simply about time and being patient, and ignoring the short term noise and following and allowing the story to unfold.

Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days

Member Login

Forgotten your password?


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!

Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.