Member Info for Alfacomp

well clearly that is precisely what they are not.

So we have to ask ourselves the question why is someone coming onto this board to try and knock the idea that the Market Makers have a naked short position and to try and encourage the idea that it may be a private investor running for the exits.

We don't need any answers on a postcard. It is totally clear what is going on now.

lor - you are correct that you are not an expert as you have been here for no more than 2 weeks and didn't know who OT or YD were when you first showed up.

Now you start telling us that there has been no real news - what in the last 2 weeks ? Oh you obviously also missed the fact that we have closed the deal for the controlling consortium to buy Enerox, our second VRFB manufacturer investment and sole supply agreement - so completely meaningless of course. I defer to your greater expertise. Cue howls of outrage.

lor - exactly how do you know that those are simply not MM 'I owe me' naked short trades ?

bassguy - if they have created a short position with an average price of X pence they do not wish to close it at X plus anything or indeed X minus a little bit, they want to close it at X minus a lot.

They have a reasonable belief that they CAN get shares from the market if they drop the price, because they've done that multiple times before, targeting spreadbet positions at the 20p mark. How they know that the spreadbet positions existed .... well you'd probably have to ask them about that. I would not wish to be accused of suggesting any impropriety

there are no sellers because everyone thinks that the stock is massively undervalued. They have nobody to take shares off cheaply.

oh dear, I fear that you are making the Market Makers naked short position worse.

They may react by drastically lowering the share price in order to try and trap people who have taken long positions on leveraged platforms, or those who have set stop losses.

My advice is to never do either of these things.

Lindon - I guess that is why it is particularly good that Vametco has started trucking hundreds of tonnes of ore to Vanchem in the last month.

re your last point - what the Chinese don't have is the Vanadium to start off with, so it would be foolish to hand the opportunity straight to them to allow them to undercut us. Fortune is smarter than that.

mogwhy - I think we should perhaps keep that one off the list for now then - it's only a claim made by Mastermines' David Gillam and is not confirmed anywhere else so far.

On the positive side I think that you can replace this 800MWh with another 1000MWh project in Jiangsu province. This time running flexibility for and paired with the Tianwan Nuclear power station - this was reported at last year's International Flow Battery Forum.

Newspapers are now taking an interest in what is happening in this space. I can say no more.

Can someone remind me of the Shijiazhuang project details.

On the subject of the Shanghai Electric Yancheng project this is apparently in the Tinghu district which is hugely built up - I just had a look on there and on a single screen on google maps I have been able to count something like 10 football stadia, each with an athletics track

mogwhy - I seem to recall that you had a VRFB's / Vanadium demand list that you had curated - was the Shanghai Electric 400 MWh on there or is this new to you also ?

Pal - downloaded the DuckDuckGo extension for chrome and that seemed to stop all the jumping around. Thanks

unfortunately that article is clearly biased and comes up with nonsense phrases such as "China controls the battery market through its stranglehold on rare earths."

Shell will be specifically interested in that technology because they'd like to inject it into Natural gas pipes so that they can continue to sell us methane for heating. H2 is never really going to be appropriate for daily energy storage because the round trip efficiency is only around 50%

Yeoman "I.e. no local favouritism" - actually it is entirely the opposite as this article ( https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/bushveld-energy-eskom-battery-mandate-2018-339 ) explains :-

What FM is actually saying is that because Eskom is an SOE, it must follow the SA Department of Industry requirements under SATS 1286:2011. He has known that for a very long time. That is the reason BMN tweeted that they have “been working towards being ready for this since launching Bushveld Energy in 2014.”

This SA dti document deals with local content (page 1)

“the local content of a product is the tender price less the value of imported content, expressed as a percentage. It is, therefore, necessary to first compute the imported value of a product to determine the local content of a product.”

This is dealt with in more detail in the Eskom ‘Supplier Development and Localisation Evaluation Criteria’ document, where it says on Page 1;

“Supplier Development and Localisation (SD&L) as an evaluation criterion will be allocated 20% of the total tender evaluation points, i.e. a maximum of 70% must be allocated for price and technical criteria (including SHEQ), and 20% allocated for SD&L, and 10% for BBBEE”

and

“Participating Suppliers must score a minimum of 60% against the stated targets for SD&L in order to qualify for further tender evaluation.”

gambit - no 400MWh is the same size as the first half of Dalian, but you're right it is still a lot bigger than the 129 MWh Muskmouth battery

bassguy - I assume that you appreciate that there is no way on earth that the any listed company could respond with any kind of information to such a request.

Yep - there's a couple of really interesting nuggets in that Interview

1) The Schmid/Saudi Aramco VRFB production plant in Saudi Arabia is quoted as having a capacity of 3GWh - that would lead to an additional worldwide demand of 12,000-13,000 tonnes of Vanadium

2) Shanghai Electric announced a 400 MWh battery in China. This is a new battery that would appear to be in addition to the following that I was able to confirm from last years International Flow Battery Forum meeting :-

Dalian 200MW/ 800MWh
Jiangsu Province 2x 200MW/ 1000MWh
Qinghai 2MW/10MWh
Hubei 10MW/40 MWh + 100MW/ 500MWh

Pat48 - remember that there is an option to pay back the loan notes early which would halve the number of shares that Duferco would be allowed to obtain from conversion. Thus if there is any suspicion that Duferco are working with the Market Makers to keep the price down on the basis that the MMs could pick up any issued shares cheaply then the MMs are taking the risk that Fortune does not simply get a loan from a bank and pay back the CLNs early. That would leave the MMs with a naked short of perhaps many millions of pounds.

Indeed in the last month those holdings have increased by 6,879,124

Thus there is no current evidence of any of the largest shareholders selling down, and indeed PI's that are holding shares through their nominee platforms have sucked up another 7 million shares.

I reiterate the suggestion that many of the large 'sells' that we are supposedly seeing in day-to-day trading are in fact 'I owe me' sells of imaginary shares into the market - namely naked short sells by the Market Makers. They did this because they may have assumed that it would take some kind of market placing in order to get the Enerox deal over the line. Tough luck you are up against a better company and set of shareholders than you are used to. Ohhh and by the way if you try spook the market by dropping the price on Monday there's plenty of Pharma profits that will be coming back in here to make you naked short even deeper.