Member Info for Alfacomp

No chance , first of all it is too small and secondly I only invest in companies with a moat. I'd you've rolled down the drawbridge and invited all the local tribal leaders in you're going to get skewered at some point (metaphor)

A total of less than 40 grands worth of trades here so far. Tiny beer.

Sanchez - it's the only way that they can see of making any money out of forced traders. I'm thinking of people who might have a short open at present and their helpful idiots, the ones who have loaned them shares but may wish to be selling them (perhaps because they are running a strategic metals index that for some unknown reason has chosen to let in yet another lithium wannabee whilst dropping what will be the largest Vanadium producer in the world).

and with such an obvious nicname, yet knowing nothing about the company.

Good job nobody was taken in by his nonsense. Genuine posters who ask genuine questions will be treated with respect and will be engaged with fully. Those who take advantage of our generosity in sharing all our research will be found out sooner or later.

But fanadium you've only been signed up for 2 days -what do you know of 40p ?

Did you buy like you said you would ?

that's your problem. I doubt if BMN could even attempt to buy it without the competition commission blocking it.

nonsense. BMN has more than enough of its own resources. Try doing some research.

One of the key advisors to Burford is Professor Joshua Mitts of Columbia Law School who recently wrote the following paper on the practises of those that attempt to Short and Distort the market:-

Short and Distort
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 592
81 Pages Posted: 27 Jun 2018 Last revised: 3 Feb 2019
Joshua Mitts

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3198384

This looks a very interesting read, but here's a brief excerpt from early on:-

"A central contribution of this paper is to test the predictions of the theoretical literature
on reputation (Benabou & Laroque, 1992; Van Bommel, 2003; Vila, 1989). I show that
pseudonymous authors manipulate markets when they are perceived as trustworthy, i.e.,
when the author had few reversals in the past or has no history. First-time authors are
trustworthy because they do not mislead on average. Pseudonymous authors “disappear”
after the market realizes fraud is taking place, enabling them to switch to a new identity. I
show that switching pseudonymous identities leaves subtle traces of writing style detectable
using stylometry, a method of authorship attribution in computational linguistics.

These price reversals persist because investors learn which authors are trustworthy. "

But good luck to the Burford team - they seem to really be on the case and we need some manipulators to be publicly hung out to dry.

Themis, we've been monitoring ongoing manipulation for months on BMN and have even filed our own complaint with the FCA - https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/fca-complaint-case-ref-205882095-422

Good on them, I think this might be one case that the FCA cannot pass up.

"...operations have been suspended at 522 ESS facilities..."

All lithium-ion you could safely assume.

RichKen - that's a very nice summary and makes the point that grid battery storage is going to be needed even before you start factoring in the uptake in renewables.

To put some real numbers on this - the recent report by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/74184.pdf ) shows that there's 28 GW of potential gas peaker plant replacement that would be possible right now, at an average US PV penetration of only 2.5%. This corresponds to your point number 2.

This is 28 GW of 4 Hour storage - i.e. 112 GWh of long duration energy storage.

If you consider building 6 hour and 8 hour storage then this number rises to 70 GW of gas peaker plants that can be displaced - this is something like 420 GWh of Energy Storage and this is the situation TODAY.

Once PV penetration rises to 10% and your point 3 kicks in, this figure rises to 100 GW - that would be something like 600 GWh of long duration energy storage.

The only type of energy storage that is currently specifically incentivised are the frequency regulation applications (your point 4) - as the report itself states "(28GW) - This about four times greater than the entire regulating reserve requirement in the United States (Denholm, Sun, and Mai 2019)." - thus the frequency regulation market, the only one currently entertaining our lithium-ion friends, is only about 7GW.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for some useful assessments of the size of the transmission deferment market (your point 1). I expect it to be of the same order as the 100's of GWh mentioned above. This of course is just for the United States.

Furthemore I believe that their analysis is flawed as I suspect that it does not take into account the key issue of curtailment - namely discarding excess energy that some sort of renewables generator has produced for you but is really too costly to store for later. This is ok because it hasn't cost you any fuel to make that energy and it hasn't produced any CO2.

If you read this paper you will see just how important it is to consider this possibility (and especially so as you get over 65% renewables penetration) as it massively reduces the total amount of grid storage that is required as part of a lowest cost overall system.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107?via=ihub

The cost threshold in that report are complete pie in the sky. It's like say yeah I'll buy an aston martin vantage DB5 if only they cut the price to less than 10 grand.

The rollout of energy storage has got absolutely nothing to do with hitting those 'targets' - it is happening already at prices 10 times higher than the numbers they've dreamt up and it's not charities that are doing the buying !

No need to gkb - it's an out of date report. I'm in contact with their Vanadium team over something else anyway.

Furthermore that USGS report starts out:-

Vanadium is used primarily in the production of steel
alloys; as a catalyst for the chemical industry; in the making of
ceramics, glasses, and pigments; and in vanadium redox-flow
batteries (VRBs) for large-scale storage of electricity. World
vanadium resources in 2012 were estimated to be 63 million
metric tons, which include about 14 million metric tons of
reserves. The majority of the vanadium produced in 2012
was from China, Russia, and South Africa.

It also makes zero mention of either Vametco or Mokopane, probably because their data on South African Vanadium miners comes from this 1975 paper ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0926a/report.pdf )

I think we can conclude that we know a little more about South African Vanadium mining that this USGS report

Indeed - Largo's measured resource is 1.24% (total rock concentration) and BMN's Mokopane indicated resource is 1.32% (total rock concentration).

So the Speewah deposit at 0.3% total rock concentration of V2O5 may be large but it is very low grade. Which means it is staying in the ground.

gkb do you know what the grade of the Speewah deposit is ?