Member Info for Alfacomp

Thanks for stating the obvious chartist

kassam83 - I take it that you didn't sign anything and have immediately informed the information commissioners office that your name has been passed from your platform provider and proxy share owner to some external cold calling company.

Exactly right SotRR - I remember the first time that it was possible to relax - 30th march 2017 - the Vametco financial deal was completed. I have no idea how Fortune managed to pull this incredible deal off - but it is worth looking back now and then to see exactly how far we have come.

And how much higher is the SP now ? - Only a factor of 4 as of today - it really beggars belief what a great deal anyone buying in now is getting.

993444 - aren't the USD13,000 costs per tonne of Tin (element) produced when the plant reaches phase 2 - this is what is shown on the Sept 2018 Market Balance graph (page 19) - this would put the plant in the lowest quartile of produce costs at a time when the Tin price is 21,000 USD/T - i.e. a profit per tonne of Tin produced of USD 8,000

The final concentrate is graded at 65% Tin - given that pure cassiterite is 78.8% tin by weight this seems feasible for well purified cassiterite (note the 65% does not say that 65% of the mass of the concentrate is cassiterite - that would only give 65% x 78.8% = 51.2% Tin by mass)

Thus per tonne of the final concentrate there is 0.65T of Tin - that would be yield USD 5,200 profit per tonne of concentrate. If they do manage to reach 5,000 tpa (admittedly that was quoted at only 60% concentrate) at phase 2 that would seem to yield c. USD 25 M profit per annum - not bad for a USD 21M investment

is currently selling for 186,000 USD per tonne - this is almost 10 times the price of Tin 21,000 USD/ Tonne

Tantalite is currently only listed as being found in the two areas that are away from the main Uis mine area (ML134) - in those areas the concentration of tanatalite is approximately 1/5th the concentration of tin - thus is would seem that with roughly the same extraction ratios for both minerals (65-70% quoted) that you would actually be making more money from the tantalum than the tin.

This of course ignores the possibility that there may be significant but yet unreported tantalite at the ML134 site and that they can simply mine and process that ore for both minerals.

With roughly twice as much tin per tonne of rock from the ML134 site as at ML129 and ML 133 it would seem that one tonne of rock from ML134 would have roughly the same value (from tin extraction) as one tonne of rock from ML133 and ML129 would have (from tantalum extraction). In the latter cases it seems you would now also get the tin extracted thrown in as well thus they could generate more value per tonne of rock mined.

Are people working on the assumption that if they build the plant to extract tantalum as well as tin then that is actually the quickest way to establish if there is any tantalum in the rock at ML134 - if not then take some rock from the other sites and feed it into the processing plant if they really want the tantalum that much.

UncleJohn - I respectfully suggest that this bus is not going to crash and that the driver here has a well-developed sketch of a plan for the road ahead.

zeus - as you are from a finance background I would be interested to ask whether you consider a futures market for Vanadium is a necessary or a sufficient condition for a long term leasing model for Vanadium electrolyte to be rolled out.

Essentially the futures market would be a way for a leasing company to be able to hedge the value of the thing they are leasing - am I correct in thinking that it would allow them to buy insurance or some sort of contract for difference should the real future price be different to what they have assumed it would be.

No problem Olly4 - here's hoping you'll be able to take advantage of the temporarily low prices to buy a few more shares from over there in lovely Canada.

Share trade at 16:00:39 : 35.30p

Then again 25 minutes later at 35.10p

Either someone really likes that number or this is rollover split in time so as to deceive. I do note however that one is marked AIMX whilst the other is marked XOFF on the london stock exchange log.

cheers Nicky

The market makers are not selling shares, they do not have shares to sell

ahh yes TNT I did get those emails - apologies for any confusion

Headancer - when people use the term sell they mean 'Sell to Market Maker' - similarly Buy means 'Buy from Market Maker'. The two don't happen at the same time, and in the last few months Buys have exceeded Sells on a regular basis - this allows us to model the Market maker's short position and conclude that they are either working a large sell for an existing holder (probably the April 2018 Placees) or have lost leave of all their senses.

No idea timmy and no idea who you are

and what exactly is that eh Timenottimmy ?

nowucit - exactly there is no comparison.

Exactly right on all fronts BBN - this friday should be interesting as I think we shall see a big announcement regarding Eskom are we not ?

We're not here for giggles 1onic - if that is what you are after I suggest cbeebies

zeus - well naturally nothing happens to the electrolyte on year 20 + 1 day. It is most probably the power stacks that might need replacing at that point, plus probably some seal replacing as 'preventative maintenance' along the way. The electrolyte can simply be transferred to another battery - if it needs cleaning up at that stage to remove any bits of crud or impurity that may have got into it after 20 years of operation then this would likely be a simple filtering and chemical purification process, essentially the same as what might have needed to be applied as the last stage of electrolyte production on day 0.

I am a solid state physicist by training but I really like the VRFB approach because everything is in liquid form in the electrolyte.

This is very unlike an essentially solid state battery such as a lithium-ion battery where the operation depends upon the precise nature of the crystal and mesoscopic (larger than atoms but smaller than a few microns) scale which always breaks down over time and charge cycling. You could have all the right atoms in the wrong structure and you have no battery. Essentially all solid-state batteries are destroying themselves from day one, it's just that occasionally that you can come up with a structure that last a little longer than the others.

There is no justifiable reason to believe that a useful 20,000 cycle solid-state battery lies just around the corner when we can currently only get a few thousand cycles to work. Pretty much all VRFB manufacturers show performance of at least 20,000 cycles.

mitch - I think as none of us here (perhaps with the exception of voltmeter) are power engineers it may be hard to drill down to the bottom of this issue. More importantly I don't think we want to raise the profile of this issue too high lest it tip off les autres.