Member Info for Alfacomp

no but taken together with all the other information that we have it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility.

jimbo - nobody is suggesting that both BMN and BV have 7% each but it is quite possible that the original stake has been split across different Bushveld holding companies for tax efficiency or some other accounting need.

they are different organisations so may simply be a reallocation amongst the different Bushveld companies

Mousekewitz - you've been here more than 5 years and haven't yet worked out that the colouring of the LSE trade logs is simply based on the Bid-Ask midprice.

indeed gambit - I was working through that paper over the christmas period. They calculate how much energy and CO2 CURRENT levels of Vanadium microalloying in steel produce - this are the 1.01% (China) and 0.19% (EU) - i.e. if we did not have this wonderful use of Vanadium then emissions levels would be higher by the specified amount.

What they do not do is to suggest how much MORE could be saved in future, except for the specific case of India where average Vanadium consumption of 0.035 kgV per mT of steel lags significantly behind the current world average of 0.053 kgV per mT of steel. They point out that because India is now the second largest producer of Steel after China this alone would add 6,000 tonnes of Vanadium demand to bring their levels up to scratch.

After China I wonder if Vanitec will be approaching the Indian regulators to encourage them to improve their standards.

Spot price of tin on 31st Dec was $20,540 per Tonne - up 0.56% on the previous value - it was last at that level over 18 months ago.

There is clearly a band between 19K and 22K that prices have liked to stay in in the last 5 years - it is interesting that prices have recovered to this point even at the high point of the second wave of the Covid pandemic - I don't believe that production levels have been cut back much so it seems that demand must be increasing despite the pandemic situation.

Colonel - Electrolysis followed by compression of Hydrogen only makes sense if you can find something useful to do with all the waste heat from compression. If you cannot and have to throw that all away then the round trip efficiency of electrolysis->hydrogen->fuel cycle -> electricity ends up being around 40% which is much lower than VRFB's which is around 80% (AC-AC).

Furthermore the electrolysers are only cost effective if you can run them pretty much 24/7 - which is fine if you have a hydroelectric dam but not if you are wanting to use solar, wind or wave energy - in order to smooth out the electrical supply to an electrolyser you then need to use an intermediate battery and so are back to using a battery. VRFB's are particularly good for the smoothing of tidal energy sources (see for example Invinity's recent tidal -> green hydrogen project - https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/tidal-flow-batteries-and-green-hydrogen-combined-in-world-first-1-8m-orkney-project ) because the VRFB is more than happy enough to deal with 4 charge-discharge cycles per day. Unlike a lithium-ion battery which simply degrades faster the more you use it, a VRFB instead works out cheaper the more you can sweat it.

Their discussion of the potential for flow batteries is pretty lame.

I produced a detailed analysis following the 2019 energy storage europe conference in dusseldorf. It is in three parts here:-

VRFBs versus other battery technology - https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-414

How big may the STATIONARY (important point for all of the Lithium-ion EV battery fanboys to get a grip of here) energy storage be in the next 20 years:- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-415

Recent developments in the VRFB industry :- https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-416

Whilst my primary interest is in Bushveld Minerals and their role in helping develop the nascent flow battery industry I am also a big supporter of VRFB technology on an industry-wide basis and bought a small stake here last week - so ask me some VRFB or BESS questions, if you have any.

I had to laugh when I saw it rated as 'highly speculative'. Ha ha ha.

There is not a single share on AIM that is less speculative or better researched here and on the Bushveld Perspective, plus on Twitter by BBN and Myles Mcnulty to name a couple.

Iknow - have a look at these articles about VRFbs and energy storage and then decide:

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-414

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-415

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/energy-storage-europe-2019-416

Dbush your words give you away:-

"I think it unlikely that the process machinery has been designed and tendered, if this were the case the foundation drawings in the tender would have included large structural bases for process plant and these must be in place before the building structure.
To appoint a contractor and then ask for a price for extras in the foundations leaves one wide open to delays and costs, they have realised that sections of the roof may have to be left off to install plant but why do this when with pre planning could be avoided
to me there is little understanding of the construction process an item that should have been addressed prior to embarking upon the project about a year ago"

So the foundation drawings in the tender DO include large structural bases which is the precise opposite of what you said.

It is pretty obvious that some people are sitting on the sidelines hoping to get the price back lower because they missed the mini-rerate in the last couple of weeks. This is precisely the time when they will try to throw in doubt and suggestion in order to get recent acquirers of shares to give them up cheaply.

furthermore the electrolyte stack foundations are 1.8m x 1.8m square and of course there are 0.5m high walls around all these areas so that any leakage can be contained.

Do you people really think that the people who run Bushveld Minerals and Energy are complete idiots, or just that those who read this board are ?

for example most of the intermediate electrolyte tank foundations are 4.2m in diameter whilst the final tank diameters are 3.9m.

I think we can safely assume that the company knows what it is doing rather than an amateur who doesn't even read all the documents.

dbush the foundation drawings are in the tender if you bother to look properly. It was precisely those that allowed me to calculate the diameter of the process storage tanks last year which led me to conclude that 200MWh was going to be easily exceeded by the plant processing capacity.

Libero - the existing manufacturing facility has to be on another site because there is only a rubber factory next door to the BE site at Elidz.

Thus it is not an extension like a carport but in the more general sense that we have become familiar with in the last few years.

Nice find Libero - the tender documents explain why the satellite was able to see work going on that site - they were testing the soil conditions.

I wonder where else they are building interesting things.

nice one mitch

Hopefully for once I can speak for everyone on this board when I wish all that frequent this board, especially those suffering from illness, our best wishes for the new year.

You, and those bushwackers who are no longer with us, will be in our thoughts this evening and beyond.

gosh yes they really do need the solutions we are bringing them don't they ?

well said Libero - we've been saying it for years, which is why BMN is one of, if not the, best researched stocks on AIM

https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/

Hopefully that statement will no longer be true in 2021