Member Info for Bella6532

Re the last RNS. Under Bushveld Energy towards the end of the RNS they make the following statement:
'Its near term strategy is to deploy several VRFB systems as part of its longer term vision to become a significant electricity storage provider in Africa by 2020,..'

Longer term appears to = by 2020 so what is near term considering we are already September 2019?
My first thoughts were Eskom but the say Africa not South Africa.
We won't have the electrolyte plant ready by 2020 so what are we deploying... Are they referring to Lease deals but none have been deployed in Africa yet. Is investment in a VRFB company nearer than we think or are there some African Lease deals using BMN V based electrolyte underway which haven't yet been deployed.
Any ideas...

Faramog.. 'The transaction remains on track to be completed on 31 October 2019'
Afraid its their wording not mine. As you know they did originally say between x and x but their last RNS clearly states 'on' not 'by'. They must have a reason for being so specific.

Although now listed under the Bushveld Vanadium heading and marked on the map, they do also state:
'3. Vanchem (conditional acquisition)'
http://www.bushveldminerals.com/bushveld-vanadium-2/

Interesting...since they said we won't actually own it for another 7 weeks!!!!! (completion on 31 Oct)...does this mean they're confident the finance has been agreed and it's just now down paperwork now.....

Beginerman...'If trades are being reported correctly we currently have a higher volume of buys than sells,..'
Per the LSE Share Price Summary Page
Total Volume 1,597,070
If you add the Sells = 657,764 Buys = 680,642 Total = 1,338,406
Difference = 258,664 (1 late buy? 227,664 plus 31,000 unknown)

'Avalon is also currently the supplier of flow batteries for NEXTracker’s integrated NX Flow solar-plus-storage systems.'
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/flow-batteries-on-a-budget-avalon-renting-electrolytes-as-a-service1

They also refer to commercial agreements not legal agreements!!!

.... 'on track to be completed on 31 October 2019.'

Why would they be so specific and narrow it down to an actual day if they weren't pretty sure it was going to go ahead on that day...everyone involved will be working towards this deadline date.

They could have left it vague but they didn't. They are saying completion will go ahead on this day as long as certain events occur, unless their non-occurrence is excused, before the performance of the contract can go ahead.

'The transaction remains on track to be completed on 31 October 2019 and we expect the outstanding conditions precedent, being the cession of specific commercial agreements and South African Reserve Bank approval, to be satisfied.

The Company is progressing the negotiations with local banks for a debt facility to supplement existing cash resources. Further updates and progress on the satisfaction of the remaining conditions precedent and the approval of the debt facility will be provided as appropriate.'

I think might cover it...

Jogj99.. Thanks.
Right at the bottom of this link they say:
'VSUN Energy offers Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries from a wide range of manufacturers.'
https://vsunenergy.com.au/about-vsun-energy/
And since Australian Vanadium isn't yet in full production although they are pushing on their own electrolyte production too, how long might it be before VSUN switch to a battery mfr using AV vanadium electrolyte.
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/batteries-going-with-the-flow/

The world's a big place and I'm sure BMN want to concentrate on the African Market as stated many times but any projects they are able to pick off elsewhere with the help of the new Lease Agreement has to be a plus. If the also set up other investments/tie ins/royalties etc on top then wouldn't that just be juicy. I'll take a cherry on top of my iced bun anytime.

More info on Australia here:
https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/batteries-going-with-the-flow/

And V Battery projects around the world:
https://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects?q=Vanadium&title=&ratedPower%5Bmin%5D=&ratedPower%5Bmax%5D=&duration%5Bmin%5D=&duration%5Bmax%5D=&owner=&energyStorageTechnologyProvider=&powerElectronicsProvider=&oMContractor=&developer=&integratorCompany=&isoRto=&state=&country=

I know this is old ground, put we did have a bit of new info the other day, so please bear with me on this one....please also think timescales when (if you choose to) read through the following.

From BMN Nov 2018 Presentation. P59
This is has now come to pass as the jointly worked on BMN/Avalon Battery Lease Agreement:
‘Offers a new product that retains ownership of electrolyte and rents out vanadium to the VRFB end user. Provides a product essential to cover vanadium price peaks and produces a pricing strategy to compete with lithium ion cost reductions.’

But we have yet to see something on this – or have we…
'Invests in the construction of an assembly plant for a VRFB product (that will be operated by another party). This longer term opportunity could involve direct investment into a VRFB company that would own the facility’
http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Energy-Storage-Vanadium-Redox-Flow-Batteries-101.pdf

In view of the latest Avalon Battery Leasing arrangement with VSun (owned by Australian Vanadium). I’m still very confused as to why BMN gave Avalon rights to the Lease Agreement without there being something in it for BMN.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/901994/australian-vanadium-vrfb-will-be-part-of-solar-and-energy-storage-system-at-orchard-901994.html

Who’s Vanadium was used in the US Avalon Leasing Deal and whose is being used in this one?
Can we assume it’s BMN Vanadium?

If so does that mean any time Avalon draws up a Lease Deal with a customer it has to contain BMN Vanadium? This would be very strange considering VSun is owned by Australian Vanadium who are direct competitor of ours.

We have also learnt that Avalon Battery and RedT are looking to merge – again RedT must have their own Electrolyte supplier so are they going to switch or will the new company be able to use our Lease Agreement without using BMN Vanadium?

No, I still think there is more to all this.

Avalon have stated they have an investor on the hook…

‘The combined business is also expected to gain a new and “strong” backer, which will make a cornerstone investment…’
https://renewablesnow.com/news/vanadium-redox-flow-battery-makers-redt-avalon-plan-merger-663176/

Reading between the lines – this cornerstone investment appears to be separate to the fundraising investments.

So I put it to you, would BMN consider a direct cornerstone investment in the new Avalon/RedT company in order to get a Battery production facility established in SA which would use BE Electrolyte for the Africa Market.
‘This longer term opportunity could involve direct investment into a VRFB company that would own the facility’

And by making such an investment and by giving Avalon use of the Lease Agreement outside of Africa BMN/BE with or without BMN Vanadium, we will get some kind of Royalty payment. If they have, it would be quite a brilliant move financially….

Gkb47...it does appear that way..

Oops!..thick fingers...apologies should read:
'It was established as a marketplace where small investors could invest in companies they otherwise would not have had access to. These companies are mainly small start ups and in most cases are not making a profit and are heavily into fundraising.'

gkb47 ...ha ha...so why is everyone crying abuse...manipulation...this is not fair...this is not right...
AIM is a very different marketplace to the likes of the FTSE. It was established as a marketplace where small investors could invest in companies they otherwise would have have had access too. These company are mainly small start ups and in most cases are not making a profit and are heavily into fundraising. There are rules in place but they are not quite so strict as the likes of the FTSE. Due to the nature of the companies listed on AIM it is considered a relatively high risk place to invest and many have lost their shirts. BMN however is not (IMO) ultra high risk and they are one of only a few making not just profits but huge profits. If you check out past shorts (the link was put up a couple of days ago) before TPEP hit us with their large short in May, we were still carrying very low level shorting even back in December 2018. BMN has no debt and no fundraising through AIM so if there are no surplus shares around, how is TPEP going to close their position? They either have to keep driving the price down and hope PI's just keep selling in fear or they have to work with an II. What we are seeing could just be normal every day trading practices...I for one don't think so and reading comment on here, I don't think others do either. What I put forward was a theory...nothing more and it's most likely wrong. However, I do feel that what we are seeing is something somewhat abnormal - not necessarily wrong or illegal but abnormal - what and why is anyone's guess right now...

I know this is old ground, put we did have a bit of new info the other day, so please bear with me on this one....please also think timescales when (if you choose to) read through the following.

From BMN Nov 2018 Presentation. P59
This is has now come to pass as the jointly worked on BMN/Avalon Battery Lease Agreement:
‘Offers a new product that retains ownership of electrolyte and rents out vanadium to the VRFB end user. Provides a product essential to cover vanadium price peaks and produces a pricing strategy to compete with lithium ion cost reductions.’

But we have yet to see something on this – or have we…
Invests in the construction of an assembly plant for a VRFB product (that will be operated by another party). This longer term opportunity could involve direct investment into a VRFB company that would own the facility’
http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Energy-Storage-Vanadium-Redox-Flow-Batteries-101.pdf

In view of the latest Avalon Battery Leasing arrangement with VSun (owned by Australian Vanadium). I’m still very confused as to why BMN gave Avalon rights to the Lease Agreement without there being something in it for BMN.
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/901994/australian-vanadium-vrfb-will-be-part-of-solar-and-energy-storage-system-at-orchard-901994.html

Who’s Vanadium was used in the US Avalon Leasing Deal and whose is being used in this one?
Can we assume it’s BMN Vanadium?

If so does that mean any time Avalon draws up a Lease Deal with a customer it has to contain BMN Vanadium? This would be very strange considering VSun is owned by Australian Vanadium who are direct competitor of ours.

We have also learnt that Avalon Battery and RedT are looking to merge – again RedT must have their own Electrolyte supplier so are they going to switch or will the new company be able to use our Lease Agreement without using BMN Vanadium?

No, I still think there is more to all this.

Avalon have stated they have an investor on the hook…

‘The combined business is also expected to gain a new and “strong” backer, which will make a cornerstone investment…’
https://renewablesnow.com/news/vanadium-redox-flow-battery-makers-redt-avalon-plan-merger-663176/

Reading between the lines – this cornerstone investment appears to be separate to the fundraising investments.

So I put it to you, would BMN consider a direct cornerstone investment in the new Avalon/RedT company in order to get a Battery production facility established in SA which would use BE Electrolyte for the Africa Market.
‘This longer term opportunity could involve direct investment into a VRFB company that would own the facility’

And by making such an investment and by giving Avalon use of the Lease Agreement outside of Africa BMN/BE with or without BMN Vanadium, we will get some kind of Royalty payment. If they have it would be quite a brilliant move financially….

gkb47 - not sure if they can claim any settlement time. Now I've just added some names we know to help explain one possible senario.
If a Buyer (TPEP)has an order in place at an agreed price /range because they need to start closing out their short before big news breaks (and they've been given the date for at least Vanchem completing on 31 Oct) then a Seller has to be found. Knowing what we know regarding upcoming news, why would anyone want to Sell unless they think they can buy in again at a lower price. So a Seller (?) agrees to sell for said price/range but with a caveat whereby he must be able to buy them back at at a lower price/range. Hence the time it's taking as the Seller wants to make sure it's done is small tranches so as his sells go through they are covered by lower buy backs. This might account for the upside appearance of the market right now which is not the same as straight forward shorting.

As the Buyer (TPEP) gets the shares needed they are then given back to the party he borrowed them from in the first place (VanEck). I originally thought (VanEck) might then be the ones then selling these back to the the Seller (?) but since they haven't declared a reduction in their holding, then perhaps they've decided to hold onto them and the shares have to be sourced via another route by knocking out Stop Loses etc....

If (TPEP) are not trying to close out then all the above is a load of B!!!!!!!!s

As I said this is all a theory - not fact and as has been said...we little mushrooms will be the last to know what's really going on. If TPEP are not trying to close out then all the above is a load of ?????

Uksteveg... Agree delaying trades is often used to keep balance in the market, but when they are delayed in this way they have distorted the outcome. It was a 7m day but many sites are only recording it as 4m day... And the split shown on the likes of LSE is recording 3m buys and 500k sells. If they had dropped them in just before close then we would have seen a more even buy vs sells close. What they've done is show their hand by making it look like a nice loaded 6:1 buy day which has ended up as a red day... So it look like its been 'cooked'...

Haha..Numpty... big girls blouse comes to mind...
Yep short not shirt... Silly Billy me...

Whoever is closing their position is being helped. They buy shares from a friendly and give them back to whoever loaned them. That person then sells them to the friendly at a lower price. In order to do this they have to make sure the price drops so the friendly can buy back at less than they sold for. This means trading in reverse... This means putting through late trades etc etc...if its TPEP they've got to buy 4.6m shares and if they simply bought through the normal channels the SP would rise too much and so best to do it via a friendly in dribs and drabs but will take much longer...
This is not fact its just a guess on my part...
Knuttie... Trust me trades are being watched and since the watching started the pattern of trading has changed to include these smaller bite sizes.all I want is for the big shirt to be closed and for BMN to start bringing home the bacon...

It is being looked into....