Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Jogj99 Thank you I had not seen that. There you go then. Conditions met in line with the BMN led transaction deadline dates.

Remarkable.

Next big milestone post completion will be the release of the refurbishment programme, which was detailed in the Vanchem webinar. There FM stated that the refurbishment programme already existed at that time and that it goes to the level of detail that demonstrates, which kiln they will be working on at what time, and at what capacity they expect it to be producing (see vanchem media webinar 42 mins onwards).

So we are not talking about a transaction that leads to a plan. The plan is already there and so the release of this programme should not be too far behind the closure of the transaction.

It is well worth shareholders taking the time to remind themselves of the content of that presentation and webinar.

I would also draw shareholders towards slide 15 of that presentation, which is part of the strategic rationale.

Three very important points ;

"Vanchem has significant surplus ferrovanadium smelting capacity that will enable surplus MVO at Vametco to be converted
to ferrovanadium at Vanchem."

I have talked about this before and it is why I think the initial ramp up in production at Vanchem, from the current 960 mtV, shouldn't be too expensive or time consuming.

"Annual Vametco kiln shutdowns can now be optimally managed group-wide."

So rather than losing 3 weeks or so at Vametco, which at 3,400 mtV can mean circa 200 mtV of lost production, the company can instead in the future, can employ Vanchem as a means to offset this. What this also means is that the next stage of Vametco expansion perhaps does not need to worry so much about losing production at the processor. Particularly if it is as involved as it sounds, given the planning/potential costs etc involved.

"Surplus concentrate production capacity at Vametco could be shipped to Vanchem as kiln feed, providing the opportunity
to accelerate the development of the Brits deposit."

I really like this one because it is a typical example of BMN giving insight to the next stage of the plan, that isn't being considered by the market, because it has its hands full with what is taking place now and near future.

The words say Brits deposit, not Vametco. The Brits deposit is still there and is still waiting for its Section 11 regulatory approval. What's the chances that this deposits future suddenly starts to become far more prevalent once the Vanchem acquisition and the plans for it are out in the open.

I would think that section 11 will also drop through the door, once the appropriate point in time is also reached.

Everything about BMN is long term and for very good reason.

http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Acquisition-of-the-Vanchem-Plant-SAJV-Business-and-Ivanti-Shares-1.pdf

@Paludina I would simplify things much further than that.

Tranche 1 of the convertable loan notes will be available to be converted as of 7th November 2020.

By that time ;
1. BMN will have had minimum 10 months running at plus 4,000 mtV with current production by that point surpassing 4,500 mtV, if Vametco delivers on its 3,400 mtV, as expected during the course of 2020.

2. the electrolyte plant at East London should be in production with every chance it can hit full production.
3. The Mokopone DFS will be completed and construction will have started. Remember the DFS is for a mine only feeding Vanchem.
4. The Vanchem refurbishment will be well underway with the first phase added production likely very close if not realised by that point.
5. The Eskom BESS project will have been tendered, awarded and will be well on the way to being built (see more detail below).

There are more items including vanadium pricing, but at 4,500 mtV, BMN will by that point be producing nearly twice what it will be producing in 2019, so prices don't need to rise very much for the profits to rise significantly. Bear in mind that operating costs will be falling considerable as synergies and increased production across the group kick in.

Eskom BESS Project

Anybody that does not believe that BMN and their subsidiaries will not play some sort of significant part in that tender award, for me simply has not done enough homework on this company and its connections within the S.A. market.

It is important to note that BMN talk about supplying into the BESS tender, and MN talks in the Energy Storage 101 Webinar, about being able to take part on a number of different levels. So winning large scale mandates can happen in a number of different ways. They don't just need to come directly from Eskom.

Securing those mandates opens up VRFB assembly in S.A. Why? Because FM himself talks about the need to secure as little as 10MW to justify it. The Eskom BESS Project is asking for 360MW over 2 phases.

It won't take a very big push to get there.

All of the above is due to happen before then first tranche of convertable loans. So the current valuation of £305m has every chance of being beaten by some margin.

If they hit big on the BESS Project and demonstrates it can deliver further downstream value chain integration, then in my view (unforeseen catastrophes aside), I think they smash it to smithereens, and that isn't something i say very often.

A further key statement that supports what I just said ;

"The revised terms ensure the transaction remains competitive under current market conditions and allows the Group to continue executing on its growth plans even in a volatile price environment."

That's the key here. Not to overstretch themselves on one transaction but to make sure that the cash is there to feed the development of the whole integrated platform, as is appropriate to do so.

It is that integrated platform that will deliver the real deal here, such that individual transactions should not be viewed in isolation. This is particularly true when I read such things as ;

"Provides further capacity for electrolyte manufacturing through the existing chemical plant and vanadium oxide production."

Given the developments that are about to take place at Eskom through the BESS programme, that statement is most interesting, and yet another signal that the BMN team and its plans, are far more advanced than we could ever hope to dissect and realise.

Morning all,

The old joke that that you wait ages for one bus and then three come along at once, can time and time again be applied to BMN.

For those that perhaps haven't been here all that long, it may be difficult to believe that BMN news flow can run to such precise and controlled release schedules, and that it often demonstrates that the plans, which so many would question being achieved, are often far more advanced and long term in their make up, than should be possible.

The Mokopone Right was clearly the initial trigger here to a number of updates, that will, at the very least, culminate in the closure of the Vanchem deal.

There are several details I would like to tackle from the RNS, but the first one for me is the revised timetable.

"Due to the revised payment terms the transaction is now expected to be completed on 07 November 2019 ("Transaction Closure")."

Its interesting that as of 23rd Oct 2019, so 2 weeks prior to the revised date, BMN are able to declare an expected completion date, even when they still have a number of conditions to satisfy, including the South African Reserve Bank approval and the cession of specific commercial agreements.

So yet another regulatory approval is required but who would bet against it being concluded at just the moment it is required to complete this transaction.

Anyone thinking that these approvals are straight forward, for me isn't following South African politics or indeed industry news there, close enough, because these things are not easy at all. Yet BMN keep ticking them off as and when they need too. Remarkable.

Moving onto the reduced purchase price, I am delighted to see such a significant reduction because quite frankly the price tag was beginning to look top heavy in this lower vanadium pricing market. Easy to say with hindsight but nevertheless true.

The fact that BMN has had to secure some $23m in convertable loan notes is not overly surprising. We discussed here just the other week the cash reserves that BMN has at its disposal, My viewpoint remains that BMN will be very cautious about employing funds that are deemed to be "non controlling." This deal supports that view but also demonstrates that BMN need to keep further funds in reserve, which can then be employed for the other investments that will stem from this acquisition.

As it turns out the dilution, even at today's prices, is minimal, and delivers far more than it will ever cost existing shareholders. At 27.5p we are talking circa 68m shares, which amounts to just c.6% of the total shares in issue, and with at least 1 year until the first tranche can be converted, that sort of price level for me has every chance of being beaten by a very good margin indeed.

So absolutely no issue with this minimal dilution, and I would welcome more of the same if it is agreed on such good terms and delivers such wonderful acquisitions, such as Vanchem.

From the Full Year accounts 2018, dated 31st May 2019 ;

"Continued advancement of a safe and economically robust Liberator development with targeted first oil in 2020."

Apart from the "first oil in 2020" part, which I can understand and is not what is truly critical right now, the statement has not changed.

It has not changed despite a failed pilot well drill, which is perceived to have heavily dented or indeed curtailed the Lib phase 1 development plan.

A good many market participants would have me believe that this is because the company is not or no longer trust worthy, or that its just corporate speak, or its simply not believable because they say so.

Analysis of corporate wording in its official capacity, has set me in very good stead these last few years, and these words are some of the most straight forward i have ever come across.

I am going to post this once more becasue for the life of me I cannot understand the perception in play here.

Some very key quotations from I3E from their interims report signed off on 30th Sept 2019.

"The Company’s focus for the remainder of 2019 will be on 3 key areas:

1 The safe completion of its multi-well drilling campaign at Liberator and Serenity.
2 Continued advancement of a robust Liberator Phase I development plan while securing associated funding to bring the field to first oil.
3 On success at Serenity and Liberator West, progress development options for these assets."

In support of this plan, the CEO Majid Shafiq stated in the accompanying RNS ;

""The first six months of 2019 was an incredibly active period for i3 as we financed and prepared for a potentially transformative drilling programme while progressing commercial and regulatory work scopes to advance our planned development of the Liberator field. Though we were disappointed to have missed the targeted upper Captain sands with our first well 13/23c-9, our post-drill analysis incorporating data from the well confirms our view that Liberator is a material asset and the Company remains excited about Serenity and Liberator West where the majority of our on-block resources are mapped."

"We look forward to updating our shareholders after we have completed our analysis of the 13/23c-9 well and revised mapping of Liberator and as we obtain results from our ongoing drilling campaign."

So the company is very clearly reporting that one of their 3 key areas for the rest of 2019, will be the "continued advancement of a robust Liberator phase 1 development plan."

Furthermore, "post-drill analysis incorporating data from the well confirms our view that Liberator is a material asset."

Now there may be a view that such talk includes Liberator West, but those key areas separate the two by stating under item 3. that "on success at Serenity and Liberator West, progress development options for these assets."

Which itself ties in with the Mr Shafiq's words about being "excited about Serenity and Liberator West where the majority of our on-block resources are mapped."

Which in turns allows him to say "we look forward to updating our shareholders after we have completed our analysis of the 13/23c-9 well and revised mapping of Liberator."

"We look forward" because "our post well analysis confirms Liberator is a material asset."

Does one normally look forward to telling the market that a previously hotly anticipated phase 1 development is a no goer?

Many are talking about the Serenity update being key here, but what if the next update is Liberator phase 1 and its positive? What then?

Because the order of play in the quote above, as well as further wording, says exactly that, that the A3 well needs to be confirmed so all paperwork can be completed in good time. So what if that comes first? What then Mr Market?

@sankeys I respect what you are saying but what I have just presented in that 2 part post is not "speculative" it is fact.

What you have suggested is what is speculative, and I have accepted could be true, but is far from guaranteed.

The other participants in the debt facility could well be long but only up to 2.99%, otherwise they would need to report on it. However, it is pure speculation with no factual support.

The issue I have here, and by no means do I wish to focus in on you or your ideas, is that the speculation is all about what is and could be wrong, and not what could also be very right.

I appreciate that those things that can go wrong are often the most costly and so should receive more focus, and i welcome that discussion, and I also recognise that the perceived failure at L2 pilot well, helps drive the questions

However, when that is all that is talked about, then the discussion becomes unhinged.

Some may well accuse me of the same behavior on the bullish case, and they may well have a good point but recently on I3E, if the likes of me weren't presenting the facts and what they mean for the bullish case, then there would be no bullish case at all.

What I see with the senior lenders, is a team of respected lenders who have backed the company on what is a very exciting drill programme, and have taken warrants as an incentive for their risk. A number of these lenders would then like to participate in the senior debt facility, which would then give them a long term consistent return on their investment in I3E.

So perhaps they are just that, good solid lenders awaiting either their 8% annual return, an even healthier return on the warrants, or the handing over of I3E blocks and their associated reserves.

The only questionable participant is Lombard who having played a significant role in the original 37p placement, is potentially coming at this from a different risk angle. However, even they have been very forthcoming with their updates on holdings, which I take to be a very professional sign of their approach.

With regards to the warrant strike price, I agree and the 48.1p average is the key level. However, these guys have upto 4 years to use them, and to a degree the whole junior facility may end up getting swallowed up in the senior debt facility, given several of the participants are active in both, we just do not know.

I favour a significant sell off of the warrants by the junior debt holders but at a significant premium to the 48.1p level, simply because if this company's share price returns to above 48.1p, it will be because they have something significantly stronger than that level of valuation. So then it will be about those junior debt holders balancing the time they have to execute the warrants, against the true value of the company, which reflects my point about positivity, because the rush to cash in all the warrants may not be as strong as some may believe.

The other key point for me is that even when this stock is fully diluted, there will only be circa 150m shares in issue.

If we dare to dream for just a second, and say that S1 or indeed A3 come in at the mid case target, adding to the previously stated reserves base, be it this reserve base will likely reduce somewhat, then a 50p SP, delivers a circa £75m valuation. However, what will also happen is that the junior debt facility will be removed from the equation.

So I3E would be debt free as they head towards agreeing a senior debt facility.

Given the limited capital required to get to first oil (circa $90m including contingencies), and given the potential production per day (20,000 bopd quoted but even half of that would be substantial), a £75m valuation for me simply would not cut it, so if nothing else the buying demand would be there, such that the warrants would be worked through, be it they would need some time, and each warrant exercise would reduce I3E debt, further strengthening its balance sheet and de-risking the investment.

That headwinds would be there in some sort of form, is agreed. However, their ability to influence things, particularly if I3E do go on to secure a senior debt facility for phase 1, is in my opinion limited, be it I recognise that this is my opinion only. However, like I say, 150m shares for such potential speaks volumes as to where this could head with the right drill results and all that will come to pass thereafter.

(2 of 2)

However, what nobody knows is Lombards strategy when their is an oil strike. They have clearly taken a tactical strategic hit on part of their holding, so may wish to recoup this, I don't know, and nor does anybody else.

As for the warrants being forward sold, that is of course possible, but given the warrant holders can redeem the warrants against the debt, it is surely far more prudent to hold the warrants and wait until the full drill programme, which they in the main backed, is complete, and then assess.

We all quite rightly talk about de-risking by institutions but there is also a desire to maximise profits. Offloading warrants cheaply, prior to understanding the outcomes, is also a risk. This is particularly true when considered against the upside on offer, and the fact that the junior debt holders still get the 8% per annum, and several of them are also set to play a part in the senior debt facility.

That is not to say that the scenario as you have stated it cannot play out, its more about respecting the intentions and quality of the lenders, and their desire to ensure the best return from this venture, and that return may not all be about de-risking.

That all said, I would think that if I3E can deliver on their drilling programme, then there will at times be pressure on the SP from sellers, but we must also be open to the idea that a big strike on either Serenity and/or Liberator, or indeed confirmation of a phase 1 development, is also going to drive a significant and sustained uplift in demand for the shares, so said resistance may not be so significant after all.

(1 of 2)

@sankeys.

With all due respect, I don't believe your analysis to be 100% correct.

You said "given the major shareholders participated in the junior debt facility."

The only major shareholder that is declared as participating in the junior debt facility is Lombard Odier.

The RNS from 30th May states clearly ;

"binding terms with funds managed by Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Limited for a £3mm participation in the junior loan note facility, the proposed terms of which were announced by the Company on 25 February 2019 (the "Junior Facility" or "Loan Notes"), a £2mm placing of new ordinary shares priced at 37p per share and warrants to subscribe for £3mm of new ordinary shares (collectively the "Lombard Odier Investment")."

The £3m in warrants was adjusted one day later to £2m in warrants "on the same exercise terms as the warrants included in the proposed Junior Facility."

So they received £5m total.

Those warrants are split between 3 series, with an exercise price of 40.7p, 48.1p and 55.5p, meaning the average is 48.1p

The total junior debt facility was revised to £22m, which means £19m sits with other lenders. What it means is that Lombard hold £5m in warrants at an average of 48.1p.

With regards to the remaining £19m, what we know from the 25th Feb 2019 junior debt facility RNS is this ;

"A European Investment Manager with assets under management in excess of £1 billion has agreed to subscribe for £12 million of the Loan Notes and, based on offers received, the remainder of the Loan Notes are expected to be issued to one or more syndicate members and/or offtake providers who are also potential lenders in i3's senior debt facility."

From the 3rd June 2019 RNS ;

I3E " is pleased to announce that it has closed investments with funds managed by Bybrook Capital LLP, BP Oil International Limited, funds managed by Lombard Odier Investment Managers group, and James Caird Asset Management in a £22mm junior loan note facility."

As of 30.09.2019, the only one of those companies on the major shareholders list is Lombard Odier, and as stated above, they are 'only' in for £3m of the total £22m.

So at best we are talking about £5m in leverage at 48.1p average, so circa 10.4m shares.

Lombard currently also hold circa 8.6m placement shares, all taken at 37p.

Despite the assumed strategy, Lombard have not reported a further sale of their holding since 24th Sept, so approaching 1 month. That's not to say they haven't been but given their punctuality on reporting, and their close proximity to 9%, the percentages say they have stopped for now.

The company website reports they have actually increased their position to 9.18% from the 9.07% reported on 24th September.

Also, Lombard started selling their holding down at the end of June, when the SP was fairly consistent at circa 48p, which indicates the sort of profit range they were seeking.

For those that haven't seen/read the South Africa Energy Storage Technology and Market Assessment, here it is below.

Key quote ;

"The objective of the South Africa Energy Storage Technology and Market Assessment was to provide advisory services to the IDC and Steering Committee that will help guide and promote the adoption of energy storage technologies in South Africa."

"As a state-owned development finance institution, the Industrial Development Corporation of South´Africa Limited (IDC) is interested in evaluating the potential of energy storage technologies to increase access to reliable, affordable electricity in South Africa, encouraging policies to support the adoption of energy storage technologies, and exploring opportunities to invest in energy storage projects."

Since the release of this market assessment in March 2017, the IDC has not only continued its co-operation agreement with Bushveld Energy, which includes an electrolyte plant and VRFB installation at Eskom, but it is remains the only co-operation agreement that the IDC has with an energy storage related company.

Furthermore, the above statement says ;

"encouraging policies to support the adoption of energy storage technologies."

The Eskom partnership with the World Bank Group on the Eskom BESS Project, is specifically designed to encourage the adoption of energy storage technologies.

Co-incidence? Possible, but not from where I am sitting.

Not when the authors of the market assessment, the USTDA, then go on to issue a grant to Bushveld Energy in August 2018, that is specifically designed to further enhance the demonstration battery at Eskom, which in turn assists BE with its assault on large scale mandates.

All of that is fed by the mines and processing that BMN is so nonchalantly going about acquiring.

The support is clearly there. The connections are clearly there, even if everyone is keeping things very business like ( as they should) and not shouting too hard about the weapons they clearly have at their disposal.

https://www.crses.sun.ac.za/files/research/publications/technical-reports/USTDA_Public+Version+1.pdf

If anybody is now having any doubt as to where this is heading, then I suggest a cold shower and a very loud wake up call is in order.

A company that completes such problematic regulatory approvals so nonchalantly, is demonstrating itself to be a very capable adversary indeed.

For me yesterday's message is that Vanchem will complete, that the finance will is fully in hand (did anyone ever doubt it?), and that, through the IDC at least, BMN is being backed to drive this new South Africa industry, at a very high level in South Africa.

As it stands, Vanchem has "sufficient ore supply. . .until Mokopane's development has been completed."

So now its all about financing the development of Mokopone, initiating the refurbishment of Vanchem, and then pushing production higher and therefore operating and unit costs lower, in order to begin to service that pending Electrolyte plant in East London and achieve the most competitive pricing levels.

If I had any lingering doubt about Bushveld Energy's ability to play a significant role in the Eskom BESS project tender, then I don't have it anymore, be it we should all be careful not to become too over confident.

That is why I say that the news yesterday is far more significant than it looks on paper. It is about what it demonstrates about BMN's/BE's place in the South African economy, about how the IDC is assisting this company to reach the goals that they both set, when they signed that co-operation agreement back in June 2016.

Lets remind ourselves once more ;

"The IDC also has important stakeholder linkages with the South African government, regulators and utilities and other key players that are necessary to provide a catalytic stimulus for the energy storage industry as they have for the renewable industry to date. We look forward to continuing to work with the IDC to develop the energy storage industry in South Africa."

Government. Regulators, and most importantly for me, "utilities".

The IDC was the leader of the Energy Storage Committee that analysed the potential for a South African Energy Storage industry, that had as its members both Eskom and NERSA, who is the S.A. Energy REGULATOR.

That committee through the USTDA, produced a "South Africa Energy Storage Technology and Market Assessment," some 9 months after the IDC had signed its agreement with Bushveld Energy.

In my opinion, everything that is happening here, from the Section 11 at Vametco, right through to the Eskom BESS Project, is a pathway, that has been designed to ensure that South African minerals are locally beneficiated through a localised energy storage industry, and Bushveld Energy has positioned itself to be the first to walk it because of the preparations it has made to get there in the first place.

In my humble opinion, its a co-operation agreement on paper, but in reality it is the key to the city and a pathway laden with gold.

Not I sir, not I. . .

Morning all,

Yesterday's news is in my opinion far more significant than looks on paper.

For those that may have understandably forgotten my post from Weds 16th Oct (10.53am), here's an extract ;

"I remain in awe of BMN's ability to complete the Vametco deal in such an orderly and timely manner, way back in March/April 2017.

The way they were so nonchalantly able to declare that the "section 11 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, of 2002 ("MPRDA") for the Ministerial consent to the Acquisition" was achieved, just 1 day after the full finance package, including the bridging finance from Barak Fund, should really warm the c*ckles of every BMN shareholder's heart.

It demonstrates clearly that when BMN really want to get something done, they do, and extended section 11 approvals, such as those that weigh heavy on Brits right now, are not unattainable, when those S.A. regulatory and government orientated levers are pulled in BMN's favour."

Jump forward to 21st Oct 2019 and we have history repeating itself once more.

BMN have now managed to complete what are significant regulatory hurdles, for 2 company making projects, at exactly the point in time that they needed them, in South Africa. Those that follow South Africa politics closely and understand the problems and delays that can be experienced there, will know that is no mean feat.

To do it once could be put down to good fortune. To do it twice, can for me only be put down to Fortune Mojapelo and his very effective and clearly very connected team.

In a follow up post on 16th Oct, I posted the following quotes from the Vanchem acquisition RNS dated 1st May 2019 ;

"The Vanchem Business has secured sufficient ore supply from third parties to support current levels of production, until Mokopane's development has been completed."

My observation at the time ;

"So there is clearly a strong indication that the company expects the Mokopone transaction to tie in with the Vanchem deal, and that there is a belief that a timeline is in play for Mokopone, which must include the license."

For me yesterday's incredibly punctual news, is a clear example that BMN is successfully exploiting those stakeholder linkages with the IDC.

6th October 2016 RNS ;

"The IDC also has important stakeholder linkages with the South African government, regulators and utilities and other key players that are necessary to provide a catalytic stimulus for the energy storage industry as they have for the renewable industry to date. We look forward to continuing to work with the IDC to develop the energy storage industry in South Africa."

Two times BMN have come up against regulatory approvals that were required to complete significant brownfield acquisitions, that greatly assist BMN's (and IDC) "catalytic stimulus for the energy storage industry."

Two times they have delivered on time.

As I said last Weds "who says lightning never strikes twice,.

Not I sir, not

@cautionyourblast The SP is sitting at 1.5p higher than the only takeover the market is currently aware of. That indicates that the market believes the company is going to be sold.

Personally, I do not see any reason to believe that the company will not be sold. As much as the directors and shareholders will want to gain as great a return as possible, the launch of the process by this particular BOD, signals strongly that they feel the end of the road has come, and it is merely about the price.

Also, I see very little in the actions of the BOD since the strategic announcement, that says this BOD is fighting for its business, fighting to maximise progress, and is anything but fully focused on the deal to sell the business.

Whatever price it ends up at, I would think the market will react to the words and offers, as they come, and nothing much more. However, as I say, the market is right now pricing in a premium and so expects a sale.

@pickedpick I have just been reading through your very thorough and very plausible arguments for the valuation.

I would add that any potential suitor would not only valuing the business on what it currently does but also what it is capable of doing.

The OXY partnership, assuming they are not the eventual buyer, validates an argument that in the Putamayo at least, times are a changing when it comes to company related activity. The same could be argued for the 3rd party oil, which is another potential growth opportunity for a suitor.

Furthermore, any suitor will be analyzing the accounts to assess where synergies could be employed to improve the performance of both the business in question, and that of the suitor.

As a very good example, AMER in 2018 made an operating profit of circa $11m but the same year produced administration expenses of over $18m. This is of course helped by the substantial wages being paid to the likes of John Wardle.

Any suitor will be looking at that and likely seeing an opportunity to substantial reduce such costs, along with other things such as equipment and drill rigs costs, driven by those synergies and larger, stronger buying power, in order to make the business much more profitable that the current management team have been able to.

AMER is for me far more about the potential it offers a buyer that knows how to exploit it properly, than it is about what it has achieved to date. That has the potential to drive a higher valuation, particularly when the parties involved know they are not alone.

Morning all,

My own thoughts on the corporate process unfolding here.

The strategic review update was issued on 11th Oct. There the company stated that revised bidding instructions "inviting firm proposals to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of the Company" have been issued, and that "the Bidding Instructions make clear that proposals should include confirmation that any potential bidder is in a position to comply with requirements of the UK Takeover Code relating to Cash Confirmation."

My take on that is that these revised instructions were issued shortly before the RNS, so I will assume within a day or so, hence the update.

I would think that said interested parties, at that stage, are parties who have indicated they intend to bid, be it some may have stayed involved because they favoured a portion of the business and not all. This update would for me be designed to ensure they update their position, and/or give way to parties that have clearly indicated a bid for the business as a whole.

Whatever number of parties that leaves behind, would for me have been given a deadline of circa 3-4 weeks. This gives sufficient time for bids to be adjusted or updated, and for the funding to be cleared/finalised. This sort of time period for me is appropriate even if AMER have their sights on 1 particular bidder. The time would still be given to enable all parties to have a fair chance of completing their bid.

This is supported by the statement that the "the Company is seeking to conclude the FSP in Q4 2019."

Friday 25th Oct would be 2 weeks post update.

So for me the following 2 weeks would be when it should start to hot up.

Lets see.

One immediate improvement I have noted is decision 4, taken against the "Energy Mix and Just Transition"

"For coherent policy development in support of the development of a just transition plan, consolidate into a single team the various initiatives being undertaken on just transition."

The previous version talked about "Convene a team to put together a “just transition” plan within a year, in consultation with all social partners", which for me was very wishy washy.

The new version has no date but still it appears more 'immediate.'

The importance being that the "Wind and Power" section has a decision that states "Retain the current annual build limits on renewables (wind and PV) pending the finalisation of a just transition plan."

So the transition plan is key to potentially unlocking further RE and its associated programmes and of course battery storage.

So certainly an improvement although the failure to set a deadline smacks of concern over political fall out.

Here now is the correct version for those that wish to read through.

https://www.dmr.gov.za/Portals/0/Resources/INTEGRATED%20RESOURCE%20PLAN%202019/DoE%20IRP%202019__October%202019.pdf?ver=2019-10-18-170552-007

I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the IRP as its only hours old. The webinar however, took place over 3 weeks ago.

Apparently the newer version of the IRP does not contain nuclear. That'll be quite a surprise for those celebrating down at the S.A. nuclear lobby house.