Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Sanchez599 You along with a great many other contributors here understand this story down to its bare bones.

That does not mean that the general market sees or even cares for a smidgen of that knowledge.

The case I have presented for the Eskom BESS project tender and what it means for BMN growth trajectory, is as as strong a case as i had, when I was driving the Vametco brownfield asset purchase in late 2015.

In late 2015 I was so sure that BMN would buy Vametco, that I backed the company considerably. But despite the company going on to confirm the purchase of Vametco in May 2016, the opportunity to really take advantage of the opportunity actually came many months after the SPA announcement, in late 2016.

Even then it took many months for the market to begin to respect the transaction, even after it was closed and BMN were starting to enjoy the revenues, and vanadium prices were already well on their way to the recovery, we had discussed for so long on this very BB. Yet still the market did not get it.

That was a mining transaction that is far more easily understood than an energy storage platform that is yet to deliver any sort of revenues.

However, the vast majority of visitors here, are here because they get it, and they have backed it with their hard earned, and many have seen their belief tested, as the market has failed to recognise the opportunity, that they themselves can so easily see.

That's the pain. That's the torment, and for me it will unfortunately continue, as it did throughout 2016 and well into 2017, for the believers that stood here at that time.

However, this time around the risk of failure isn't even comparable. The risks we took back then engulf what we see here today. Now BMN is not only the holder of the largest high grade vanadium in the world but they will soon have not 1 but 2 brownfield processing plants. Back then the ingredients were present but it was all about the fight and worry attached to getting a junior miner into production.

So today's situation doesn't even come close to that. Right now, at worst, this is about BMN preparing itself for the next rise in the vanadium cycle. Back then it was about pure survival and overcoming liquidity issues whilst swimming with the AIM sharks.

So the context of the pain needs to be understood but at the very same time the expanse of the BMN shareholder base and where they entered this story, must also be respected.

The prize is there for us all to see but it will take time to come to fruition and it needs to packaged in a way that the general less focused market, is prepared to understand. Just like was required back in 2015 but was just as clouded, by the knowledge of knowing what we had but not appreciating that it was more of a secret than we were able to appreciate.

@Sanchez599 If that is the only narrative you are picking up from my many posts of the last few days, then that is a great shame.

I've lived through the worst periods in this company's brief history and I know what its like, to day after day scratch my head at the lack of respect for this story and so continually question my logic, my information, and search for something that I might have missed.

Any investor that says they are comfortable with the current situation and have not had their confidence knocked here, is for me fooling themselves or those they deal with here, on an almost daily basis.

Furthermore, for every investor here that has managed to stay handsomely in profit, there is highly likely one that has not, that is underwater and has never seen the success that so many of the longer term contributors have witnessed.

It takes a lot of stamina and stubbornness to stick with a share that is under water, or better still has delivered riches, that have then been allowed to sail away, and yes it causes discomfort, which I have termed as being pain.

That pain will likely continue until the SP is back close to its highs. The price of vanadium as it stands today, in my view will not deliver that valuation. I do not care what SP Angel says BMN is worth, the reality is they are pricing in an energy storage platform that has yet to earn its stripes and using long term vanadium prices to value a company that lives in a market that judges it on vanadium prices today.

As has always been the case with BMN, being based in South Africa comes with a price. A price that despite Ramaphosa's arrival, is not going to dissipate very easily.

If vanadium prices rise, which Mojapelo in his recent interview demonstrated as being his belief, presenting a very plausible argument around iron ore prices to boot, then the BMN share price will rise. However, if it does not then the valuation is not going to rise very far without some sort of new injection.

Vanchem will deliver 1,000 mtv of new production, which as I have said the other day, will likely hep the SP. But I do not see it suddenly delivering a significant increase in valuation without the vanadium prices to go with it.

But personally i don't care about the valuation so long as BMN has the means with which to deliver its multi faceted platform, at no additional cost to myself.

That's because one way or another, those vanadium prices will rise eventually. One way or another energy storage will arrive on a commercial scale, because it has too and is being pushed hard enough by enough of the right money.

So the medium to long term story at least, is solid but that does not take away everybody's pain until the valuation matches the achievement, and that takes time, patience, stubbornness and grit, to get through the low periods and keep reminding oneself why we all came here in the first place. Just like we did in 2015, 16 and 17, until the achievement was recognized.

Kevkan

I am not nervous, I am merely being realistic about what elements of the value chain will be available to BE and to what degree.

Back when the Energy Storage webinar was announced, I posed the following question to Nikomarov and Mojapelo,

"With the recent announcement by Eskom of the 800MWh phase of their battery energy storage project. Is BE in a position to aggressively tender for this project, given it is due to enter construction in Q3 2019?"

Their full answer came in the Q&A session (See from around 1 hour 31 mins and 40s).

Given the update on the Eskom battery tender, the answer and indeed the whole BE strategy as laid out in the webinar, is well worth everyone's time once again.

Nikomarov says "in terms of positioning, the work we have been doing over the last few years (and one should include the IDC leveraging in that thought process) has been specifically to position us on that"

"we are positioned to participate in multiple ways, not just one"

He also states that at that time they did not know the structure of the project and so how much local content would be required and so to what degree the vanadium, electrolyte and some of the other components needed to be sourced in S.A. was unknown.

It isn't anymore.

"Timelines allow us to provide some of the electrolyte fairly quickly, maybe as early next year in 2020. Some of those timelines in terms of assembly would obviously take a bit longer, if that is part of the requirements."

It is not and better still local content is set at minimum 20% and so if required BE and their partners, can acquire electrolyte from overseas, if the capacity to deliver it locally isn't yet up to speed. My concern is in ensuring that there is enough demonstrable local content to meet the requirement, that the competitive advantage is there to drive the BE bid over the winning line, be it shown to be available at contract stage or a future point in time.

In closing Nikomarov says ;

"But to answer the question. Yes absolutely but not just in one facet but in multiple facets"

Whats key here is that my question was centred around the original advised construction start date of Q3 2019, and the BE team were still confident of their offering at a multi faceted level. Now construction start will be Q2 2020, they have a lot more running room with which to improve that offering further.

https://webcasting.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/5bd2eae5b01efb6b20c2f9eb

@Richken Whilst the income and profits are of course the key fundamental here long term, I don't really think that is what will get the rockets started.

Front end it is about demonstrating that the full integrated model exists, that it can win battery storage mandates and can deliver them.

Demonstrating that business model to the market will, given enough time, catapult BMN from a miner to something else completely, such that the potential in the energy storage market and the removal of the cycle driven business case, can be felt within the overall BMN valuation.

The trouble the market will have is that there is no comparison with which to work with because nobody's ever delivered a fully integrated vanadium energy storage model before. So that day when/if it comes, should be a lot fun.

As for what exactly BE/BMN can offer Eskom in this tender, that is debatable. I don't see electrolyte production gearing up before start of H1 and it will need time to find its feet.

That said I am delighted that the Eskom tender is taking so long because previously it was due to be issued in March 2019. The trouble is Eskom think they can delay the project by 7-8 months and still maintain their delivery date for phase 1 of December 2020.

My gut feel is that this is unrealistic and feedback from tenders may demonstrate this, if they are honest with their proposals. The temptation of such a big contract may lead to promises being given that cannot be met. That in itself brings in the idea that it is best to win the contract and then negotiate a staggered approach that leads to some batteries being delivered post December 2020.

I get the impression that the deadline is associated with Eskoms current agreements with the WBG. However, given that this project has been running since 2011, it is a fledgling technology, and one that is deemed central to the WBGs climate solutions, it seems awfully foolish to be trying to rush these young companies through such a tight programme.

So I can see a compromise being reached that will only play further into BE/BMN's hands, as their various value chain elements gain even more time to ready themselves.

But as I say, Phase 2 looks even more doable and could be the really big ticket for BE/BMN.

@Bella6532 I cannot answer that but what I can say is that this project is designed to support a perceived nascent industry and encourage the commerciality of battery storage. That means it is designed to get companies over the line in terms of investment decisions to build bigger electrolyte facilities, assemble such things as VRFBs and manufacture them in South Africa.

That is the message from the WBG, from Eskom. from the IDC, and from Ramaphosa himself.

Just take a good look at Rongke Power and UET and see just how long they have been talking up expansion. Rongke want 3GW, UET at last count 300MW, but they can't justify it if they haven't got the mandates to justify the finance for it.

So its not so much about including the manufacturing itself, it is about demonstrating what such a contract win would do to assist BMN with its expansion plans.

This is covered in the BMN Energy Storage webinar 101. Mojapelo talks about the minimum amount of contract wins that would be required in order to justify local assembly, and it really isn't all challenging a target. From memory i believe it was around 10MW but will try to dig it out a little later for you.

Yes indeed Kevkan. A few weeks back i offered my view point that investors would need to dig deep and go through some pain here, in order to reap the real rewards here, and I stand by that still.

For this investment to really deliver on its potential it needs to land the energy storage angle and land it well.

Things in the industry as a whole are clearly developing on that front and there is an endless stream of news relating to it being posted here on a near daily basis. But it isn't measurable in terms of its affect on BE/BMN. That things are getting louder, that support is there is clear but what does it truly mean for BE/BMN and us?

The reigniting of the Eskom BESS Project slices through all of that. It is measurable, it is real and it directly affects Bushveld Minerals.

If won, it delivers the next stage of the Bushveld story and delivers the path to a fully integrated platform, that includes both VRFB assembly, manufacture, and likely an investment in a VRFB company (likely a partnership on a South African arm of UET).

It also delivers BE as a deliverer of large scale utility mandates, which sets it up for future work. It delivers the CV that is missing, that makes BE a trusted partner and not a wannabee one, and the connotations don't stop there.

There are question marks over how much and in what form BE can win mandates from this tender. There are question marks over just how much electrolyte BE can produce in time for phase 1 of this tender. There are question marks over the tender deadline itself and the ability of any battery company to build and deliver 200MW of batteries in 6-9 months.

But at the very least this opportunity isn't at the other side of the world. It isn't in the US, the UK, Northern Africa, or anywhere else. It is in South Africa and that alone sweeps most of the other problems away, for the time being at least.

And to top it all off, the very vanadium prices that are bringing all of the heat to the BMN SP right now, act as a major boost to the BMN rental product and the final price that can be offered to Eskom for its mandates. If even a small percentage of the electrolyte can be made locally, then that means considerable cost advantage in comparison to other VRFB suppliers because they would have to ship it all in fro very far away. Hence why phase 2 looks even more appealing be it that it is a little smaller than phase 1. It isn't due to start until late 2020, by which time BMN and BE will be completely different propositions in terms on electrolyte capability and vanadium feed pricing (2 facilities not 1).

So even if phase 1 doesn't deliver as hoped, BMN/BE will be a far stronger proposition 2nd time around.

The BESS project is simply massive and if landed, catapults BMN to another level and arguably another sector.

"the driver of the very South African industry the WBG is talking about, across its battery and electrolyte plants."

@Richken Any company that is attempting to establish a new technology and make the world understand its worth and its need, would consider it beyond their wildest dreams that the WBG would come along and say that, not only is it prepared to get involved but it understands fully that front end it is not about the profitability but the support needed to reach commerciality with the technology.

Not only that the sum on the table isn't piecemeal, it is substantial.

The battery element of the BESS project is reported by the WBG as being "minimum $468m" for circa 360MW of batteries.

On the first slide in my last post, the $5.3 billion is being touted as supporting circa "17 GWh battery investment by 2025."

That is a mammoth amount of battery storage projects in comparison to what we have seen previously.

By doing so it is handing what are company making projects on a plate to those companies that can make them happen.

All of that is wonderful and more than enough to be getting excited about because it means battery storage has a key world sponsor with considerable firepower, who has the ability to underpin private investment such that investment decisions that would previously have failed, become more of a reality. #

However, the WBG and its $5.3 billion battery technology drive has decided to start in Bushveld Mineral's backyard. In the one place where BMN and its integrated model can be at its most cost efficient. In the webinar Mr Verdol spoke of the opportunity that South Africa has with its minerals, its labour force and potential battery value chain. One would have to be asleep to not see and appreciate that central to that opportunity is BMN and vanadium.

Fortune Mojapelo has stood in front of the president of S.A. at his investment drive and spoke of his company's plans to invest $170m in its fully integrated concept.

The company is partnering with the South African government's investment arm the IDC, the driver of the very South African across its battery and electrolyte plants. It was a commercial decision achieved in 2016 that in 2019 is demonstrating what a wonderfully forward thinking idea it was because it has set up this company making chance for them. if BMN win this Eskom contract, then the governement wins too, and doesn't Mr Mojapelo know that too.

That doesn't make it given but it certainly places them very close to the top of that tender winning list.

Win that tender and BE justifies its business case to assemble batteries in S.A. and deliver exactly what the WBG are stating in those slides, about the S.A. value chain and industry. For anybody to believe that this is all happening around BE and has nothing to do with their long term strategy, is for me a mistake.

So if investors aren't excited about this tender and what it can deliver then in my view they need to dig through the information again and again, because for me its as clear as day.

The World Bank is making it clear that battery storage technology, however small an industry it may currently be, is in their eyes core to the solution to the climate issue, that is so central to the policies of governments, business and the sort of financiers, that are touched upon in that Daily Maverick article.

For investors in the world's only fully integrated vanadium energy storage play, which itself is trying to make its mark and convince the world that battery solutions are a necessity moving forward, isn't that just a wonderfully powerful support to have right now?

The WBG isn't about making a profit on ist investment, it is about global warming, offsetting and reducing CO2 emissions, and establishing a base to support the companies that can hep with those problems. Bushveld Energy is one of those companies and as I say, the WBG is coming to town and bringing a $5.3 billion answer to their problems.

To demonstrate my point, take a look at this World Bank Group (WBG) slide from the webinar, which was discussed by the World Bank's Frederick Verdol in the webinar.

"battery storage is key to achieving 2 degrees C and SDG7, but battery market is nascent"

"WBG has a strong experience in demonstrating and scaling up emerging technologies (CSP, Geothermal, mini grids, off-grid solar)."

"Since September 2018, WBG plans to mobilise concessional climate finance and leverage commercial capital to accelerate deployment of sustainable battery systems"

"$1 billion concessional climate finance, $1 billion from IBRD/IDA/IFC, leveraging $3.3 billion from the private sector." My apologies my last post stated 'just' $4.3 billion total.

What that slide is supporting is the fact that the WBG are not afraid to back new technologies in order to support their growth from a nascent technology to a commercial one. Therefore, if the right battery solution for the Eskom BESS is VRFB, then it should receive the backing of the WBG, who will need to sign off on the winning bid.

https://twitter.com/AtaInsights/status/1176888192601137153?s=20

To better understand why the $5.3 billion sum is valid one needs to better understand the financial make up of the Eskom BESS/Sere Wind Farm finance. That can be see more clearly on the following slide.

https://twitter.com/AtaInsights/status/1176887972114907137?s=20

Of the total $1.8 billion total cost of the whole project (Sere Wind Farm included, which is already constructed) $42m of this is for Eskom to pay.

$900m is bilateral and commercial funding (See the private sector element above). The rest is made up of the WBG Climate Investment Fund and finance from the likes of the IBRD and AfDB.

The make up for each project would change but the key point is that the all 3 finance sources go hand in hand. So we aren't talking about merely the $1 billion from the WBG, or the further $1 billion from the IBRD/IDA etc. The full $5.3 billion will be in play because the WBG and its Climate Investment Fund is acting as the fulcrum and the enabler for the rest of the funding to be realised.

That means that there is a $5.3 billion fund now driving the uptake of battery systems and it is starting its journey in Bushveld Minerals back yard.

Of the other

@pb940 Thank you for posting the daily Maverick article. While I tread with caution when it comes to the ANC, it is certainly a positive development, which for me ties very much in with what the World Bank's Frederick Verdol spoke about in the Eskom BESS Project webinar.

I assume that this webinar has been posted previously and debated at length because the lack of reaction to it, post my words on it yesterday, has left me surprised.

It is a very detailed insight into the workings of both Eskom and the World Bank, and how they have gone about putting together this project, and what it means for future projects, not only at Eskom but also as part of the World Bank's $1 billion/$4.3 billion drive to introduce battery storage on a commercial scale.

That global project will be the making of the battery storage industry and it is starting in South Africa, where the only world wide fully integrated energy storage company exists, and is bet equipped to answer the question that is being posed by Eskom.

Win that contract and commence a supply relationship with both Eskom and indirectly with the World Bank, will place Be and BMN, at the centre of a very big and active story indeed.

Mr Verdol talks about Ramaphosa's remarks at the UN Climate Summit and South Africa's intention to introduce an $11 billion climate finance facility to finance its energy transition, which is admirable and well received.

However, I am under no illusions here. The fund and this change of direction is designed to get S.A. and Eskom out of a big financial hole. This energy transition is designed to allow Eskom debt to be transferred, whilst attracting much needed new capital in the form of concessionary funding.

But at the end of the day does it really matter how S.A. gets there as along as it does. I maintain my reservations as to the speed with which the ANC government can instigate any plans it conceives. However, this is a major move in the right direction and times very nicely with the BESS project tender launch.

One thing is for sure the S.A. government will be watched closely along with the funding and efforts associated with it

@MtSparky Yes it has indeed been talked to death and mainly by myself but it also continues to be completely misunderstood and it is that which is driving its regurgitation.

However, I do take your point and our lengthy debates here can do little to change that perception. That is for I3E to deliver at the appropriate time.

@zeusfarla Yes I am agree that such a sell off will normally lead to market participants being far more cautionary in their approach.

I would also add caution that the A3 well is yet to be re-defined by the company and there are words out there that indicate a potential need to re-permit, which could come with risk. There are also other risks such as weather.

In addition, the A3 well must be drilled in order for the license obligations to be met and as i have said its result is needed to define the phase 1 development options. However, those reasons also support an argument that the company will be pulling out all stops to ensure that the A3 drill follows on from the S1 well.

Can they fail? Yes.

Are the chances of failing to get the A3 well drilled this year as high as the MC currently shows? No.

If the market understood the phase 1 development options better, then it would automatically create more confidence in the A3 well being realised.

My understanding of the interims was that a process is under way to optimise the A3 well location. The efforts I have witnessed in turning around the S1 drill, demonstrate that this team is on it and there is time to be gained back on these drills.

So for me we are highly likely looking at a 2 well drill with very healthy, be it not entirely defined, COS. Both can impact the development plan for phase 1 LIB but the A3 well can bring home the fully realised phase 1 development, that was attached by the market to the L2 result.

That drill's 70% COS is not suddenly going to disappear. Could it be slightly lower? Yes. But would that justify the current MC when we know that an equally high COS xrill in the form of Serenity is about to start? No, absolutely not and on current evidence, nobody is going to convince me otherwise, although I would like to understand the L2 result better and appreciate how and when A3 will move forward and in what context.

Morning everyone,

I haven't posted for a while because my view is that this process will end in a sale and unfortunately there is little we smaller shareholders can do to affect it.

I am disappointed that the Indico-2 appraisal well has not been spud. At this stage I am struggling to conclude that it is incompetence. Yes ONGC are slow but it has now been over 2 months since the Sol-1 result was announced. That is a time period that smacks more of strategy than anything else.

It is perhaps also a sign of just how quickly ONGC feel this sale process will be completed and how much they would be interested in securing the remaining 30% of the block. The block is after all has very solid reserves and opportunities within it and ONGC do not need a partner on it anymore.

Whilst I do take the move by John Wardle to be a positive sign of how things are progressing and indeed perhaps how confident he is at least, of a final result here but there is the earlier report from Twitter (see below), which did talk about the presentations taking place in the last week of September, which if true, would place the offers at mid to late Oct at best.

Of course we must be careful what information we trust but the author is at the very least, a name that is known in the energy reporting field.

Like I say I am still very much in the this deal will get concluded camp. It is just about when.

https://twitter.com/twistednico/status/1176050600951386112?s=21

Further to my last post, I would like to add the following.

Firstly, from where I am sitting the market is getting this all wrong at the moment. The emphasis on the L2 pilot well result is simply too strong, given where it sits in the context of the whole story. Yes the market has had a shock and that is going to mean a drop in confidence and a drop in valuation but it is well overdone.

It is important to appreciate what the BOD has told the market very clearly since the result, in both the interview and the interim report.

I3E still has a viable 2 well phase 1 development but it may be that the LP1 well has to be employed in the first year, which given its length, will potentially affect the costs required to complete the phase 1 development, and that is a risk until better defined by the company.

The ideal plan for I3E would have been LP2 and LP4, using the epicentre as presented in the January 2019 presentation. Both are shorter in length and were until the L2 result, thought to hold greater reserves (approx 8mmbbl each given what we were told in the 10th Sept interview and what we know of 8mmbbl 2C resources being stated in the January presentation, which can only come from Phase 2 and around the LP4 location).

The LP1 well should then hold around 5mmbbl. Given Mr Shafiq stated 21mmbbl of reserves between the 3 well locations.

The issue here is that until the A3 well is drilled, the company does not know what it has and how it should move forward both economically and in a manner that respects the OGA requirements.

So we have to see the result of the A3 well first before the development plan can be defined.

That alone divides risk/reward on the Liberator development in its current form between the L2 and A3 drills. The market however has thus far placed all of the risk/reward on the L2 result and in some quarters has written off phase 1 entirely.

That is in my opinion an error, when based on the information that is available to date.

Yes the epicentre (drill centre) may move West but it will only be because the development is adjusted to capture the most viable phase 1 development plan, for the reasons already provided above.

That does not remove LP1 from the equation or render it uneconomical. It would be choice made because I3E have a better option further West.

Right now the company is still analysing the data from the LP2 well, which we know still contains oil, just not the 8mmbbl believed to be there pre-drill. It may be that the company adjusts all 3 phase 1 trajectories to better capture the remaining LP2 reserves, we don't know. What is however abundantly clear to me, is that the company has a lot more options for phase 1 than is currently perceived. It is just that I3E have to complete their drilling campaign to establish what the best option for phase 1 is.

Morning Alexios.

I'm sorry but I disagree.

The interview you refer to I assume is the one directly after the initial well result (10th Sept).

In order to appreciate what Graham Heath says, one has to take his words in the context of what was relayed across the entire interview.

At the end of that interview Graham Heath does say the following ;

"The next big hurdle for us is putting a formal senior lending reserve base lending facility in place. That will be underpinned by the phase 1 field development plan that we have been and continue to work on for Liberator."

"Its epicentre has been in the South East of the field. That LP2, 4 and 1 location. That would sum up to 55mmbbl of STOIIP. The wells that we bring on, the order that we bring on in, is going to be based on the data from this well (L2) and then the A3 well, and we are going to position those wells in the future. The epicentre may end up shifting West into the higher relief part of the field as a result of that."

Nowhere does he say that the LP1 well is not economic or that it won't be employed in the Phase 1 development. What he indicates, which ties very much in with what I have been saying here, is that the epicentre may move West, but will depend on the full analysis of both the L2 result and the A3 appraisal well.

This is further supported by Majid Shafiq at 3 mins 7 secs.

"At the moment our interpretation is that this (L2 result) doesn't change what we are seeing in the North East of the field (A3 LIB upside), or the South East of the field, which is where the LP1 well was supposed to be located ultimately. So that hasn't changed. What has changed is the area around where we were going to plan to put the LP2"

"So our phased development for this was 2 wells coming on stream next year. There was only ever going to be 2 wells coming on stream. At the moment our interpretation is that the LP4 location hasn't changed and the LP1 location hasn't changed. So we would still potentially have 2 wells that could be brought on initially in the first year of phase 1, and we've yet to determine where we would place an LP2 type well, and that is what we need to work out."

There are more words to be had in the interview but the key is that LP1 has always been and continues to be considered, a viable well location, its just that it perhaps isn't their 1st choice if they could start elsewhere.

The drilling programme must be completed in order to asses all of the data fully and to determine the very best field plan, that respects both the economic needs of I3E but also the demands of the OGA (maximising recoverable resources).

Without the A3 well result that Phase 1 plan cannot be fully realised but that would have always been the case, even with a solid result on L2. The problem now is the market sees it all as far more risk because of the L2 result.

(3 of 3)

Now what does that say about how close the IDC are to this government and how much BMN have pulled their levers to help get this project done?

In the Q&A session Mr Moyo (around 50 mins 20s) says "if we complete the market evaluations early next year, you've got 6-9 months to deliver on the different packages, and we are hopeful that it can still be done."

I disagree but we will have to wait and see. I trust if BE are successful then any extension of time will only help them with their localised procurement options but would trust that it would not be detrimental to their future chances to tender.

Then at 51 mins he talks about safety. "I am worried about safety because some technologies (lithium-ion) are facing problems around the world, and I would like to learn from that and not repeat those mistakes."

That's an easy one. Simply don't allow a lithium-ion bid to win.

In conclusion, i have jumped around a bit as the webinar encouraged me to do so but despite the comment about the "award to successful bidder for the first site," everything else including the tight deadlines post market evaluation awards, points towards one EPC delivering on the whole 200MW in phase 1.

Furthermore, there is certainly plenty tom be encouraged about in terms of a VRFB solution winning the day here, with enough headwinds clearly already in place for lithium-ion bids and that's before it has to start competing with a localised supply chain in Bushveld Energy.

Then we have the added advantages of the IDC backing and partnering with BE, which when all brought together, points to a very strong case for BE.

The only slight concern i have is the experience of building these projects but that is as I say, countered by the IDCs support, countered by BE's clear costs competitiveness, and supported by UET's experience in the market.

I have had a lot of belief in what Bushveld Energy can achieve with this project ever since I discovered that it existed last year. This update and the words from both Mr Moyo and Mr Verdol, not only reinforce that but help drive that belief home.

This project is not the only battery storage opportunity out there, nor is it absolutely necessary for BE to build projects in order to succeed. It is however, the very best opportunity they could hope to cement their place in this industry and to drive their fully integrated ambitions.

Its local and they have very senior people in very high places, helping them towards their goal.

I like BMN the vanadium miner but I am here for BMN the fully integrated vanadium energy storage play, and this project as far as I can see. Is their golden ticket to that club, and its really not very far away now.

(2 of 3)

(20 mins onwards)

Mr Moyo goes on to talk about the minimum performance guarantee needing to be at least 20 years.

Slide 20 of the webinar discusses the performance benefits of VRFBs and Lithium-ion, with the Lithium-ion battery being noted as having a calendar life of 3-10 years, and the VRFB circa 20-25 years. If a performance guarantee is given and it fails then Eskom is currently considering financial penalties for this.

I struggle to see right now how a lithium-ion battery solution can give that sort of guarantee and remain at a competitive advantage to a VRFB, let alone a locally supplied one with locally manufactured electrolyte in it. Although 200MW of batteries require a lot more electrolyte than the current scope for the East London plant can deliver.

Now up until the 23 mins mark it looks very much like Eskom are looking for 1 bidder to take all 200MW in a staggered approach over 8 sites.

However, the next slide (23 mins) states "contract award to successful bidder for the first site," which counters that view point at least a little.

From what I can see BE's biggest hinderance could be its experience but with UET and the IDC on board, they should be able to alleviate this concern considerably.

Frederick Verdol from the World Bank.

(35 mins) He talks about the opportunity that South Africa has to start a new energy storage industry and that ; "South Africa has a lot of potential in terms of minerals, and some potential in terms of mineralisation."

Furthermore, "so definitely, the different entities in the government saw an interest in looking at the battery storage, not only as a technology of change but also a new market for South Africa."

Practically the same words fell out of Bertie Styrdom's mouth back in 2017 and were used by Christo Fourie in his comments in the BMN RNS dated 13th June 2016, when he said ;

"The IDC and Bushveld Energy share a common vision for the development of a new industry that will ultimately benefit all South Africans through increased local minerals beneficiation, the creation of jobs across the value chain, the increased availability of power and the overall stimulation of growth in the economy."

As I keep saying the IDCis at the heart of this and is side by side with Bushveld Energy going into this tender.

However, it gets even better on the next slide.

(37 mins onwards) He refers to comments made by the president Ramaphosa "where he basically said the minerals are there, the labour force is there, the market is there, so lets do all the value chain integration in South Africa."

I never heard Ramaphosa say that but when the man from the World Bank says its true, and he's driving a large scale battery project of this scale, then I believe him.

(1 of 3)

Having again reviewed the recent articles on the Eskom BESS project, I began to doubt that the authors were truly understanding what they had witnessed. So I decided to go in search of the source.

Below is the webinar from which those articles were actually written.

https://atainsights.com/recording-and-presentations-new-tender-large-scale-battery-storage-opportunity-in-south-africa/

Key takeaways for me (12 mins 30s) BESS Scope calls for the bidder to provide a solution that not only meets the use case of Eskom but most importantly can "integrate with Eskom control and monitor infrastructure."

The BE battery at Rosherville has and is continuing to do that as we speak. Only the BYD China battery is doing the same right now.

At around 15 mins 10s Prince Moyo states that "the EPC or supplier as we call them" and then goes on to talk about their responsibilities under the project.

On the next slide Prince Moyo confirms that Phase 2 site selection and bid documents, will be completed within the next 2 months.

(17 mins 30s onwards) After the tender process will be amongst other things "the selection of the successful bidder."

Phase 1 is 200MW split into 4 packages over 8 sites and the bid documents are ready to be issued subject to "1 or 2 approvals." This could be staggered but that isn't decided yet.

He then gives some indication as to the requirements for 20% local content. From what he says about the use of local contractors, local components, such as transformers, steel etc, it does not look too over bearing for those that bid. That said, if a company can demonstrate a far greater amount of local content, then that will clearly assist their bid because the requirement is minimum 20% not just 20%.

(19 mins onwards) On the next slide Mr Moyo talks about the evaluation of the bids.

The key elements for me here is the "total cost of ownership " and the fact that it will essentially be about the life cycle costs or levelised costs, which BE and Mr Nikomarov in particular, are always so keen to stress upon. To witness the significance of this decision by Eskom, I would encourage a review of slide 15 of the Energy Storage Webinar 101.

By ensuring that the levelised costs will be considered, the VRFB becomes more advantageous, and that's before we start talking about cycles per day.