We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I would post the judgement once more and encourage shareholders to read it and appreciate not only the recognition of the legality of the direct awards/ contract size but also the reasoning why so many points are still able to be argued later down the line.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SUu5mFq_fJscTwoxfb9BZSMWJC0puRpl/view
PART 2
2/2
It is frustrating as a shareholder in ABDX that the DHSC chose to defend their actions so flippantly and with disregard for the case because it has allowed the process to run much longer than perhaps needed.
It is in my opinion shameful of the GLP that they are using crowdfunding to continue to pursue a case against British companies and institutions by arguing points against British company bias and disregard for the EU laws that were only still in play in 2020 because the country was in transition.
Having established in court that a direct award for material and the 10m tests were legal, would British citizens really want British companies who answered an urgent call from UK Gov in the middle of a pandemic more questions existed than answers ( a point that justice Waksman made very clear when he dismissed the main battleground claims 1 and 3) to be dragged through the courts because they were favoured over EU counterparts? Or that the UK Gov supported them with 'state aid' so that they could perhaps deliver a solution that at the time would help bring lockdowns to an end?
Yes, there are questions over Sir John Bells role but again this was a crisis and things needed to get done at a time when the diagnostics industry was stretched and capacity was being claimed all around the world. Something the GLP have never recognized despite justice Waksman making it very clear that he recognised such a world existed and that "hindsight" was all too easy to apply.
The GLP has gone looking for corruption and crony type favouritism and has found a very limited contract that is judged to be fair but that technically can be challenged and defeated. Whatever happens, the outcome is not going to be what they had hoped for. But they continue anyway.
All that said, when the case is argued if the UK Gov team doesn't put up a more robust defence then the case could be lost on a technicality and deemed illegal, meaning that small British diagnostic companies that committed their resources in good faith at a time when they could have been sold 10 times over, could lose out completely.
The GLP should be ashamed of such action be it that the UK Gov has helped them along with their cause by to date not fighting this case properly.
That all said, this case doesn't break ABDX. It merely means they may have to adjust their plan to get to 3m tests a week slightly. If the AVCT test demand is as they state which I believe it is then ABDX could well have a really strong H1 2022 (31st Dec 2021) anyway and the DHSC case will become a fight that can be parked and fought further down the line.
Even without it, ABDX has substantial manufacturing capacity to answer all demand in both the short and longer term. So the DHSC saga is a distraction but it is worth discussing and trying to get to the bottom of. I hope this lengthy post has helped some who don't understand it a well as others.
PART 2
1/2
The problem part comes with the GLP (Good Law Project) case against the DHSC and their desire to prove that the contract was illegal and so should be null and void. If that were to occur prior to the DHSC payment being made then there is no contract and so no payment is outstanding under the law.
This should then make all contracts attached to the contract also null and void meaning no one gets paid.
ABDX would then be on the line for their share only. Not the headline figure of £6.7m.
In this enclosed GLP post from their website the private company (and that is what it is and not a charity) takes great delight in announcing that "we are going to court."
This was achieved because in the court judgement the judge found that 4 of the clams had grounds to be arguable before the court and so could proceed.
What they failed to mention is that when it came to the "key battleground" (as justice Waksman called it in his judgement) the GLP action was dismissed.
What these two actions stated was that,
1. There were no grounds for making a direct award to ABDX for either the materials or the test contract.
2. That the award of anything "beyond a stop-gap was disproportionate."
Meaning the fact that the UK Gov placed these two orders directly with ABDX and then decided to purchase 1m tests prior to following up with a further 9m (now cancelled) is in the eyes of the law, completely within their remit to do so.
https://goodlawproject.org/update/abingdon-health-going-to-court/
What that then leaves is a court case that is supposedly being fought in the interests of the public purse but that now focuses on elements that in my eyes are far more trivial because the direct award of the contract for 10m tests + materials can no longer be disputed. It was legal.
So the key ingredients of the GLP case come down to "apparent bias" because Professor Sir John Bell is recognised as being on both sides of the contract. That's the reason it's arguable because the UK Gov didn't offer evidence to explain why this came about.
Then we have,
1. preferential treatment towards a British company,
2. the obligations of equal treatment which ties into the British question,
3. the contract awards led to the grant of unlawful state aid
4. the awarding of a further contract (test supply) without ABDX (UK-RTC) achieving the required validation of the test first.
Against all of these points, Justice Waksman made it clear that under the law they were arguable because the UK Gov (defence) simply hadn't produced enough evidence to answer why things were conducted in the manner they were. This can be seen from the judgement which is copied below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SUu5mFq_fJscTwoxfb9BZSMWJC0puRpl/view
PART 1
Morning all,
I am going to publish this here because there is more space to expand than on my Twitter feed.
In terms of the DHSC contract as most are aware the total bill outstanding from the DHSC is £6.7m. This bill includes a profit margin.
According to the main contract issued by Bidstats to ABDX for the supply of tests "Proportion sub-contracted is an 'Up to' figure, in this case, 'Up to' 44 percent." So there was always an intention for ABDX to subcontract the work to their consortium partners.
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W43/737280030
This is backed up by the ODX RNS dated 6th Oct 2020 which stated that "Omega expects to manufacture approximately 175,000 of these first 1 million tests."
It is reasonable to assume that BBI and CIGA will have contributed also although I can find no hard facts available to back this up at this time. Given it's a consortium of 4 manufacturers it is unlikely that ABDX would invite just one to manufacture this first batch.
Whilst there is no mention of subcontracting in the second contract awarded to ABDX for "Provision of Components and Materials for Antibody Test Kits," it is fair to assume that the partners will have taken a share of this contract as a means to deliver their share of the 1m test order.
Taking Omega as an example. Their 175,000 test contribution is equivalent to 17.5% of the order and so when considering materials and tests procured they would be on the line for c. £1.17m of the total £6.7m outstanding.
At 44% of the total contract, £2.95m would be costs/profit associated with other parties. The final total may well be somewhere in between but what is key is that ABDX themselves aren't £6.7m out of pocket at this stage.
That places the reported £7.7m of cash on hand and the need to potentially curtail costs/further expansion in true context.
As for the DHSC/GLP case itself, it is worth reminding ourselves that when ABDX released their response to the BMJ report that criticised the performance of the AbC-19 test back in November 2020, the DHSC was quoted as saying this,
“This report shows these tests are approved for use in surveillance studies, which is what they were purchased for. “They were never intended for, and have never been issued for widespread public use and it is misleading and unnecessarily inflammatory to purposefully ignore this fact in the report. “This robust evaluation was carried out by PHE at the Department’s request before any purchase was made, and PHE approved the test for use in surveillance studies.”
https://www.abingdonhealth.com/news/abc-19-response-to-media/
So the DHSC has publicly stated it is happy with the performance of the test and that through PHE it was properly validated prior to the order being placed. That lends itself to a satisfactory process that ends with payment being eventually made.
Two threads on vanadium to add to the many that I have put together these last few months.
We form our opinions based on what we know and what we are able to find out.
Everyone individual must do their own research and make their own conclusions.
I am absolutely clear here. Everything points towards a surge in vanadium prices over the coming months and it will continue as long as steel production remains so elevated. There will likely be bumps in the road along the way but I don't think we are high enough yet to warrant such a move.
Given the muted response of late to my posts on the subject, the wider market clearly isn't in tune with this yet and so the panic has yet to start. So we are seeing better vanadium prices so what? BMN still can't be making much money and their costs are rising?
That's the message I am hearing but it's extremely short-sighted and lacks the ambition of reading the detail and figuring out what a +4,000mtV producer can do when the above set of circumstances play out. Never mind the reaction when vanadium becomes hot again and investors start including expansion plans etc.
I think the same theme is running through the vanadium trading market as well although it certainly looks to be warming up now.
On the current trajectory, those sorts of attitudes simply have to change.
Somewhere sandwiched in between all of that are VRFBs which may well be about to get another pricing shock which I am hopeful the like of BMN will look to shield them from.
Future events still have to happen for the above to be true but my view (and it isn't investment advice because that's not allowed around these parts) is that this is not the time to be leaving the vanadium ship. It's a time for positioning, waiting and watching.
When I used to be a regular around here I would often use such phrases as "blow the b****y doors off" and "perfect storm."
With age and time served in these markets, I have tried to avoid such language and let the facts do the talking instead. However, the current situation of low inventory maxed out Chinese V production, unprecedented steel demand, lack of investment in the vanadium space, Covid led pent up demand and of course pending large scale VRFB projects, is all combining to deliver a true perfect storm.
I want the VRFB revolution to succeed and extremely high vanadium prices will hurt that goal but it is what it is and BMN as a very large primary producer of vanadium will benefit greatly and that's just fine with me. Significant revenues can open many VRFB/vanadium production doors in the future so I will gladly take it.
Have a lovely weekend everyone.
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1400766402752094210?s=20
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1400812852227756033?s=20
The most direct question I have ever seen FM asked.
Note he was open to responding by saying that the world "will" need a lot more vanadium. Not could...
Thank you for sharing.
We appear to have reached the stage where sentiment is bottoming.
Every reason that can be found for negative price performance is being sort and applied, whilst all the reasons for positivity and belief are being questioned. At times like this, it is easy to jump on the most convenient sentiment-driven bandwagon and forget what is really happening or to believe that it doesn't matter.
We can all make up our own minds as to what the real reasons are. My view is that the market isn't stupid. Yes, there are macro risks out there but they don't answer all questions. The rise in BMN's base commodity is significant enough to deliver a higher price range than £180m MC. The longer it stays at these elevated levels the less possibility there is that the SP can stay where it is.
Logic tells me that the market didn't just give up on BMN or forget it exists. The introduction of the likes of FAR and IES and previous successes put pay to that. Also, whatever market Largo is on it is successful and that also should be rubbing off to a certain extent.
So other forces must be in play. Most likely is a seller(s) who needs to be soaked up but isn't currently getting enough demand. I would think once they clear the demand was needed to remove them will suddenly appear. That's not to say that there isn't caution and more money being kept in pockets but a commodities bull run is under way and cannot be entirely ignored.
Some big economies are just leaving or are still to come out of major lockdowns. Their pent up demand is likely just being felt. So in my view, we still have some way to go before we really understand where the world economy is true health-wise. In the meantime, I simply cannot see how demand won't stay buoyant in BMN's key steel market. Yes, we will likely see pullbacks but prices have already reached a long-termer sweet spot and that as things stand that will shine through at some point.
It is rare that companies are beaten up for sacrificing profit for expansion only to be given no credit for said expansion. BMN will go min. +5,000 mtV next year and will significantly reduce its cost base. I would think higher is still on the cards.
In an elevated pricing environment, at some point that will gain respect.
Sentiment is a switch that turns on and off in the blink of an eye. When it turns here the negative elements will of course quite rightly still find their place but the positive sides to this story will also suddenly come shining through once again.
VRFBs are coming on mass and whatever BMN does or does not do in the energy storage space, their expanded operations and support minded approach to VRFBs, is going to win them a great many admirers. At 5,000 mtV they will be a big player in that world.
I've just revisited the numbers on here.
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1398186501826039808?s=20
Everything points towards YU at least hitting that SP Angel c. £128m revenue level in 2021. The initial interpretation of the monthly bookings figure is a big miss by the market. Be it that in such a low liquidity share the SP reaction can be warped and not really reflect true market feelings.
That will perhaps right itself in the coming days/weeks as we move towards the end of July update and/or new acquisitons.
Morning everyone,
I am surprised by the drop in the SP today. It doesn't fit with the update be it that we have limited information to go off. As far as I can make out the market seemed to think it was going to be seeing an improvement on H2 2020 monthly bookings which doesn't add up.
I posted this on Twitter this morning.
It's taken from page 8 of the 2020 FY accounts. There we can see that over the last 2 years H1 monthly bookings performance was consistently c. 65% lower than H2.
H1 2020 delivered £6.2m in average monthly bookings which in turn meant a yearly average of £8.2m. That total allowed YU to deliver £93m in contracted revenues for 2021 by the end of 2020.
However, this is an end of April position and not the full H1 outcome. At this point in 2020 (see 21st May 2020 RNS) YU was reporting an end of April average monthly bookings figure of £5.7m "despite the impact of Covid-19 which temporarily reduced the level of enquiries in the early stages of lockdown." So much the same as H1 2021 has had to deal with to date.
That equates to an 8.8% improvement on the end of April position.
2019 data isn't available which I suspect is due to the recovery from the accounting fiasco and so the update came in late June.
However, 2018 whilst skewed by events at the time also demonstrated that same improvement with the end of April figure of £6.6m being improved to £7.82m. So a c. 18.50% improvement.
That points to the H1 figure coming in higher than the reported £7.2m. A result close to that of 2020 would see the H1 average hit c. £7.8m. That's just 4.9% lower than the entire 2020 average which generated those £93m in contracted revenues for the following year.
To that, we then need to start factoring in some of that 65% increase in H2 bookings.
The SP Angel target for this year which they believe will create a small net profit is c. £128m in revenues. With £93m already in the bag, YU really doesn't have to work all that hard to achieve that outcome, especially when we consider that H1 is likely going to contribute upwards of c. £45m in new business alone. None of which includes acquisitions that are looking more and more bullish.
All in all I really don't understand what the market was employed as a metric here because the H1 performance as things stand, points to a bullish year and a profitable business. So I am a buyer at these levels.
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1397829513762033667?s=20
The movements and frustrations in the SP are short term activities only.
3 things are key here,
1. The main products that BMN produce are increasing in price and the company is moving into healthy profitability.
2. The company's expansion programme is underway
3. That future production costs will be lower, increasing profitability during any future downturns.
All of that gives BMN the ability to build up a war chest that will protect the expansion programme even if the market turns severely south. The way things are going on the pricing front they may go on and do much better than that this year. The point is that the expansion programme delivers the vanadium and pricing levels necessary to really drive the VRFB part of the business. Significant profits now enable them to support their VRFB partners and goals even when prices push very high. It's a balancing act and it is made all the easier by healthy vanadium prices and a strong balance sheet.
BMN is a well-known stock. The 2018 rises took care of that. The price rises are not going unnoticed. There are active sellers about but they won't be here forever. Any sign that they have exited should see a significant change of market activity here. The longer it takes the more firepower will feed into that activity.
My opinion only.
No problem whatsoever.
An analysis of the numbers from today's Ferroalloys report says that China FeV is now running at $40 per kg.
Argus Media is playing catch up at the moment be it they are now getting closer to reality.
It is of course about FY averages as opposed to one-off price points but such moves help a great deal and for BMN their year is all about post Q1 maintenance ramp up. Let's not forget that 83% of production and likely min. 80% of sales will come from Q2 onwards.
The vanadium market is looking very healthy for BMN right now.
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1397136785692676097?s=20
Morning all,
Here's a couple of posts that I sent out this morning on Twitter which I think contain important information on the vanadium market as it stands.
Whatever the likes of vanadiumprice.com may say about current pricing I don't believe they are putting much effort into their conclusions. In my opinion, the V205 market is key to everything else however much the other vanadium product markets may fight it.
China is key to every other world market because it has the highest demand and exports to those markets. So its prices at home have the ability to starve other markets trying to operate at lower prices. In a tight market that doesn't work.
Big factory prices will be key next week but $9 per lb looks to be on the cards very soon. Whilst catch-up processes may be required for the FeV/VN markets who tend to try to fight these rises in V205, that should lead to +$40 per kg FeV.
We must be careful with what we wish for but that sort of consistent pricing gives BMN a healthy profit this year and can act as a buffer if any potential global market slowdown or worse comes along. This for me first and foremost is about maintaining the expansion plans and delivering on the wider integrated plans. $40 per kg in my view delivers that wit the chance that it may well push much higher
That's my starter for 10.
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1395671249695780865?s=20
https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1395664685341585410?s=20
My goodness idly! mildly successful...
Hi Paul150,
I am deeply conscious of my potential influence on these things and so will say upfront that as always this is my opinion and it is absolutely on a par with yours and anybody else's and we all have a right to challenge each other professionally and in the context of recognising and respecting the risk that we all take as investors/traders. I research BMN hard but that doesn't mean that my conclusions are always right.
That aside I would the following.
The $30.50 per kg mark is the best marker that I could establish in order to see where BMN sits in this defining year because it should be the highest production cost we will ever witness if the next refurbishment stages are even idly successful.
That figure is pre-tax. However, it certainly looks like BMN are going to book a significant loss for 2020. I also continue to hold the view that BMN will employ South African government incentives for their brownfield expansions at both Vametco and Vanchem (See below link and run the further 'Do you qualify?' link on the right-hand side).
http://www.investmentincentives.co.za/expenditure-capital/large-industry
It is abundantly clear to me that the current expansion programme qualifies for these incentives. That effectively means up to R550m of investment can be deducted from their tax payments. Using my revised R14.50 exchange rate for 2021 that equates to c. $38m and covers the vast majority of expenses in this regards for the next 2 years. Even more so if each plant can be applied for separately given they are separate entities under the same corporate umbrella. If so then said $38m may be doubled.
My only caveat is that there was a deadline for applications around mid-2020 but as far as I can see that no longer appears on the DTI website. Given that the opportunity is still on their website one is entitled to assume that it is still very much in play.
The DTI is of course the department headed up by Minister Patel who directly referenced vanadium beneficiation in his speech yesterday and which BMN stated they were joining "to help the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition to drive its localization strategy for South Africa."
So they certainly are aware of each other.
https://twitter.com/BushveldMin_Ltd/status/1394877057079914498?s=20
So whilst any figure calculated above $30.50 should be taxable there is solid reasoning available to say it won't be this year and will likely be reduced in 2022. It will of course ultimately depend on just how profitable BMN can be in 2021/22.
Said incentives should also apply to the electrolyte plant under the greenfield umbrella which is costing BMN a further $5m and gains an extra point for being situated in an IDZ.
Finally, it's important not to forget that BMN has already made min. c$8m profit from its BE related asset sales this year, be it in a more unconventional manner than expected.
@coffeecups
The PFA deal was agreed between Orion and Vametco Alloys, not Bushveld Vanadium. It is therefore sectioned off from the rest of the business and the gross revenue rates are therefore associated with Vametco only. So it's highly unlikely that parent guarantees would be set up for the whole vanadium business.
The rate is to "be serviced through quarterly repayment amounts (comprising repayment of principal and payment of interest)." So it's not pure royalty as it includes repayment of the principal be it that we don't know the exact breakdown between principal and interest.
It is tied to inflation but the denomination isn't given and so the S.A. inflation assumption is just that. As it is tied to revenues and these are in dollars (note unit price and vanadium price both in dollars), one would expect that this is the inflation currency.
Also,
"On each of the first three loan anniversaries, the Borrower has the option to repay up to 50 per cent of both constituent loan parts. If the Borrower utilises the loan repayment option, the gross revenue rate and the unit rate will reduce accordingly."
Given that this loan is tied to Vametco production but that BMN is expanding Vanchem through the separate CLN and is due to take its electrolyte plant into production late next year, there is a very good chance that BMN will be in a position to start to make such payments and reduce the gross revenue and unit rates stated.
Additionally, this year's gross revenue rate is lower at 1.175%. Therefore the increased rate of 1.45% from 2022, may not be around for very long (perhaps c. 3 years) and is perhaps why it was agreed in the first place, in order to give Orion a better return.
This deal as far as I can see has been based on the assumption that BMN will add significant production, reduce its production costs substantially and therefore have profit to pay down the loan. Therefore the gross rate and unit prices as they begin are of less relevance. What is however highly relevant is the refurbishment programme's success.
As for the Vametco workers taking advantage of this situation that's a bit of a jump for me. The strike commenced c. 5 months after this deal was closed and its outcome was a payment of R4,500 per Vametco worker. At last count, Vametco employed 380 people and management there wasn't a part of this deal. However, even if we say that everyone received a payment that equates to 1.7m Rand which is c. £85,000. In the scheme of things, such a sum is irrelevant.
It's a good deal for both parties that is designed to push BMN to perform and deliver up to 6,800 mtV. If they do that this deal will be remembered for what it was, the means to make the big plans come to fruition at a time when life was hard.
In criticising the make-up of this deal it is all too easy to forget what brought us to this moment in time.
BMN completed the purchase of Vanchem in November 2019 knowing that they had significant finance to find to refurbish the plant to a level that made it profitable once more. Like so many businesses that are trying to better themselves they could not have envisaged that Covid would come along and completely upend their markets.
The timing for BMN couldn't have been worse. It has already been reported that the discussions with Orion had been in play since shortly after the Vanchem deal got done. The Durfeco payments were a line in the sand created before knowing what the future would hold. Covid not only removed BMN's revenues streams but decimated its share price at the exact point that they were attempting to get this deal over the line.
So bold decisions had to be made which is clear from the 17p agreed for the CLNs.
It is a testament to what BMN has to offer that Orion closed this deal at all but yes they did hold many of the cards and that shows in the deal structure. However, what better choice did they have in 2020?
This deal whilst likely costing shareholders up to c. 16% in dilution and perhaps some selling pressure, also delivers the funds to take this business to 6,800 mtV. Overall when given sufficient time to execute is a very good deal for shareholders.
That conclusion is further compounded by the fact that in the months leading up to the closing of the CLN deal on the 9th Nov 2020, the SP averaged around 12p. With their finances taking a battering due to Covid and bills to the like of Duferco coming due, attempting to raise the sort of capital needed in a placement, would have attracted far worse lenders and cost us all far more dilution.
BMN made the best of a bad situation and with it attracted one of the very best mining lenders onto the books. Yes, Orion will do very well out of this deal but so will BMN, given what it could have cost them and what Orion could have pushed for.
These things are forgotten all too easily. The plan is intact and the building process began in earnest when this deal got signed, but like all things mining time is required to execute.
2/2
My view is that Orion is a real long term partner in this and will likely (dependent on company performance of course) wait until much further down the line to convert. After all their price is set and they can make great returns by just picking up the interest. I could then see them converting towards the end of the deal or indeed immediately prior to payment at BMN's request which would then give them the best of both worlds. Again depending on BMN's performance during that period.
The caveat in that being that BMN can request their conversion once the share price sits 200% above the conversion rate of 17p for 15 consecutive trading days. Something I certainly expect them to achieve during that 3 year period.
Prior to that I simply don't see Orion converting unless they wish to sell the shares and given their style I personally don't see them seeking a fast buck on this. So it would have to be in a scenario where the SP is considerably higher than 17p. Their investment is as far as I can see supportive and designed to realise a far greater outcome later down the line.
My view only of course.
1/2
Afternoon everyone,
I just wanted to flesh out my thoughts on the Orion situation given it is a topic of concern.
First of all, here is a recent deal that Orion Mine Finance (OMF - which is who we are in business with) concluded with Occidental for $1.3BN.
The same article states that OMF has some $6.2BN in assets under management. Does that guarantee that they won't convert their CLNs and sell the lot? No.
What it demonstrates is just how big a mining asset player BMN has got into bed with. This is no YD or Orange Trust we are dealing with here. Their goals are arguably more long terms and for bigger prizes. Having searched the internet I cannot find another CLN deal that they have concluded. They tend to be more royalties orientated which is what their deal with HZM gained them.
https://apnews.com/article/f0e91d867ca4a311b49d02e4ac2ab746
The only deal I can see on the list of historic transactions that they provide that is even close to a 'convertible type loan is one with Stornaway Dimaonds in July 2014.
https://www.orionresourcepartners.com/orion-mine-finance
As far as I can see they then disposed of an amount of those shares in April 2019 which is some 5 years later. This despite the share price tanking from around 2016 onwards and ending up at c. 10% of the value it was when they took their shares.
Again does not remove the possibility that they won't convert, sell and walk but there's much evidence in the sort of transactions that they do to say that it isn't their style. Through their HZM deal, I have seen evidence that they do their homework and they invest for the longer term.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/orion-mine-finance-disposes-of-shares-of-stornoway-diamond-corporation-893566333.html
In addition, it's important to appreciate that their $35m CLN delivers them $3.5m per annum in interest over a 3-year term. So simply sitting still would give them c. min. $10.5m in profit or c. 30% profit.
By converting and selling they would need to know that they could sell each tranch at a price that at the very least matched that return. One third could be converted now and the next third up to 12 months post the Dec 2020 transaction date.
At 17p each one-third element amounts to c. 49m shares. Interest after 1 year gives them another 14.7m each time.
So in total, the first tranche would be c. 63.7m shares or c. 5% of the revised total shares in issue.
To shift that amount of shares at a 30% profit they would a sizeable margin of support above the 22p mark because their sales would pull it right back down. It may of course pan out that they need the money for something else but I don't see $35m being a big problem for a company with over $6BN in total assets.
@SMT1
I never actually said that V prices could reach $60 per kg this year. I merely used that pricing as an example of potential profitability.
What I am focused on are the trend and significant pricing point breaches. That doesn't guarantee anything but right now things are looking very positive.