Member Info for BigBiteNow

(1 of 2)

@Halespur As far as I can see there is no reason to believe that the project is under threat at this time.

Looking at things logically, first of all the cost of the battery storage element of the project and in particular phase 1, which is purely a battery storage element, is fully funded (See attached document page 9 item 33, under IV Risks) through concessional funding.

The 60MW of solar PV requires the IRP to be updated and "Ministerial Determination" to be given but that is a phase 2 item and completely independent of 300MW of the total 360MW of battery storage assigned to the project.

So despite Eskoms well documented financial problems there is no reason to connect the two or believe that this would derail the project.

Therefore, if there is to be a delay, as perceived by S.A. standards, then it is likely due to the completion of the processes leading up and including the completion of the bid documents.

I note that BMN management have stated fairly recently (please excuse me the exact date and time fails me right now) that the project is due to run until 2022. As far the latest visible World Bank document is concerned, the revised date stands at December 2021.

However, this was based on timelines that delivered the bid documents no later than 15th March 2019 and the revised verbal communication from Eskom are already at "middle of the year." So 2021 already looks sporty.

In all honesty as much as we would all like to be cracking on here and for the BMN puzzle pieces to perfectly fit together, the reality is as far as i can see, that the electrolyte plant is going to come on line later than originally planned. My view is start of H2 2020. This is because the latest company announcement stating "the EIA has passed the public participation stage and it is on track to be completed this year" demonstrates that there are likely another 18-20 weeks (see 2nd enclosed document below APPROVAL and PUBLIC REVIEW) to run before this process is complete and BMN have stated that construction will only start once that process is complete, be it that the design is being completed in advance.

However, I would much rather see BMN approach a delayed BESS project with more weapons in its integrated arsenal than the tender come out earlier and BMN not be as ready as required. It should be noted that item 27 of the World Bank document states ;

"Eskom and Word Bank teams conducted technology and market reviews (visiting battery storage manufacturers in
United States of America and China for both Solid State and Flow technologies) to assist them in deciding on the
most appropriate procurement process."

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/390371543618515176/pdf/Disclosable-Restructuring-Paper-South-Africa-Eskom-Renewables-Support-Project-P122329.pdf

http://www.ecosurv.com/what-are-main-steps-eia-process

(3 of 3)

Energy storage has great support in the growing fears for the world. That is catalyst enough to support the necessary regulatory and financial shifts we are already seeing to support substantial energy storage execution at an appropriate point in time in the future. (A key fundamental)

More importantly, BMN has itself and it dogged determination to bring energy storage to the world through the leveraging of its own resources, and it is that added stronger frontier that really has me believing in where BMN will end up.

With such abundant high quality resources, low cost production, a debt free (right now) business, and (effective) first mover status on the integrated platform but also a vanadium leasing model, BMN has all the tools to deliver a strong fully integrated platform even if energy storage and VRFBs don't go on to deliver the sort of results that are being discussed in the wider market. They have the ability to become the focus point of the VRFB sector because the moves they are making/planning are substantial when placed in the context of what the industry has achieved to date and that should never be forgotten. BMN aren't just taking part here , what they are doing is help drive the direction of the industry.

BE don't just chair the Vanitec Energy Storage committee, they started it, they introduced it, and at a time when they were very small and the other members were some of the biggest names in vanadium.

Fully integrated models with ownership along the full value chain is how VRFBs will truly succeed. BMN are at the tip of that change

If investors believe that BMN can make a success of their platform then there is a very strong argument to invest or remain invested.

If investors believe that the wider market projections are realizable then that case gets all the more secure.

Then it becomes 'merely' about timing and those trigger points once more. The wider market is certainly distracted elsewhere by more readily available and better understood opportunities. That's life in investing and BMN is certainly not alone there. Furthermore, BMN haven't as yet delivered enough certainty to the market as to what all of these energy storage based developments mean to them as a business but its coming. . .

BMN as always play their cards close to their chest. They certainly don't break things down in order to impress the market or sustain their interest, that's not their style and arguably never will be. They are a team of doers and are reserved in their methods when it comes to talking to the market and selling themselves.

It has always been that way and in the end it didn't matter because the outcomes were worth it.

I see the same happening with the energy storage arm such that when it does come together enough to be appreciated by a wider audience, BMN will indeed be flavor of the month once more and the next phase of growth and understanding will be upon us.

(2 of 3)

Right now some of that reasoning as to why I remain.

The big game changer here is the potential that comes from energy storage.

BMN have made great strides in setting up their fully integrated platform, which itself is market leading merely because it almost fully exists and they are effectively the first to do it (certainly the first outside China). Others such as AVL talk very confidently about the virtues of being fully integrated, others employ the words but don't appear to show signs of how they are going to get there.

By being the first BMN have effectively stolen the same march on the competition that they achieved by buying Vametco at the bottom of the vanadium market. That demonstrates very clearly the quality and consistency of the management team that is running BMN, a point driven home by other more prominent contributors here yesterday.

It may sound too good to be true or too simple in its make up but the BMN management team is executing the same first come first served mentality that drove this business out of the junior miner pack and into that very small inner circle that makes up pure producing vanadium producers today.

To date it could be strongly argued that the limited elements of that fully integrated model that are on show, which will change what BMN is and how it is perceived as a business, are receiving very little recognition in the valuation. That there are various pieces in play is clear but none of them to date have come together in a manner that the market can understand. That is understandable given the fact that it is a model that has never truly been seen before. because it is striving to deliver something that the world has yet to see achieved at a commercially successful level.

Those that live and breathe this sector and this stock often find it difficult to understand why the market hasn't, isn't understanding this market more, and the question of when will they understand is the million dollar question and what makes investing in new ideas so intriguing and potentially so rewarding.

If we are brutally honest with ourselves what they have actually achieved to date is very little when seen in the eyes of those that do not follow this sector or story closely but its coming. . .

Bit by bit, piece by piece, BMN continues to build the elements of their platform. As an investor my focus during that phase is to ensure that they continue to achieve it all without taking too much away from what I already have.

As they build a trigger will eventually come along. It may not be the trigger we all expected but in the long game it isn't about which exact trigger, it is about the fact the trigger exists and will happen.

(1 of 3)

Following my series of posts yesterday on some of the realities of BMN life today as I see them, I would like to share some of the reasons why I am still heavily invested here. Before I do I would like to share the following :

Note - For the record I never at any point stated that current S.A. politics was having a new impact on BMN. I merely answered a question directed to me by Daitom on the subject. In order to debate fully we must first fully understand what the person we are debating with is actually attempting to convey.

S.A. politics as Daisan pointed out has always acted as a dampner but when the SP was flying it was more politely tolerated. When the valuation is under pressure it becomes more of an issue but the same rules apply. S.A. companies traded in the UK are struggling to improve market sentiment towards them, however good the story might be and right now Ramaphosa is not improving that situation as much as was hoped. Perhaps that will change but investors would be wise to follow S.A. politics as closely as they do the vanadium price.

To be absolutely clear, my series of posts from yesterday was centred around this key theme that i wrote in my answer to Endion yesterday ;

"I never said that the market has valued BMN fairly. I focused in on the rhetoric that BMN right now deserves to be considerable higher in valuation, and I indicated that this is perhaps wrong because not all factors are being considerable fully."

I also greatly appreciate the posts by Sanchez599 (20.36pm) and in particular Ophidian (19.55pm), which finally demonstrated that what I had wrote was actually being fully appreciated for the context by which it was meant.

Lastly, I thought the post by Serenus at 20.08pm was a stand out contribution yesterday from a relatively new shareholder who is in that group of individuals who are underwater but can clearly see the long game is the right game right now.

Nothing goes up in a straight line and even the best growth stories have lulls or times when they aren't the flavor of the month, that is particularly true in mining. However, the key is that the fundamentals that are central to the story continue to hold their course and the company's actions along with it. That in my view remains the case with BMN such that its popularity at the investing polls remains about when and not if. Newer investors that believe in this story are in my opinion going to have to dig in, hold the line and wait because when this all comes together the rewards should show themselves to have been well worth that wait and the pain that came with it.

Morning all,

This very much has the feel of a share that is building strong pressure for a move north. Gold looks to have serious support as the market looks to be going more and more on the defensive. Something /someone is capping the gains for now but when they stand aside it should get very interesting indeed.

Glaring spelling mistakes aside, I trust you understood the points I was so crudely attempting to make.

Good afternoon everyone,

Having recently bought into SRB, I thought I would offer some of the reasoning as to why.

Having been aware of the pending costs that SRB has prior to investing, I have now taken the decision to invest because the recent uplifts in gold prices from the $1,300 range to a much more solid $1,500 position, makes me believe that the business is generating enough cash to ensure that the options they will have both these transactions will be strong enough to ensure investing now a far higher risk reward return.

The two key costs I am referring to are the $12m final payment for Coringa, which is due at the end of 2019 plus the currently estimated $22m required to build it.

Q2 results are due on 14th August and like many I expect the cash figure to rise to around $15m.

In my opinion there are now enough supportive factors to allow investors to start to factor in a far higher average gold price for H2.

It is already running at over $1,400 an oz average in Q3 such that on a fairly conservative basis we should see H2 capable of coming in at around $1,450 per oz. Taking a conservative full year forecast position of 41,000 oz would mean the company should still produce full year cash of circa minimum $25m. That takes a very large chunk out of those total costs given that Coringa payments should be able to be staged and investment interest in gold projects should be positive as the year progresses.

It is also appropriate to mention that Coringa has an estimated cash cost of US$588/oz. and AISC US$786/oz, which is a considerable improvement on Palito, which comes in at $796 and $1,021. So Coringa is a far more profitable project too and the security that it will be developed should carry greater impact earlier in the process.

There looks to be plenty of upside from these levels and I am very happy to be here for the entry price I have achieved.

Of course there is nothing to say that god prices won't rise furhter but the point is they do not need too. SRB need only demonstrate that they have sufficient options to complete the Coringa transaction and progress its construction and then a more accurate valuation can be achieved here.

If contributors opinions here are to be shackled by concerns they may upset people that have been through difficult times, then we are on a slippery road indeed.

If contributors here do not wish to hear negatives aired then they are burying their heads in the sand and doing themselves and their investment an injustice.

If we listen to a positive about an investment 10 times we should hear the negatives 20 times over or more because losing money is far easier than making it.

If the BMN valuation is going to start to recover then it needs to do it by standing on its own two feet and delivering tangible progress that counters the reduction in the market price of the product it sells and the political/macro economic headwinds we are all now facing.

If investors here rightly or wrongly have bought in at 30p, 35p, 40p or more, based on positives that were rammed home by this BB, myself included, who are we to tell them to 'stop moaning.'

If I have something positive to say I will say it, but equally so if I have something negative to say then that will be said too, and I expect my opinion to be tested with gusto, otherwise why bother being here.

If I disagree with someone I will when physically able answer them with the facts as I see it and an argument that has fundamentals as its basis.

If someone adds to a negative point I raise with traceable facts I welcome that with open arms and I thank them.

If someone jumps on the lack of a negative point i raise just to drive negative sentiment for personnel gain, then shame on and I will challenge them.

If anyone here believes that I say these things because I wish to gain an advantage or undermine this stock in some way, then i say they have very short memories.

Investing is not all sunshine and rainbows, it is hard and long term investing even harder because we have to ride out a lot of bull along the way. It is far better to hit the negatives head on, dissect them and work them through. In doing so the surprises become fewer and the negative voices far easier to control. The motto being no surprises please.

By testing the worst of any investment we can work out just how solid it really is, which for the very best ones makes them all the stronger for it.

With the current market headwinds anyone not testing their investments in this manner in my opinion is selling themselves short and may get caught short for it.

All just my humble opinion given without fear or favour.

From a long term point of view I believe BMN will get there be it that the Vanchem expansion may well take up more of the allotted time than first hoped. When it does then we will look back on this short term period of increased risk as the catalyst and deliverer of that end result, just like we did when the Vametco process unfolded, which in hindsight carried far more risk than anything that could be thrust BMN's way today.

The journey is not supposed to be easy. We have to earn that end result and right now is a good example of that.

I have seen detractors on the BB cast doubt on that journey but nobody can ever say that those that took the chance back in 2015 did not earn the result that came from it. Those were hard times.

Today is a walk in the park compared to that but the current environment requires stamina, patience, determination and conviction, just like it did back then, be under (from my point of view) easier circumstances.

(1 of 2)

@Endion This is unfortunately the problem with relaying lengthy opinions on these BBs the context and real message can sometimes be lost because emotion naturally steps in the way of things.

I never said that the market has valued BMN fairly. I focused in on the rhetoric that BMN right now deserves to be considerable higher in valuation, and I indicated that this is perhaps wrong because not all factors are being considerable fully.

As an example, the Vanchem acquisition would have had a far greater impact on the valuation if it was taking place in a much higher vanadium pricing environment. Right now BMN will have to secure debt financing to ensure that they retain sufficient cash resources to run the business and execute on their plans once the outstanding $61.2m has been paid. That is true even when considering 2018 profits and H1 2019 achievements. That is of course assuming that the BEE partner at Vametco and the cash they hold is not involved, which is correct until we are told otherwise.

Therefore, the market perhaps needs to understand how that will take shape before it can give BMN any further credit for it. Furthemore, we do not know what Vanchem's operating costs are. So we do not know at what price it is profitable. I am not for one minute saying that it isn't profitable at current market pricing, what I am doing is highlighting facts that are unknown and so are difficult to measure. In an environment of higher prices these factors are far more forgivable but we aren't there right now and the market is more edgy.

At $35 per kg FeV Vanchem at $68m buy out and $45m for the refurbishment looks expensive to an untrained eye that doesn't appreciate the long game, which I was talking about earlier today. The fact that this supply will deliver the required supply to trigger the start of the growth of the energy business without detrimentally affecting the core steel market can be lost because the market isn't able to appreciate it in this shorter term more fearful cycle. But BMN are now doing it in an environment of lower income, which has to be respected and monitored no matter how good the story is.

It is not simply a case of saying BMN are heading to 8,400 mtV, it is about analysing how they are going to get there and the likelihood of success. It is not a given and there are certainly signs that BMN are respecting this because reading between the lines Vametco's expansion plans to 4,200 mtV are just that, a plan, because right now in my opinion the business cannot carry the expansion at both plants without substantial debt, which I don't believe the company wants or can secure.

@Daitom I will start by saying that in my view S.A. politics is in a bigger mess now than when Zuma was in charge. When Zuma was around there was always the hope of a new dawn. Now the new dawn has arrived and we can see how ineffective it is, I am concerned because I currently cannot clearly see where it is all heading.

That Ramaphosa is capable isn't for me the question here. It is the fact that he has no clear mandate from the ANC to clean up the mess that Zuma left behind and is being forced to make compromises to stay in power. That means that the new dawn is making a very slow start and the policies required to improve the situation are simply not getting signed off.

Ramaphosa said when he got elected that he wanted to reduce the number of ministers in cabinet and he has at least succeeded wit that in part. The problem is he has never been fully in control of all of the positions. He won the battle with his choices for the minister of Public Enterprises and the minister of finance, but the fact that he had to include Zuma factions ministers says a lot about the problems he faces.

There was a lot of criticism of Radebe when he was in office and his reported hurry to sign off on a South Sudan petroleum deal before his term came to an end. However, he was also keen to ensure that NERSA were given license to sign off on 500MW of SSEG projects without the minister's consent, which I'm not so sure Mantashe would have done. So whilst the muck was flying a bit for Radebe my gut feeling when he was ousted and Mantashe took over, was one of disappointment.

I am keenly awaiting the IRP, which as far as I have seen still includes the energy storage element seen in the draft. I do however think that Mantashe is far more traditional in his approach and therefore less renewables minded. In my view he is a relic but a safe and compromise based pair of hands for the ANC but clearly not the right man for the role given the pressing needs of Eskom and the need to encourage REIPPP far more.

As for the Eskom tender I am have found no evidence that it is delayed at this time but it was signposted as coming out in the middle of the year. We are still within that period as we speak and as it stands I put any delay down to S.A. business culture until I find evidence to change my position.

@Ophidian I do very clearly. I even remember us batting it back at each other and sharing our opinions on what we thought should be included.

I am trying to to answers as many posters as possible as accurately as possible but clearly and understandably my thoughts have stirred the debate, which for me has got to be healthy.

@Endion I believe that nowhere in any of my posts today have I said that BMN is fairly valued. My concerns have been over the rhetoric that the current valuation is considerably below current 'fair value.' Again, I am choosing my words very carefully here because stating short term negatives exist, naturally attracts detailed analysis of the words being employed.

Several posters have employed 2018 profits as the basis for the current valuation but the market is already asking a lot more of companies because the macro environment has changed. Until BMN derives and can demonstrate enough of its business comes from energy storage contracts and/or the market sees significant uplift in vanadium sales to energy storage, it will be judged as a mining business and its markets will be considered to be cyclical.

So for me BMN isn't being valued on 2018 it is being valued on what the market expects 2019 to achieve given the current vanadium price and what that means for the foreseeable future. It is unfortunate but it is the reality. But as I keep saying it is short term and as I posted last week, BMN have enough in the tank to ensure that their plans can be realised such that the driving force of this story and the investment in it, remains in tact, and that for me is all that truly matters and what I focus on when reviewing my reasons for being here and remaining here.

@Pdub Noted and your position is fully respected. This is a place to share opinions and debate them robustly. The moment it stops being that it usefulness is considerably diminished.

I do not wish to roll out a list of negatives, that was not the point I was trying to make.

I have been here for 6 years. I have debated with the best and the worst of what this BB has to offer for the last 4 years of that time, you included. I have led the fight against the very worst this BB has seen and defended my investment to the hilt, dedicating many hours of my time and research without question and I did it because the quality of the management team and this story warranted it but also because I know that a great many investors that visit these BBs simply do not have the time that I had/have and so rely on accurate information that can be traced back through provided documentation.

I am not here today wishing to dismantle all of that effort. Nor have any of my posts being directed at questioning that long term story. My words are very clear on that.

I am talking about the cycles of this story and our ability to recognise when the risk has increased and our willingness to accept that and talk about it openly, and in doing so supporting all investors that join us here with their decisions. The BB is convinced that it is performing this role well. I am here to say that I do not agree. Hence the debate.

@Sanchez599 Duly noted. My response was designed to capture a more general feel I have been getting from reading the BB these last few months, which I should have explained more clearly.

My last response to Ophidian plus my other subsequent posts may help in explaining my current thoughts as to why the drop in valuation has been so severe and why that does not necessarily mean that the pain will not extend further than we would all like to see

I would stress though that this is just my opinion shared on a BB with a view to encouraging responses and opinions that may well help mould my view point. However, I will say this, if we aren't prepared to accept that this potential future pain is there, that it is possible and there is good reason for it, then we risk feeding the negative narrative even more because when the pain comes the questions start being asked, how can this be happening?

I therefore disagree with your assessment that "LTH's regularly discuss all facets of BMN and being confident of the end game as most of us are does indeed mean there is no fear around these discussions."

The perception may be there that they are fully discussed but in my view the reality is something else. Fears may not exist because the reality of their impact be it potential or real are sometimes avoided or talked down. That is natural and I have done it myself. No investor is perfect, no one is immune to ignoring these things at times because it suits our narrative for being invested.

I repeat my earlier message. In my opinion if an investor here is long on this story then they have in my opinion an exceptional investment that whilst carrying risk, has the potential to deliver really big returns. However, if investors are jumping in here for a shorter term gain then the risk reward is in my opinion right now diminished and one should be careful promoting it as anything else. That said BMN should never be about short term investment. The long game is the story here.

@Ophidian In terms of 2015 and the opportunity I agree wholeheartedly. There is potentially massive upside here in what is a really unique story.

On the "value of the assets and amount of cash being produced" I am not sure but am happy to debate it through here and take on board others opinion. If it then adjusts my current beliefs then great, I welcome that.

I would re-iterate that the future BMN that I am invested in is a completely different beast to the one we see today and the shorter terms influences are for me just that, short term. There are longer term risks, which I am mindful of but they too right now do not adjust my long term belief and/or the risk reward is substantial enough to warrant them being carried.

Right now whether we like it or not the majority of the current BMN valuation is based on its ability to generate profits from the mining arm. I do think there is some limited value in there for the energy business but given that we have no financial model to date, it is limited, be it with substantial future uplift when the milestones start to get hit, although it is the financial models that are really going to drive it home. Until that comes it is about belief in the progress delivering a final outcome and the potential being realised.

BMN had a really strong H1 and on that basis is undervalued. However, H2 is unfortunately currently not demonstrating the same outcomes. If vanadium prices rise then that situation changes and so will the valuation here. If we base the metrics on H2 then the valuation, whilst being for light, is not supportive of a valuation substantially north of where we are today.

We also have to remember that right now S.A. based businesses are being discounted due to the political and regulatory situation in S.A. If BMN was operating in a more stable environment then the valuation would be much higher. So for me we have to be a little careful with how we apply traditional metrics.

So even though H1 was strong and the cash position equally so, the value being created is being hampered by the current vanadium price and the discount on S.A.

There are good many catalysts that could land any day that have the ability to alter the situation. Vanadium prices are the obvious one be it they require more time but the really big developments will for me, in the current environment, be on the energy side of the business. However, BMN will need to start demonstrating how these developments affect the bottom line before their impact can truly be felt.

@Sanchez599 I appreciate that there is an element present on this BB that is demonstrating that it is not prepared to see BMN in a positive light. Therefore, LTHs who wish to discuss factors that many would deem negative are perhaps seen as feeding this narrative and perhaps should refrain.

However, in my view all that does is set those LTHs up as an opposing faction that is merely doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction.

BMN is a wonderful story and I am here to see the whole of that story unfold but in doing so we must be prepared to talk about all the ongoing factors along the way, be they 'negative' or 'positive.' If we fail to do this then we are cheating ourselves and those contributors to the BB that either do not have the required knowledge, history, or the time to engage with the fundamentals that make up the BMN story.

The end game here for me is certain and the rewards that come with it substantial, even when debating existing negative influences. Therefore, to openly debate negatives and concerns along the way should not carry fear nor the persons that come with it. They are in the main based around short term events in a cycle that BMN is looking to break out of such that it never plays a strong role ever again. The negative voices do not believe this and are taking advantage of short term negatives to exploit investors fears. However, this is being compounded by the fact that LTHs appear to be refusing to engage with the negatives in a manner that enables them to be removed from the equation. Thus the methods employed feed the problem.

I would make it clear that whilst a great many of us here are still in healthy profits with BMN, a great many others are under water, some heavily. Therefore, whilst the SP may well rise in the coming weeks/months it may not remove much of that pain unless it moves substantially north. As long as those shareholders remain under water they will feel pain. The longer they stay under water the greater that pain will become. That's normal.

My post attempted to respect that position.

Finally, in my opinion one must be careful to expect value to be included for developments that are yet to be fully realised. That we may believe in their future value does not automatically mean that the market will attribute the correct value for them now. BMN have many developments in progress but they are not currently sufficiently developed to allow the market to value them properly. That of course creates opportunity for those that believe but that might not be enough to deliver the returns that investment is expecting.

As I have already said the progress is happening the results will come but right now to say that BMN is hugely undervalued given the current headwinds, is for me incorrect and far more patience is required, which I have described as pain, in order to deliver the rewards we are all ultimately here for.

I would like to add that this drive that BMN have instigated through their desire to support the energy storage market is designed as a trigger for the other components that exist in the VRFB supply chain. Perhaps obvious but well worth repeating again and again.

BMN know that by stabilising and giving certainty to the vanadium input costs they are allowing the VRFB manufacturers that they choose to do business with the opportunity to tackle their own financing and expansion issues, by enabling them to approach their own backers with a far more concrete business case.

This is why BMN are so damn popular at these energy storage conferences because right now they are a beacon of light for an industry that has a very big prize at the end of the tunnel but limited maneuverability to move towards it.

The current argument against VRFBs is not based on the future market size but VRFBs ability to compete with lithium to achieve it.

BMN are delivering the foundations for their corner of the industry in order to allow their chosen VRFB partners to really attack the other input costs into their VRFBs. Hence why BMN has been talking about localised VRFB manufacture in S.A. This in turn should deliver a far more competitive VRFB product that can carve out that share that is currently being questioned.

The beauty of this all is that BMN through BE is the key player in this relationship and thus should hold the best cards at the negotiating table. BMN management play fair and will always relay their desire to support the industry but business is business and any belief that they are not looking to take a dominant position in all of this or that VRFB manufacturers aren't/won't be falling over themselves to do business with BE, in my opinion demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is actually taking place here.

However, as I have indicated several times over the last few months, I believe it is going to take more time for this story, the true BMN business model, to be communicated and that will come through actual demonstrable progress.

Whilst S.A. has delivered BMN key brownfield assets, which have effectively made BMN, it is also acting as a weight on BMN's shoulders and things are taking longer than planned.

So the whole story requires patience and the ability to hold through all the noise and negativity that comes with a growth story that is perceived in some quarters to have lost its shine. However, that shine was actually caused by a short term trend that in the end will demonstrate itself to have delivered a significant portion of the investment that will go on to deliver the greatest parts of this exciting story, faster than anticipated. Its just that the detractors won't appreciate that because they aren't prepared to look deep enough into the investment case and the plans that BMN are trying very hard to execute. The same process was seen during the Vametco acquisition and look how that turned out.

Good morning all,

Firstly, thank you Pdub for your efforts over the weekend in typing up the interview notes. It has saved me and I am sure a great many others a great deal of time.

A key takeaway for me, which really acts as a good reminder to a key discussion I have had recently, is this message that the other key components in the VRFB (see part 4 - electrodes and membrane) can achieve substantial cost reductions once they establish scale. That may be obvious to some but not all.

What BMN are striving to do is abolish the key cost component of vanadium electrolyte, which is historically upto 40% of the total cost of the VRFB when priced at historic pricing levels, which to me is effectively the prices we are seeing in Europe today (So circa $30 per kg FeV).

In order to do this we may find BMN pushing on with the expansion of Vanchem production even when market pricing reflects minimal profitability. A point at which many producers would likely mothball expansion plans. This is because BMN see the need to drive greater supply in order to ensure that the material is there to help capture what is a very significant share of a very large future energy storage market, a market they clearly believe strongly in. Whilst leasing will help eliminate the cost of vanadium in the energy storage market, what it will also do is potentially remove significantly more vanadium from the steel market, which in turn will either push up prices or encourage further substitution.

Some might say that's fine as the energy storage market is big enough to carry the load, but it isn't that simple and the steel market remains a key ingredient in any vanadium producer's mix, particularly when we know that the energy storage market is going to need time to develop (end of next decade is mentioned by MN)

Prior to BMN achieving the acquisition of Vametco I often talked about my belief that the ability to acquire a brownfield asset enabled BMN to move into what I called the inner circle. What that does is remove (to a great extent) the need to rely on vanadium prices to achieve production expansion. Being in the inner circle means when vanadium prices drop significantly, finance isn't automatically removed from the equation and projects do not need to be put on hold.

As the holder of the largest tier 1 assets in the world (the interviewer states "2 of the World's 7 tier 1 Vanadium assets in terms of grade"), backed now by 2 significant brownfield processing assets, BMN has the ability to be the swing producer.

It may well mean there is a little pain to be endured en route. Investment takes time and in a market of lower prices means smaller profits and likely some debt burden along the way. However, for those prepared to be there when it all finally comes together, the end game should be quite something and BMNs position in it all well worth the pain suffered along the way.

Two words. Great news.

No more no less. In the current market conditions AMER is a money maker from these levels.