Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Brasi Thank and very much appreciated.

The key here is that phase 3 at Vametco is going to happen. It won't meet its original timeline and it may end up costing more than the company expected, but it is about it happening and being affordable within the cash flows that are being generated.

This is in part why i do not like to get drawn into discussions about PE ratios and profitability and prefer to concentrate on cash flows instead.

BMN may surprise some by delivering much lower profits than are perhaps expected when the accounts come out in June. But if they do then it will be because they are investing in the business to deliver larger production at lower cost. That will have its own affect in time and will erase any 'short term' concerns that are held over level of profitability at a time when such matters should not be the true focus. Those that try to make them the focus either don't understand or don't want to.

That isn't to say that BMN have forever or can keep putting things back, but there is a balance to be had and that balance still sits heavily in their favour.

First stop is the Vametco that is here and now and exploiting the most out of its current capabilities. Each step along the way eradicates another level of vanadium prices whose loss will hurt a great many others before it hurts BMN.

Vanadium isn't going away. Niobium uptake is growing but even that is now running at $49 per kg and many mills wouldn't entertain changing their production methods unless V prices rose a good level above this. So i would confidently say that at $60 per kg Niobium at current supply levels is no further threat.

That is a level that BMN can have a great deal of success at as they expand and VRFB uptake also expands.The further they expand the lower the price they need to achieve the same level of success.

So as shareholders we are entitled to be planning for 5,000 mtv nameplate capacity because it is going to happen.

In the meantime I see positive steps being taken by BMN to eradicate the mistakes of the past. A new general manager at Vametco being exhibit A. I expect this year to demonstrate a move towards 3,400 mtv being the norm and confidence to be restored in BMN's ability to deliver the plans it sets out.

A 2020 start at 3,400 mtv production with construction of phase 3 (5,000 mtv) underway, an electrolyte plant start up pending, and large scale energy storage announcements due, will for me paint a much improved picture of BMN and its prospects.

Good morning all.

In answer to the queston raised regarding the expected timelines, I read here that the IC quoted Finncap as follows ;

"FinnCap’s time line for news flow on Anchois is as follows: release of the Component Person’s Report (CPR) in May; development feasibility study in June; Moroccan gas marketing study over the summer; Lixus seismic reprocessing at the end of the year; and potential partnering discussions in late 2019/early 2020 with a view to a field start up in 2023."

This ties in with the company's own indications of a 2-3 months timeline starting from the roughly the beginning of April.

Both the first 2 developments have the potential to major interest here and with the valuation still only allowing circa £2m or so for the Lixus acquisition, there is much room for movement from these levels.

I would think the delivery of a proven 'low cost' development plan delivered through the feasability study is capable of delivering at least £20m of stand alone value, and that is deliberately conservative. Close proximity to such a strong gas market makes any sizeable development at Lixus highly desirable and as my posts of the last few weeks have demonstrated the development costs really shouldn't be of a level that deter its development.

So when the company states ;

“We are confident that the commercial viability, which will be fully laid out in the feasibility study being commissioned immediately, will be highly attractive to a wide range of strategic partners across the energy value chain."

It is easy to understand why.

A long time ago when BMN were in the process of attmepting to wrestle Vametco away from Evraz control, i talked about a circle. Those on the inside were producers, those on the outside junior miners wanting to get in.

When a business enters that vanadium inner circle as a pure producer like BMN did, and they have a product that is one of the cheapest around backed by abundant resources, then they win.

BMN purchased Vametco at teh bottom of the market, then employed rising prices to not only pay for it but to enable them to go on to secure the largest holding in that business that they could muster (74%). Along the way they brought on board a BEE partner that understood where they wanted to go and wanted to travel with them.

Now after 2 years of ownership they have secured the sort of cash flows that enable them to move onto the next phase. However, this phase now calls for lower vanadium prices because it is centred around VRFB expansion, which has the greatest chance of success at lower vanadium prices.

As a pure producer sitting in the inner circle but with the added bonus of local brownfield processing that is available, BMN can expand their production even when those prices are low.

However, prices really cannot got too low or the increased demand from a VRFB industry that begins to thrive on the lower cost vanadium that represents its largest individual part, will start to falter. So there is an equilibrium that sits in and around a level where by new production can gain the finance that it needs to get built.

But I return once again to my circle. Those in the inner circle have the chance to be the ones that react the fastest to any uptick in demand. They can get expanded production in service faster than those juniors because they do not need to convince so many outside backers that it will be profitable. After all this isn't their first time.

So in an expanding vanadium production base those in the inner circle, those that already produce, will naturally go on to fill the majority of any gaps. Once that production is on line then these 'large' producers will then have the ability to turn their producgtion on and off depending on demand and where prices currently sit. That is the beauty of being inside and not out.

As the holder of the largest high grade vanadium resources in the world and as i have demonstrated, soon enough the lowest cost base to boot, nobody in the world is in a better position to exploit that than BMN. The addition of a successful electrolyte and VRFB development arm only compounds that truth further.

Lower vanadium prices drive new greenfield production further away from the table, leaving more and more space for existing producers to add to their production and maintain their dominance.

A period of the very highest prices got us to this point in time. A period of the very lowest prices may actually carry BMN and its fully integrated model further and higher than those highest prices ever

(3 of 3)

I have written extensively about the pending Eskom BESS Project tender, which is now due out towards the "middle of the year." The sheer scale of that project offers a Bushveld Energy led consortium a huge opportunity to establish itself in the market place and drivea VRFB battery storage industry in Southern Africa.

It is an opportunity that has been levered into place by BMN and its relationship with its partner the IDC. I cannot 100% prove this but I know it to be true because the evidence, much of which i have posted here, points to exactly that.

However, that aside there is a further potentially bigger development taking place locally that will assist BMN in its quest to establish its integrated platform and deliver the profitability that I am backing.

The following article discusses the current draft IRP plans to raise the permitted (private) 1MW capacity restriction to 10MW without the need for a deviation away from the IRP.

Now the article talks about the concerns in the industry about this still being too low but the reality is for BMN it represents an opportunity to deliver a local market that will require an energy storage solution, and that is what this question is all about, demand.

A local electricity starved manufacturing and industry base combined with a local VRFB developer who controls their value chain and its inputs, is something to really start getting excited about.

Those lowest cost vanadium assets we talked about earlier will help BMN produce what could go on to be the lowest cost battery storage solution in Southern Africa but for me certainly in S.A. I don't need an updated behind the times BNEF graph to tell me that. Those studies are world wide, they are not localised. They deal with one cycle not multiple. They do not allow for a fully integrated model which sits on the doorstep of its main market and can lease is product.

https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/generation/south-africa-welcomes-private-sectors-help-to-alleviate-power-crisis/

Lithium-ion dominates the market for energy storage even where it shouldn't because it more often than not cheaper and better known.

In S.A. those two principles do not apply right now.

In my opinion ;

1. With 2 demonstration batteries in play BMN will have the ability to demonstrate the success that a VRFB battery in S.A. can have.

2. With a fully integrated localised model BMN can convince potential customers that they can better any offering from a lithium-ion competitor that has no localised supply chain.

All of that stems from the success that BMN has and is enjoying in 2018/19. All of that will take time to be delivered but if like me LTHs are as convinced of the outcome that is to come here and are prepared to wait, then they should have little worry as to the share price today because that share price does not acccount for that future and that future is bright and worthy of better sentiment than we see today.

(2 of 3)

The main reason why i remain invested in BMN is because I want to see the benefits that a fully integrated vanadium platform can and will deliver.

I have already clearly established that BMN is making enough money to at the very least deliver the vast majority of its expansion and integrated platform plans. Therefore, the accomplishments to date are already delivering more than just the ownership of Vametco and 2,560 mtv. The market just hasn't seen enough detail yet to support it but that fact does not rub out those accomplishments.

It therefore first and foremost becomes about further vanadium supply expansion driving lower costs, delivering further lower costs along the value chain, for greater market penetration into what will be higher end worth products in a far larger market.

To do this the company needs to secure expansion at Vametco, perhaps deliver further local brownfield acquisitions or Vametco expansions, extract ore from Brits, and along the way secure localised power through VRFB employment at Vametco.

Nothing on that list is beyond the reach of BMN. Nothing on that list calls for large scale dilution of existing holders, or high vanadium prices. Nothing on that list requires BMN to convince anyone but themselves and their BEE partner to back it.

All of the things on that list will make BMN the lowest cost vanadium producer in the world. Fact.

All of the things on that list are planned and in play.

Further long the value chain the current active plans are an electrolyte plant and the securing of large scale energy storage mandates backed by an electrolyte leasing model.

Again, none of those plans are beyond the reach of BMN, calls for large scale dilution or requires a financial backer to be convinced. They are in BMN hands and they are happening, news or no news.

Backed by the lowest cost vanadium in the world that is right on its doorstep, BMN will produce the world's cheapest electrolyte even before it starts to offer leasing models. Lower vanadium prices will only serve to support that even more.

BMN with an expanded Vametco backed by those cost lowering additions (Brits, mass scale, VRFB etc) no longer needs high vanadium prices to deliver solid profits, even before the integrated platform starts to offer alternative profit streams.

So at that stage we have a solid highly profitable company even at 'lower' vanadium prices that has substantially expanded its production, commenced a new mine, established electrolyte manufacture, and delivered 2 VRFBs at utility and industry levels.

All of which will highly likely have been delivered at no additional cost to existing long term shareholders because of the success that 2018 and likely 2019 will have delivered.

Therefore, we are down to the one factor that creates the greatest amont of debate, the ability to secure large scale energy storage mandates.

(1 of 3)

Good morning everyone.

The mood on this BB is for me out of kilter with the story that is being developed by the BOD of BMN. I understand that current European FeV prices are understandably having an affect on sentiment and are clouding investors judgement of the company's prospects. The trouble is i do not concur with that sentiment.

For a long time here i was great advocate of the vanadium price being the key ingredient for the investment case. It was the driver to profitability and the cash resources required to fully bed in the business, secure a market share of vanadium, and push the ideas the company was parading in its presentations and reports.

This started with the scoping and pre-feasability studies for Mokopone and continued through the Vametco buyout and ownership expansion. At first the vanadium price drove the interest in the business and thus eventually the rise in the SP, which in turn supported capital raises and cash flows, that took the business to a 74% stake in Vametco, supporting the development of Bushveld Energy and the ideas that came with it.

Along the way we had the 2018 spike in vanadium prices, which was in all reality a true bonus that came along at just the right time. What 2018 did was expedite those cash flows and set up the business to exploit its plans to establish a fully integrated vanadium platform.

I spoke often last year that $70 per kg vanadium was no trouble at all having dreamed of $50 per kg when BMN had nothing and FeV was stuck at $17 per kg. That is how significant last year's spike was.

Late last year I spoke about my desire to see one more good year of prices in 2019 because I knew that off the back of 2018, that was all that was needed to deliver the sort of overall cash levels needed to fulfill the company's medium term plans, well ahead of the point at which the money was actually all going to be needed.

Right now BMN is delivering that and despite the current softening of prices in Europe, there is more than enough evidence that sufficient profits will be made to deliver on those plans.

So now it has becomes not about just how much profit BMN is making in the short term but about the plans that the cash that is being made will deliver and the future profits that we can expect.

At times like this i would encourage investors to take a good hard look at why they invested here in the first place. My thoughts and posts have always been directed at LTHs, that being those that have been here a long time and those that intend staying just as long. If investors dived in here on the back of vanadium prices and a desire to make a quick buck, then unfortunately I have little sympathy because that is not what this story is all about.

However, I strongly believe that investors that are minded as such are perceiving that they have failed because they haven't delved far enough into the true reasons why so many LTHs are and remain excited by this company's prospects.

In my last post I briefly mentioned the vaandium ore reserves under BMN control. In Q2 2019 BMN plan to release the maiden resource estimate for Brits. I suspect it will be the catalyst for a good few other things aswell. That aside and given this process will have taken nearly 18 months to complete, I suspect said resource will be an ore reserve that is ready to add to that of Vametco and begin mining upon regulatory approval to do so.

In Oct 2017 BMN updated the market on the Vametco resource, which turned out to be the pre-cursor to the YD buyout.

The reserves at Vametco at that time stood at 26.1m tonnes at 1.96% V205 in magnetite. This delivered 137,000 of contained metal tonnes of vanadium, of which BMN own 74%, so 101,380 tonnes.

Mokopone in its 2016 PFS delivered a further 28m tonnes at 1.41% V205 in magnetite. This delivered 394,800 tonnes of which 64% is owned by BMN, so another 252,670 tonnes.

If Brits repeats what Vametco has done, which looks likely given the 26-28m ton range delivers the recommended 30 year mine life, then at the thus far communicated 1.6% V205 in magnetite, we are talking another 416,000 tonnes of which BMN would own 270,400 tonnes (Uitvolgrond Portion 3 is presently 65% owned).

That would make BMN the owner of over 624,000 tonnes of ore reserve grade vanadium. The current market valuation of which is around $30 billion at just $48 per kg.

Now it isn't fair to simply value these reserves in that manner. 624,000 tonnes even at 10,000 mtv per annum is going to take a lifetime to mine. However, nor is it fair to discount these reserves into extinction when the market price is so healthy (and $48 per kg is healthy compared to the long term average), and the owner of those reserves is an active miner with processing and plans to expand in order to exploit what are substantial high grade resources at its disposal.

BMN is currently able to demonstrate that it can make at least £9,000 per ton profit at circa $48 per kg, even before major expansion enables it to reduce its overheads.

I won't commit to a number but as an example, $1,000 (£770) per ton equates to over £480m in reserves. A long term price in and around $50 per kg, makes that a very desirable level for a company that is in production.

It is examples such as this that demonstrate that given a little time, BMN has the ability to deliver a valuation far greater than that which is being peddled due to short term reactions to short terms situations.

The reserves are very real, the price of V is very healthy, and the plans are there to get at a good part of the above tonnage. Thus once again the comparisons to peers start to fall away because the peers more often than not don't measure up.

(2 of 2)

Secondly, in order to achieve these growth plans, BMN is going to have to start spending some of that £79.5m that it will at some point have at its disposal, and that is the whole point here.

In Sept 2018 BMN committed to buying out Sojitz for $20m, a move that demonstrated the sort of newly acquired financial firepower the company had when they stated at the time that "Bushveld used its existing cash resources to complete the Acquisition."

I fully expect to find out that this sort of pattern has and will continue because that's what a company that is in such a steep growth cycle does. It spends the cash it has at its disposal to better the long term prospects of the business.

So to value BMN purely on what it is perceived to have achieved in 2018, be it profit or EBITDA and then attempt to compare this to its mining 'peers,' is fundamentally flawed and totally disrespects the story itself and the future that this lays out.

That BMN need to start demonstrating what this story looks like on paper is of course correct. The market can only truly value what it has been given and right now BMN isn't giving very much of that away, but as an investor in the people of this company and having seen what they have achieved thus far and the manner in which it was all put to bed, my belief in their ability to deliver the next set of strongly indicated plans, does not waiver.

I accept that investors here may wish to play the market a little and use these periods of quiet to better their position, and that is entirely their perogative. However, anyone trying to use these simplistic valuation methods to try to demonstrate that BMN is over valued is for me, at the very least, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the future that is being mapped out by this company.

BMN is no SLP, it is a far stronger candidate for growth and expansion into far more exciting and rewarding markets. There is nothing on th e table thus far that says they won't achieve that and most importantly, they are generating more than enough cash (even at lower vanadium prices) to achieve their goals without having to place pressure on existing shareholders.

Achieve the goals set out and start to generate the cash flows and the profits that entails, then we can start talking about PE ratios and worthy valuations, and in my opinion not before.

(1 of 2)

Good afternoon everyone.

I have seen a good few opinions on BMN recently that are centred around PE ratios and profitability, and their justification in setting valuations for BMN that are even lower than we see today. I do not understand this approach and feel strongly that it is demonstrates a misunderstanding of BMN and where it is heading.

I also see talk of great expectations of profitability when the full year accounts come out. Again, I do not understand this either.

BMN is fairly close to the start of a highly ambitious and steep growth plan that is going to swallow up a good deal of the cash that it generates over the next few years, starting in 2018.

H1 2018 delivered £31.7m in consolidated EBITDA against 1,403 mtv and averaged achieved sales price of $60,850 per mtv.

Vametco H2 is running at EBITDA ZAR 902m for 1,170 mtv @ ZAR 14.1 = $54,680 per mtv.

This equates to $64m or £49.2m at $1.30 per pound conversion.

The H1 figures demonstrate that the Vametco total EBITDA at $1.30 per pound conversion = £32.6m. This means that the various deductions required for BMN only amounted to a further £900,000 or 2.75%.

If we apply the same rule to the £49.2m then we should see EBITDA for H2 coming in at circa £47.8m.

That would place the full year consolidated EBITDA for 2018 at £79.5m of which BMN would 'own' 74%, so £58.8m.

Now some will begin pointing towards fair vlaue being an X factor of this achievement. Some will want to go further and fully account the net profits that this generates.

As an example of a neighbouring S.A. based AIM miner, SLP the platinum tails miner is demonstrating full year EBITDA at circa $24.6m (£18.9m) against a valuation of £94m. That places it at x5 EBITDA.

Apply the same ratio and the BMN valuation comes in at £294m. Current MC is £285m, so even lower.

However, I have 2 major issues with the simplicity of this sort of valuation. Firstly, a company that is set to growing in the manner that BMN are currently signalling cannot merely be compared to peers that do not have the same ambitions.

SLP is looking to grow its production this year by circa 9.5% with no major future plans to achieve anything but minor incremental growth after that.

It certainly isn't implementing plans to grow production from 2,560 mtv to over 10,000 mtv in the next 3 years or so.

It isn't in the process of delineating its 3rd major reserve grade resource at what will be its 3rd individually controlled mine site, which has every chance of pushing its controlled reserves to nearly 90m tons of vanadium.

It isn't demonstrating a VRFB for Eskom ahead of that organisation's roll out programme, which will be the biggest combined electro-chemical project in the world to date.

Nor doesn it have a BFS stage completed mine to power coal project that is approaching financial close in the foreseeable future.

"Over 4% additional planned capacity arriving over the course of a single month."

Electrochemical batteries haven't even started fully on their journey yet and all predictions thus far made, are being forgotten or revised almost as quickly as they have been written.

Any lower quartile cost lithium mine that can produce battery grade lithium is going to be in high demand. It is merely about how they reach their eventual goal. However, what is absolute certain in my view is that they have far better cards in their hand than many assume because the demand is expanding far greater and faster than the market has chance to ever fully appreciate.

https://www.vanadiumprice.com/global-lithium-ion-battery-planned-capacity-grows-4-in-a-single-month-charts/

With all due respect some of the comments this morning in my view show disrespect to the tragedy that has taken place. As investors in this company we should at the very least respect the fact that Mr Coffield's family and the people that run this company have lost a husband, father and colleague in very shocking circumstances

An RNS demonstrates not only their sorrow but the position they are now in as a group, a team, in having to come to terms with such a shocking change of circumstances.

We are all here to try to make the best of our investments but it should never come at cost to our morals and our ability to demonstrate empathy to our fellow man.

For what it is worth i would send my deepest sympathies to all those affected by this tragedy and as a mark of respect will not post anything further on the AMER BB today.

@Wolster I would suggest that the majority of the plans and the cash to achieve them are now all in place. It is now a case of sitting tight and allowing the plans to be executed. I would say that you will need to wait at least 18 months before true judgement could be given on the deals this BOD has now closed.

I appreciate the past is full of missed deadlines but the past didn't involve the activity that two heavy weight partners are now adding in the form of OXY and ONGC. So it deserves to be set apart for at least that sort of time period in my view.

AMER is heavily oversold right now and that will change.

@Lindon In parts I agree with you and I do recognise that BMN have missed dates and that they have handled these delays with less maturity than their development as a business warrants. The boy has become a young man and that man needs to now act his age.

However, the punishment now outweighs the crime and the time gap between recognsing the problems faced at Vametco and publishing the outcomes, has perhaops led to a disproportionate response by the market.

I do not believe that the current pricing achievements of 2019 are being respected or even looked at. The current V price is stealing all the headlines and asserting more downward pressure on the SP than currently appropriate.

Furthermore, the market looks to be factoring in 2018 production of 2,560mtv until it knows any better, which means any improvement on this isn't priced in right now. I expect a solid improvement on this for reasons posted earlier.

There appears to be a perceived loss of direction, which itself is a falsehood driven by the news gaps and sudden strong downtrend in V prices, and is preventing the market from now seeing the potential, perhaps even making it question it, although again there is an argument for laying thsi at the BODs doorstep and their current policy on communication.

However, the missed self imposed deadlines when analysed more closely are actually connected to matters, which do not have a great deal of influence on the current valuation. That is not to say they don't matter, more that they are more minor in their influence on the overall plan.

A dividend policy is a strong move corporately but it was never going to be paid the day it was announced because it was a policy with no timelines communicated. The same applies to electrolyte samples which are for a plant that we know will not be in operation until the end of 2019 at best and should not derail the show.

So I am back to the V price and the fact that its elevated state was protecting the continued reductions in full year guidance.

However, as i say it is a card that has now been overplayed and the Q1 update I believe will go a long way to demonstrating that.

I believe very strongly in this story and for me there is more room for the potential that the plans that have communicated can deliver. I believe they will be come to fruition, I have no doubt about that. Energy storage is very real and VRFB technology is a stronger technology in that field and a fully integrated vanadium play that controls the one element that has held their development back, has such a strong chance of success that for me it has now becomes inevitable.

That potential, that growth, along with the known developments to date (Electrolyte plant, Eskom and Brits are all happening) means there is plenty of room for forgiveness and the ability to ignore the ignorance of the market and await the retur n of its senses.

PS I see little value in attempting to take the cash flows that would create any further than EBITDA because the company will be investing large sums of what it is achieving back into the business in order to grow. So the use of anticipated profit figures and PE ratios is for me of little use at this time and does not reflect the scale of the growth and the potential that adds to the investment.

If the same theory was applied to Apple or Facebook at the start then they would have been worthless for a very long time.

I would add that this is merely my attempt to logically assess what is very limited information.

The key is that the current production figure is circa 2,800, so they only need to find 200mtv of improvements across the entire year to deliver 3,000mtv. Its not all that big an ask really seeing as they appear to be demonstrating a far better understanding of the problems they have had now.

@Wul_1976 As onefcc has already alluded to, i am as sure as I can be that production was already at a minimum of 2,850mtv. So the transformation programme is all about the move from that level to the advertised 3,400mtv (90% nameplate) goal.

There are better mining experts out there than me but the list of actions associated with the transformation programme looked to be mkre about scheduling than maintenance based, which lends itself to limited downtime on the plant.

That said, the plant suffered a number of unexpected shutdowns in 2018, which i am sure BMN will be wary of when signalling what they will achieve in 2019. So I expect a range to be published this time around rather than an exact number, which will take into account this possibility, just like Largo Resources do.

I would however expect a circa 2 week maintenance period to be included in the 2019 schedule.

Also, the last item on the list states "Sustainably increasing the kiln feed rate." It is about how slowly/quickly this increase is introduced that could have the greatest impact on things.

I would be willing to believe that by H2 the transformation programme should/could be fully realised. If so then the plant should in theory be operating at 3,400 mtv, which would achieve 2 quarters of circa 850mtv per quarter.

I would think that Q1 should be able to achieve 700mtv with Q2 a little better. However, when we consider that the maintenance should come in H1, if that is when the transformation programme is most active, then they may lose a little of that added production. So for me a H1 target of 1,400mtv would be about right.

That would place full year guidance at circa 3,100mtv. So guidance stating 3,000-3,200mtv should be achievable

It of course all depends on how quickly the transformation programme takes shape and affect and how much maintenance is needed to achieve it.

I certainly believe 3,000mtv is the base case production figure, which even at $60 per kg FeV for 2019, should deliver over $90m in EBITDA, given the weaker Rand and the savings on operating costs and royalties etc.

That would be a very solid outcome for Vametco and BMN given that the majority of that cash would be available for re-investment in the company's expansion plans.

Appreciated Wolster but in my eyes a 7,500bopd exit rate for 2019, given what is expected from CP0-5, the OXY portfolio, and Put 8 in 2020, is for me a very solid result.

The SP is not respecting the progress that this company has made in 2018 nor the way that 2019 is developing. It is not uncommon and if the SP was more reflective of the progress then the sentiment on this BB would be different also.

You are calling out the BOD for not doing their jobs properly and what I am demonstrating is that the reality is far better than the reaction warrants.

Put 8 is a prime example of this, which has suffered from an operator that clearly didn't want to progress the asset. Now that AMER are taking control they can bring the same attitude that they have previously brought to Platanillo, and exploit the benefits of 100% ownership and immediate $3.50 transport related access to the OBA.

The approvals to do that are outside of their control, hence the 'anticipated' drill date slipping to H2. However, it is for good reason because of the control and opportunity that operatorship now brings.

You may not wish to recognise that and simply call it a delay or lack of BOD effort but that simply would not be true.

If the approvals come through fairly quickly then Put 8 will get drilled in 2019 and the revised target will be met. There is little more the company can do on that front other than communicate this better, which is one element that has certainly been poor.

I'm sorry but whilst there is room for criticism here the bearish attitude is for me a false one and out of kilter with the reality of what is actually happening.

1. The 3rd party oil is being 'stopped' by the need to gain regulatory authority to become a transporter of oil. We have been told in writing and in the latest interview, that this authorization is in its final stages and the company expects to commence transporting oil in the coming months, which is consistent with the guidance that was given perviously (H1 2019) and has not deviated from this course.

2. The question was raised about the Platanillo work programme and where the new well will be drilled.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=AMER&ArticleCode=kv334p74&ArticleHeadline=Operations_Update

The above update from 26th March clearly states the order of play.

Platanillo 2
Platanillo 7
Platanillo 26 (new infill well)
Platanillo 22 and 21 sidetracks.

So the new well is at Platanillo 26.

3. Production. When one has a close look at the production numbers available and takes this into consideration when listening to the interview with Mr Piper yesterday, then it becomes clear that the numbers being employed are conservative and do not include for the potential that the above workover programme at Platanillo can deliver.

From the Final Results 2018

"Following exploration success at our third field, Indico, total production from CPO-5 reached over 1.275m barrels of oil at the end of 2018 and average Q1 2019 production was 1,600 BOPD net."

Mariposa-1 produces at 3,150 bopd, which is 945 bopd net to AMER. That means Indico delivered on average 655bopd net from the 1,500bopd net that it is now producing.

So before we go any deeper into things, total production has automatically increased to circa 5,450 bopd in Q2.

However, the Platanillo 8 workover has clearly added upto 820 bopd, which is reflected in the improved throughput at OBA. This is now averaging 3,190 bopd for Q2 but that is heavily affected by the first two days which on average delivered 2,060bopd each. scratch those two days out and the average is 3,350bopd.

So there is an argument for adding at least 300 bopd to total. So we are at 5,750 bopd with a 5 well workover plan ongoing that includes at least 1 new well + CP0-5 and Indico-2

Mr Piper talked (conservatively) about 2019 production being between 5,000-6,000bopd without any further additions.

With Q1 production at 4,600bopd the other 3 quarters automatically deliver 5,800 bopd just to achieve the mid-point of that figure.

That is the conservative known to date figure prior to the drill programme.

For all the focus on what isn't being achieved, what about what will be because the above equates to a +7,500bopd production figure and +6,000bopd year end achievement at +$70 brent, as a minimum + those 3rd party oil sales.

That sort of minimum outcome delivers a far better outcome than the doom and gloom

A few days ago I posted a brief history of the deal that brought Vametco into the fold.

I described how BMN structured the deal in order to avoid substantial front end dilution but ensure that over time, they would secure the full 74% that they are entitled to hold.

I also talked about how leading up to the deal, there were very limited clues as to the eventual outcome, be it in SP movements or indeed the words or even actions of the business. The only clues were the repeated mention of brownfield processing in their presentations and reports. That was it, depsite the SP being on its backside, the company waited until it was right for them to announce it, and the rest is history.

That is how BMN operate. They don't bang the drum of what they might do, or would like to do, they just make very simple statements and then leave everyone waiting, guessing, searching, until they deliver upon it.

Even when BMN delivered Vametco at 26.6% the thoughts turned to fear of YD and how BMN would ever take control of Vametco. As it turned out the path was set long before the initial deal was announced.

This isn't to say that BMN aren't capable of failure, that they get everything right but in terms of deal making that is the evidence we have and its very positive and productive, if you are a shareholder when these things come to fruition.

The focus on the current vanadium price and the perceived lack of newsflow is for me a severe disservice to the progress made and the actions that BMN have taken to set up themselves and their shareholders. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation for what they have achieved and what they have demonstrated they are capable of.

It is all too easily said that BMN have generated the sort of cash flows that enable them now to really attack the resources and associated opportunities that this creates. That they are the only pure play vanadium producer with a fully integrated model, be it a work in progress. That they are on course to build the only electrolyte facility in the entire southern hemisphere.

That they have deliberately partnered with the IDC to not only drive the energy storage industry in S.A. but to lever Eskom towards instigating a major programme of battery storage and better still push the Energy Ministry to include energy storage in its latest IRP.

If investors think for one minute that BMN weren't centre to that, that they just got lucky, that the timing of BMNs ability to tender that project just happened to be the same as its needs, are not looking hard enough at this story.

So for all the daily analysis of the SP and silence I would say this. When BMN is most silent it is normally when they are working at their very hardest, and it historically leads to much greater things than many here could ever wish to fathom because it has highly likely been a long time in the making.

Whilst an older presentation, slide 4 of the enclosed Sound Energy presentation demonstrates what I have been talking about in terms of the Tendara pipeline

https://www.soundenergyplc.com/media/1468/investor-presentation-q1-2017.pdf

Here also are some further details on the Maghreb pipeline.

http://www.emplpipeline.com/en/the-gas-pipeline/

Another key takeaway here is that which was touched upon by CFO Julian Maurice-Williams in his interview with Proactive yesterday. The close proximity to Europe is just as critical as the increasing demand and healthy pricing that exists in Morroco and CHAR gets at that market through the Maghreb pipeline, just like Sound Energy are doing.

This especially tue becasue as the enclosed article below describes there is a political battle going on between Algeria and Morroco over the current Maghreb pipeline that runs through Morroco.

Algeria in 2018 announced that they were planning to complete a new pipeline that will bypass the Morroco section and avoid the need to pay Morroco its 0.5MMm3 gas fee.

In addition, Morroco as of 2021 will take ownership of their section of the pipeline.

Sound Energy who are mentioned in the article, are reported tom have conducted a gas research study that says that Morroco may be able to do without Algerian gas by 2021, although this is deemed optimistic.

Furthermore, Sound Energy are quoted as follows ;

"Sound Energy, due to the volume of future gas discoveries, has already planned to connect it to, if necessary, export its gas to the European continent via Spain."

There is much to like about this situation and the options and reassurance it gives that a field development at Anchois would meet high demand, good pricing, be affordable and also very attractive to what should be multiple potential partners.

To top it all off, they only need to drill one appraisal well at Anchois 1 and hit Gas Sand C, and the top end phase 1 90MMscf/d is very much on. That level of supply potential will make the costs associated with getting the gas to market viable and highly attractive to the market at large.