Member Info for BigBiteNow

(1 of 2)

Good morning all.

Whilst missing self imposed deadlines should be questioned and certainly recorded in the negative column, the crimes should also be considered against the wider longer term picture.

Those that have been here long enough will remember the journey that was travelled towards the PFS for Mokopone in 2015. That journey was full of far greater perils and far greater villians. It was full of doubt and fear, and it took a great deal of collective encouragement to stay the course and trust in the overall fundamentals that had defined why we had stayed invested in a failing iron ore company in the first place.

When the PFS was launched back in Nov 2014, it was the only visible ongoing development that the company had at that time and it was signalled as being "accelerated" and due for completion in H1 2015. In the end it was delivered in Feb 2016, over 7 months later than anticipated.

When the PFS was launched BMN was trading at 2.95p and for the entire process through to Feb 2016, it never traded better than around 4.4p (1st June 2015) and by the time we reached the 8th Feb 2016 release date it was trading again at 3p. So absolutely no progress was made with the SP for over 14 months of a jounrye that we were promised would be a lot shorter.

So LTHs at that time suffered the entire 14 month process of the Mokopone PFS and the company's failings, for no material gain. Why? Because they believed in the fundamentals and what lay ahead by staying the course.

On 21st April 2016 the company suspended prior to announcing Vametco. At that point in time BMN was trading at around 2.45p, so even lower than Nov 2014. The SP remained low right up until 8th March 2017, never surpassing the 4.4p high of 2015 and sitting at a lowly 2.6p at the end of it all.

So that's Nov 2014 to March 2017, 2 years and 3 months, and the SP was 10% lower than when it started.

When the Vametco SPA was announced back in April 2016 V205 was trading at just $3 per lb and energy storage was a dream that had very little public/regulatory knowledge and certainly very little publicly/regulatory backing, and yet we stayed and we waited.

On 8th March 2017 BMN announced that finance for Vametco had been demonstrated ahead of deal closure on 6th April 2017. The SP rose from 2.6p to 8.5p and the rewards for the journey began to bear their fruit.

A missed deadline is exactly that, no more no less, and should not be easily forgotten but it should be placed within the context of what has and is going to be achieved, driven by the fundamentals that have not diminished but greatly improved, and that kept us here in the first place.

Anybody else watching the ask get peppered here? Perhaps it is time for a change around here.

@dav3J In the case of Eskom it is important to understand the make up of the Eskom BESS Project funding and the politics involved within it.

The total cost of the original project, that being the Sere Wind Farm and the 100MW CSP project at Kiwano, was $1.197 billion. The Sere Wind farm has since been completed for a total cost of around $375m

Of the above total, Eskom was originally expected to pay $488m.

For this new battery storage led BESS Project, $661m in funding has been mobilized from external sources such as the Clean Technology Fund and such entities as the African Development Bank.

Now to be clear, the $468m battery storage element of the BESS Project is to be fully funded externally and so does not rely in any way on Eskom raising funds towards it. The World Bank document is very clear when it states under item 2

"The estimated joint financing mobilized for BSP is US$661 million – of which US$195 million from IBRD and US$273 million from CTF"

$195m + $273m = $468m.

"Of this amount ($661m), at least US$468 million will be for battery storage and the balance for Eskom-owned solar PV plants and technical assistance, financed by Eskom and the African Development Bank (AfDB)."

What that very clearly states is that Eskom will need to find some funding for the planned 60MW of new solar PV capacity, but the batteries, all 360MW of them (assuming Eskom get the solar over the line), are 100% financed by external funding. If they don't then there are still 300MW to go out without ever having to spend a penny of Eskom debt laden finances.

Better still Eskom is now in the last chance saloon when it comes to this funding because this project has been running 8 years now and all the parties have to show for it thus far is the Sere Wind farm. Now some may jump on that and question Eskom's ability to deliver but the reality is Eskom couldn't get the CSP projecty off the ground because no one was willing to tender for it.

There will be an ample number of firms willing to tender for $468m of World Bank led funding to build what will be combined, the largest known active project in the world to date. In addition, Eskom has $468m of external funding at its disposal to improve its ability to produce energy at a time when there simply isn't enough to go around.

In my view the percentages point towards a political and strategic will to ensure this project is executed.

So whatever else worries there may be out there regarding BMN's fortunes, the one about Eskom is a red herring and if anything the current loadshedding that we are seeing, is only going to push the political and private business mindset further towards solutions such as battery storage, that help alleviate what is clearly not a short term problem.

Yes there may be some pain for BMN along the way but there is for me far more advantage to be had from a situaiton where the country simply isn't producing or nurturing its energy generation enough.

@Pascha I would refer you to my earlier responses to Totaltrader. The price of vanadium has dropped of late but the YTD average still sits at $77.50 per kg. The recent price drops needs to be monitored but the current price should not cloud the achievements of the year to date.

In 2018 it took vanadium prices until early July to reach that level.

Furthermore, BMN's fortune are far more likely to be centred around its ability to produce its product. Right now I would think the market is basing its thoughts on the current product sold figure of 2,573 mtv. That equates to just 643 mtv per quarter.

That is near as damn it Q4 production.

Whilst i remain cautious on vametco's ability to increase production, I believe that this figure is low given there are plans in place to drive production higher this year. It will simplyu be about how quickly the plant and its team can react.

As for honesty, I would refer you to my comment on your "17p in Sept" remark. Please also bear in mind that the very next day (13th Sept) the company announced the purchase of Sojitz's share of Vametco and the SP hasn't seen lower than 20p since that 12th Sept date and indeed finished the week at 25.75p.

@Pascha Could you please point me to the chart where it shows a BMN SP of 17p in Sept last year. The lowest figure I can find is from 12th Sept and was 19p. Such discrepancies fail to support your criticism of other posters failings.

Secondly, as someone who has followed the South African political situation almost daily for the last 4 years or so, I find your comments regarding needing to have local contacts in S.A. rather misplaced. The situation whilst far from perfect, is infinitely better than it was when Zuma was in charge, Zwane was the Mining Minister, and the Finance Minister's office had a revolving door. I wasn't sat in cash then either and I did rather well out waiting it out in then end.

If you have further details you wish to share that perhaps we haven't thought on then I was would be pleased to read about them. Perhaps we may all learn something new.

@Pascha Could you please point me to the chart where it shows a BMN SP of 17p in Sept last year. The lowest figure I can find is from 12th Sept and was 19p. Such discrepancies fail to support your criticism of other posters failings.

Secondly, as someone who has followed the South African political situation almost daily for the last 4 years or so, I find your comments regarding needing to have local contacts in S.A. rather misplaced. The situation whilst far from perfect, is infinitely better than it was when Zuma was in charge, Zwane was the Mining Minister, and the Finance Minister's office had a revolving door. I wasn't sat in cash then either and I did rather well out waiting it out in then end.

If you have further details you wish to share that perhaps we haven't thought on then I was would be pleased to read about them. Perhaps we may all learn something new.

@Olly4 No problem whatsoever.

(2 of 2)

As for your statement regarding EBITDA, I would offer this.

The current year average price for European FeV after 16 weeks of 2019, is running at circa $77.50 per kg. That is around $5.50 per kg less than 2018 achieved.

However, the rand/dollar exchange YTD is running at near as damn it ZAR 14 compared to a 2018 of ZAR 13.2.

The production cost for 2018 of ZAR 260 looks abouit right for me until we hear more from the company. Employing that figure adds $1 per kg back in just on the exchange. That places the difference currently at around $4.50 per kg, which isn't all that great a drop.

With the product sold figure for 2018 coming in at just 2,573 mtv it would not take very much to cancel out that $4.50 ($4,500 per mtv) figure.

At 2,573 mtv Vametco delivered EBITDA of $41,900 per mtv when FeV 'pricing' averaged $81.20 per kg. 2,573 mtv x $4,500 = $11.6m.

That equates to 276 mtv at EBITDA $41,700 per mtv.

That would place full year 2019 product sold at circa 2,850 mtv. That to me, even with the problems of 2018, is not too high a target, especially when we consider that the EBITDA figure across the board will rise as the operating costs are shared out amongst more production.

So we are talking a 10% rise in production not 30% as you state if the average FeV price comes in at circa $77.50 per kg. That is of course if prices hold that that level. Currently we are heading for another lower week with prices likely to be around $57 per kg. That will reduce the YTD average by $1 per kg.

From what I have seen prices will turn because there simply isn't enough supply and medium true demand has not abated. However, nothing is certain and we must all keep an eye on it. There is of course room on the production side to cover any shortfalls to the $77.50 per kg figure but we will need to see more information from the company in the Q1 update to support this. Personally, i am still at 3,000 mtv for 2019 until we sell those details. I don't believe it too punchy a target and that provides a further 150 mtv of EBITDA to support, which is around another $2 drop in the average price for 2019.

However, all of that aside, i have for many months now said that BMN is not about the size of the profit it makes in 2019, it is about having the necessary funds it needs to deliver the $170m of targeted investment it plans to deliver its full integrated platform and a move to 10,000 mtv production.

Even further drops in average pricing supports that and they are still debt free, which gives them further good options for reaching thei goals if need be. I will repeat that. BMN is a debt free relatively new miner with with a strong balance sheet, that is entering its strongest phase of growth yet.

An achieved production of 9,100 mtv (90%) can deliver the same EBITDA as 2018 for just $12,000 EBITDA per mv.

That's the story here and that is backed by the cash that is being generated now, higher profits or not.

(1 of 2)

With regards to the post of Totaltrader, I am going to go down the route of good post if I may because if nothing else it should stimulate discussion and there were some noteworthy points raised even if I do not agree with them all.

I really don't understand why posters that are 'perceived' to be negative to the fortunes of BMN are not allowed space to breathe here. If someone doesn't agree then they should simply supply a counter argument and be done with it.

@Totaltrader If I may i would firstly like to concentrate on the section of your post starting "Where does that leave BMN?"

It has becomes clear to me that BMN (BE) are now focused in 2 directions within S.A.

The first of these is the pending Eskom BESS Project in S.A. That project carries a minimum $468m stated allowance (see attached document) for the 360MW of batteries that are allocated to the project.

The World Bank who are backing that project through their Clean Technology Fund, as well as other means, states categorically that the project is not designed to be profitable.

Item 25 states ;

"Because of the pioneering role of this battery storage project, its assessment should not be limited to the amount of clean energy enabled and CO2 offset but the impact that the demonstration would have on maturing the
technology, lowering costs and enabling scale-up. Concessional funding is needed at this stage to support maturity
of the technology."

Despite that, this project is right on BMN doorstep and with the right winds behind them (which are already showing themselves through the delayed 2020 start), they have the opportunity to bring a great deal of their inegrated platform to bear on any tender they produce, as well demonstrate substantial local content, which will play a role on the decision making of a BEE compliant S.A. utility.

There are 42 project sites within the full 2 phase project each averaging 4MW per site (Your thoughts on lithium under 10MW noted but not agreed). The plan as described by the World Bank, states that these sites will be split up into 3-4 contract packages in order to avoid delays due to the expedited work programme.

That places the average contract package at around 40MW.

Now I agree that BE may indeed go down the route of building its customer and project base by for going upfront profit. I also agree that until we know what the profit share, contract relationships etc, we cannot truly define how profitable BE will be for BMN.

However, a substantial contract win for Eskom is not about profiability at this stage, it is about impact. It is about demonstrating that BE can win contracts and that the itegrated platfrom has legs. A major contract win with Eskom will do that and that could happen as soon as December this year.

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

(2 of 2)

What has been missing to date is the ability to demonstrate that BMN can deliver such projects. The VRFB at Eskom along with the one planned for Vametco, will go a long way to removing that issue, and will open up both utility and industry based demonstration models. 2 markets, 2 avenues.

Given time those 2 batteries will help convince a great many potential customers that a BE led team can execute their projects and a VRFB can deliver the benefits that they seek. That is key for a company that just 12 months ago had no contracts at all.

That's the key for me. Experience. Projects in the field.

Even with all of that going for them this of course remains a percentage play but what a percentage chance they have and what a wonderfully exciting branch in which to have it in.

However, it will take time. It is not an industry that is going to explode into life over night. It is though moving far quicker than an industry expert/analyst dare believe and all those graphs mean very little for it.

The key is its is happening and right now BMN are as good a bet as anyone could place on VRFBs and the vanadium that supplies them because they are so far ahead of the pack and in the right place at very much the right time.

(1 of 2)

@Cindercone et al

Good morning. Firstly, I just wanted to say that whilst i very much appreciate your comments about me, I feel there are some very helpful and informative contributors to this BB who deliver insightful information and thoughts for all to use (myself included), which goes a long way towards helping investors see the wider picture and is very much worth paying attention to also.

Moving on to BMN. For clarification, I am not stating that BMN is a dead cert. Unfortunately very little in the investment world is that way. What I am talking about is positioning, strength, and percentages.

There is no doubt in my mind that battery storage is going to be at the forefront of future energy generation and distribution. It has still to fully arrive but it is about the time needed now and not whether it will happen. The climate change question has seen to that, delivering the necessary financial support to render any current cost effectiveness questions as obsolete.

What that then does is deliver projects, which in turn are able to demonstrate why the technology is so vital. This builds up a portfolio. It builds confidence in the companies that thus far have done very little in this space, and it enables production of battery units to be increased, thus reducing the cost and setting a snowball affect in motion that will push the industry onto the next level of development.

Now investors and companies spend much time employing generic graphs from the likes of BNEF and Lazard, but they simply aren't appropriate for the BMN model and its opportunities.

BMN is about being a fully integrated platform with control of the entire value chain. That model does not sit within those graphs. BMN is about localising the process to serve local customers with Eskom sitting at the top of the table. That strategy is not demonstrated in those graphs nor the cost savings that come with it.

That is before we introduce the multiple cycles affect that gives VRFBs a greater cost advantage over lithium, which Lazard and BNEF do not currently allow for and!

Start to think about leasing models that further eliminate the cost differences between vanadium and lithium.

In that sort of environment BMN is going to have to work very hard to mess up the opportunity that sits before them, if one believes that the opportunity is real with battery storage technology, which i clearly do. That is because they are going to be able to offer a VRFB solution that is completely beyond anything that the market analysts can currently get their head around.

That is why FM has such a knowing smile on his face when interviewed on this very subject.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Prices-Spike-On-Shale-Slowdown.html

https://uk.reuters.com/article/global-oil/oil-rises-on-iran-sanctions-threat-venezuela-shutdown-idUKL3N21K022

In my delirious stupor I lost sight of the fact that Vametco has now been owned 2 years.

Lest we forget eh. . How time flies when we're having fun.

One last point from me today.

Right now BMN is not about if it will happen it is about when it will happen.

The evidence points towards a continued deficit of vanadium and strong uptake of battery storage. BMN have all the tools they need to deliver an extremely compelling and competitive battery offering in S.A. and sub-saharan Africa.

No other vanadium producer outside of China is anywhere near as advanced as BMN with their integrated platform.

When that integrated platform is in full swing it is going to be a force to be reckoned with on the battery storage scene. BMN with ;

1. 74% ownership of Vametco and a willing and grateful BEE parter;
2. cheaper ore from Brits;
3. an active leasing model and l;
4. a fully operational electrolyte plant;

is going to have all the levers and influences that it needs to adjust its offering to maximise uptake and deliver substantial group driven profits.

BMN with that model in place can pretty much penetrate any Southern African battery progeamme that it likes.

However, it isn't going to happen tomorrow. It isn't likely going to seriously happen until next year and even that will be fractional compared to the next 5-10 years of results, as battery storage begins to become a part of our everyday life.

But it is going to happen and that is what is key here.

On the way there games will be played. Detractors will come and go, scratching away at the story in order to secure a return one way or another, and the market will have its fun.

The SP will rise and it will fall, it will ebb and it will flow, until the market has concrete evidence of what is foretold here is true. Investors will be frustrated time and time again and the witch hunts will no doubt repeat and repeat. That's because those that live and breathe this story expect the market to be upto date, that everyone out there is buying into the story just like they have. Why wouldn't they? How couldn't they? But that isn't how it works. That's not how one gets ahead of the pack. One has to wait and be patient.

It is coming. The true story of BMN and their integrated platform has yet to be told. It has yet to be understood. It will take time to deliver and investors will just have to chew down on it until it does or pack up and leave.

Delivering this story doesn't happen over night and if investors really want to see this story through, they are going to have to wait a lot longer than the 12 months that BMN have owned Vametco. Energy storage is coming but it needs time to grow and so does BMN along with it.

I do very much appreciate the frustration caused by the company not delivering on the communicated signals they have given to shareholders. However, BM have always been like that and they have continued to deliver time and time again, be it on their timescales.

Investors need to remember this is SA and from my experience with that wondefully messed up country, things are done a little different to that of London and their exchanges. The most important thing for me is that when the news has come then it has been substantial, it has been thorough, and it has delivered significant growth in my investment. Therefore, I remain in a forgiving mood until that changes.

I have always said that BMN work to a long term plan, which we investors (unfortunately) are only privy to as when it makes sense to do so. There are and have never been RNSs released to apologise of the inconvenience or explain why things went wrong. That isn't how these guys work. How they work is they get on with the plans and tey deliver strong effective deal making that delivers heavy uplifts in the MC.

I can live with that combination.

For me any dividend policy is attached to that plan and that plan contains purchases, expansions, an energy arm finding it feets, and potentially 2 further mines of some description.

The company needs to get their needs defined. How much cash it is going to take to deliver that plan. First up is the brownfield expansion to 10,000 mtv and the detailed business plan for BE because FM said as much in that Cape Town interview on 21st Feb.

The BE model is communciated as being capex light, so the focus for me must be centred around the brownfield option(s). For me the wording being used points to that option being secured to a point that the CEO can confidently say the plans are coming thois year. Why? Because that is how they have always operated. Vametco was 15 months in the making prior to the SPA. Everything during those 15 months was designed to position BMN and Vametco so that the deal could be sealed. The same must be happening right now with the next one, in whatever form it takes.

However, business can be fluid and nothing goes in a straight line, so there may be tweaks and/or changes, and this may be affecting the dividend policy because it must be percentage driven and that percentage will be nailed down for future years, so it hs to be right.

But most importantly for me and not to be forgotten. This company has all the cash it needs to delivers on its ambitious plans. To deliver 10,000 mtv. To deliver a 200MWh electrolyte plant. To deliver large scale mandates for Eskom and Africa. To deliver a new resource from Brits. Why? Because the dividend policy says so, explains so, which makes the policy itself the news and not what is in it.

Good afternoon everyone.

I haven't really engaged with the dividend discussions here because quite frankly I believe it to be a hyped up discussion that will only lead to disappointment when it comes.

For a dividend policy to be delivered now, prior to the full year accounts, it can surely only be a policy with a percentage of capital dispersement attached. I cannot see how the company could assign a figure to it prior to this. So what will/can that deliver?

In addition, a very loose calculation demonstrates that Vametco delivered BMN around £24m in additional post tax profits in H2 at 74% ownership, when employing the percentage transfer employed in H1 interims (74% kicked in in Sept 2018 but with a one off fee paid including all dividends, the cash for the year is one way or the other theirs).

H1 delivered a consolidated cash balance of £26.2m with £5.4m booked as non controlling interests. The deal with Sojitz reduced this down to £3.5m, thus delivering revising BMN's cash on hand to £22.7m. We then add in the £24m from H2 and we have £46.7m on hand.

However, from that the $20m (£15m) paid to Sojitz has to be removed plus consultancy/legal fees etc. Yes there will be tax savings but taking the £15m as read the reduced cah on hand would be circa £32m.

Then there are the other expenses centred around BE and Brits, which aren't at this time defined. However, let's say they are the same as H1 ans all included at this time. That leaves that same £32m cash balance.

How much do investors believe the company could return to investors given they are in the middle of a strong expansion phase, which we are told includes brownfield acquisitions and no doubt upgrades. That involves financing models for BE. That should involve the development of Mokopone/Brits. Although the signal that money is being returned for me places a pause button firmly on Mokopone for the time being.

Even if the return is say £12m, so 37.5% of the total cash on hand, it is still just 1p a share. Now please do not get me wrong, I would gladly take a dividend and I admire the company wishing to deliver such a goal. However, at say 35p a share and circa 1p a share dividene, that amounts to 2.86%.

A very nice to have for us LTHs but is it really going to set the SP alight? And don't forget that would require around 37% of capital to be returned to shareholders, which is sporty for a young company in such a steep growth cycle.

I appreciate that commencing a dividend is a key move and that it may or may not attract new investors, but in the current MC range it is going to struggle to deliver the SP reaction that so many here appear to be searching for.

The key factors/updates that I am looking for here are the brownfield acquisition(s) and the all important Q1 update. They are the drivers here until those lareg scale mandates are secured and the ownership details and shares around BE are better explained.

@poieo Perhaps I am reading it wrongly but they also have $1.025m in trade debtors (This does not include the Geo loan of $486k), which essentially means that they have achieved closer to 34,500 ton in sales in the period. What they have reported are the revenues at $1.048m. This ties in with the cost of sales which have quite rightly been fully booked for all 35,000 tons. Otherwise the cost per ton would be over $23 because the costs of goods sold is booked as $418,738.

If we strike out the one off (be it painful) Geo deal and add back in this trade debt, then they would have reported near break even. Hence their desire to demonstrate a full trade cycle rather than be judged on half year only.

For anyone that is still around today, 14.1p is the buyzone right now and certainly not sells, as is the case with much of the red O trades this morning. I know because i have been buying.

@Hazbeen Yes it is a tad bit bizarre. I cannot think of any good reason why the company would miss the deadline for their half year report. Some may wish to point to bad news but the reality is even that isn't worth missing your accounting date for when you are not only attending the Investor Show the very next day but are actively encouraging investors to come and talk to you with paid for tickets.

If they fail to release these accounts today then they will spend their time tomorrow receiving questions they will find it difficult to answer, rather than being able to talk about the progress they imply they have made this year.

That says to me that the report will still come out today but they aren't leaving investors a great deal of time to review it nor respecting their desire to do so prior to the event tomorrow.

@willec Then I would encourage those investors to review their reaons and understanding for being invested in an E&P company.

Of course none of the planned drills can guarantee success but that fact hasn't altered simply because of one duster. The planned drills carry the same COS as they always did, so what is truly new? The answer is nothing.

In my opinion, anyone focusing purely on the Calao-1 result and ignoring the 8,000 plus bopd successes at Mariposa and Indico is doing themselves, their familes and their wallets a great disservice.

Those with fear in their hearts can gladly step off the AMER train and go find something else that helps them sleep at night, and i wish them well with it. Said investors sales along with the other games that are being played here can drag the SP as low as they wish, it means very little in the long run. It doesn't change the fundamentals, it doesn't chnage the excitement I feel for the deals that have been struck or the activity and expectation that I have for CP0-5.

There is very good money to be made here and I intend being around when it is made.