Member Info for BigBiteNow

To place things in context somewhat.

FY2017 REPORT 16th APRIL 2018

1. Yearly average production 4,857 BOPD and $41.3m in cash and no debt.

2. FY2017 reserves (RNS 4th April 2018) stood at 1P 13.9MMBO and 2P 20.7MMBO

3. Average daily production for March 2018 (RNS 4th April 2018) 6,476 bopd (So current known production at time of full year results)

4. Average price of Brent for 2017 $54.

5. Price of Brent on 16th April $73

6. SP on 16th April 2018 - 15.44p. SP on Fri 20th April 2018 - 18.2p

FY 2018 REPORT DUE 9th APRIL 2019

1. Yearly average production 5,280 bopd and likely roughly same cash levels due mainly to lack of sales in Dec from Platanillo. (+ 8.7%)

2. FY2018 reserves (RNS 4th April 2018) stood at 1P 17.8MMBO and 2P 25.6MMBO (+28% 1P & +23.7% 2P)

3. Average daily production for March 2019 (RNS 26th March 2019) 4,600 bopd (So current known production at time of full year results but excludes 770 bopd from Indico, which is on temporary choke back for Calao-1 and capable of delivering 1,500 bopd net) (-29% - Indico-1 choke back removed then -17%)

4. Average price of Brent for 2018 - $71 (+31.5%)

5. Price of Brent today $67 (-8.2%)

6. SP on 28th March 2019 - 14p. (-23%).

Production at the time of the FY2017 results was upto 17% higher and Brent was 8.2% better than it is today but it is skewed by the fact that Indico is still on short term test. Nevertheless they are negative figures.

On the other side of the coin 1P reserves are up 28% and 2P reserves up 23.7%, thus more than countering any negatives on production and Brent pricing.

Plus FY2018 production will be up on FY2017 along with the average price of Brent and so the netbacks.

The cash position may not change very much but the market isn't stupid and knows that Dec 2018 production from Platanillo is a bonus for H1 2019. In addition, the scale of the potential at CP0-5 was not known until Indico delivered a 300ft oil column with no OWC.

All of the above currently equates to a market valuation that is 23% less than that which received the FY2017 results.

However, those figures do not include ;
1. A $93.5m cash injection from OXY including a 5 well drill programme
2. They do not include a now live 5 well CP0-5 drill programme (At the last set of results the market had Mariposa 1 on long term test only)
3. A $19m buyout of Put 8 which delivers an additional 16MMBO of prospective resources.

AMER is a steal at 14p given what it will report and what it has achieved and opened up over the last 6 months. There is/are seller(s) in our midst, who are painting a far more dreary picture than the actual reality, but they will pass and AMER will re-rate to where it should rightly be given its performance against last year and moving forward.

@willec I don't for one second assume you to be as naive as you would have us believe. Whatever your strategy here is then good luck to you but offering such suggestive comments such as that in your post of 8.40am are poor at best given it is clear that management is carrying out what they promised and with 2 strikes out of 3 at CP0-5, delivering a 300ft oil column without OWC and over 8,000 bopd, the oil is certainly down there.

If you are still around then i will gladly revisit this conversation post the next 3 planned drills at CP0-5. The percentages point to far greater success to come in that block. The bears are overplaying their hand here.

Good morning and good post Rhodi. I am flabbergasted by some of the things I am reading here. Whilst past performance is a risk here it is being overplayed and the duster at Calao-1 is being allowed to be blown up into something it simply is not.

Investors talk about management needing to work on the share price and missed deadlines but completely ignore the plans that are in place and the actions carried out against them thus far.

Since Indico-1 spudded the market has been kept informed of progress on drilling and production as per the schedule laid out by the company last year. The success at Indico brought about a review of the drilling programme and the addition of 4 more directional wells. That plan was negotiated and implemented fairly speedily given they needed to review the data from the drill etc. Upon release the partnership began drilling Calao-1 just 1 month after the revised schedule was agreed.

In addition, the company has produced a new presentation outlining the full capex for the year as currently agreed and to date they are working and reporting against that schedule. We can all sit around assuming the worst and that it will be same old same old ( a position that has been unjustifiably amplified by the dry well at Calao-1), but the reality is the schedule is being followed and until it waivers from its course without good reason, there is absolutely no reason to using the past as a stick to beat the performance of present.

They said they would drill Calao-1 in Q1 and they did. They said they would field enhancements at Platanillo in Q1 and they have.

Given the evidence it is merely a matter of time before the next well will spud, which is planned for Q2, which hasn't even started yet. The sensible option is to go with the Indico-2 and I expect ONGC, given their size and success, to be sensible in their approach and move down that route, but whatever happens drilling will continue because Calao-1 was a step in what is a very long journey.

That same presentation is very clear in that the other blocks are planned for this year with the civil works for Put 9 expected to have begun around about early March (see RNS 22nd Jan), so an update on this should be forthcoming with the results or a Q1 update in early April.

However, the vast majority of kicks in in H2 with at the moment 6 drills planned across 3 blocks of which 5 of those drills are with big partners. It is there that the real fun will start this year and where the SP will be looked after the most. Right now a 14p valuation with POO at $68 does not respect the size of a programme that nobody thus far can say is delayed, missed or forgotten. That's why i just like Rhodi am adding at these levels becasue the risk reward is strong and with all due respect has been generated in part, by the sort of misguided analysis i am enduring on this BB these last few days.

It was my thought that they would maximise the use of March in order to report the full extent of the current orders on the book post rainy season. This is indicated through the wording employed in the Nov 2018 update where they say ;

"December and January are typically quieter months for sales. We anticipate some buying in modest quantities between January and February by fruit and soybean farmers, before an escalation in buying starts in March. Accordingly, we will utilise the January/February periods to step up production in anticipation of the buying season."

Given the way the company has decided to update the market (Half Year/Full Year) I believe they will want to not only demonstrate the H1 results but the outlook for H2 moving forward , and it is that outlook that may be key as the full year cycle develops.

My interpretation and opinion only.

Apologies that should have read ;

"the first date at which the bids will begin to be reviewed could be as late as mid August 2019."

Further to today's announcement it is well worth revisiting the wording from FM during his 20th Feb interview at 121 Mining Cape Town. There FM said ;

"the installation of the battery at Eskom helps "define the economics of energy storage to the overall utility. That is the critical point about having a battery installed there"

This involves the 90 day test, which must now be in play and I assume will not be interrupted by therecommended upgrades from UET. That said with the tenders for the BESS Project now not due until "mid year" and those tendering having 6 weeks to complete their bids, the first date at which the bids will begin to be reviewed could be as late as mid July 2019. That is rather conveniently enough time to complete the full 90 day test and with some room to spare. One should not be over analytical about these things because Eskom has got to hit the tender release date and it could well slip into July but it is still reassuring to know that the panel reviewing those tenders will almost certainly have the data from a fully tested Bushveld Energy battery to consider.

Game on.

In that same interview FM went on to say that the company "expects this year to outline in a lot more detail the business model for Bushveld Energy so the market can start to get a sense why we have been so excited about the energy storage opportunity"

Today's update whilst expressing the opportunity has done nothing more to unlock that box.

I have every faith that when the time is right they will release details to the market but i do wonder why contractual relationships have to date not been forthcoming. The electrolyte plant and the eskom battery both have Bushveld Energy's name on them but the company states very clearly fior the battery that "the system is co-owned by Bushveld Energy and the Industrial Development Corporation ("IDC")." That says to me 50/50 but it is a guesstimate.

For the electrolyte facility they say "the electrolyte production facility is being co-developed by Bushveld Energy and the IDC." That's not co-owned. In addition, BMN have previously given an approximate figure for its construction of $10m funded partly through cash and debt but they do not currently state how it will be shared out.

With construction of the electrolyte facility due to begin in H2 2019 there is an argument to be had that the time to declare this is already beyond us. We are shareholders in a company that is a long way towards building something but don't know how much we own.

I struggle to see how that can remain the case with a pending JSE listing to come.

https://www.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcasts/5c642843355d676181765749/bushveld-minerals-interview-at-121-mining-cape-town

The doom and gloom was a rather sarcastic reflection of the way the BB amd the SP has reacted to the Calao-1 result and nothing more.

In all this doom and gloom i believe there is a great deal to look forward to with Indico 2, which we should see a decision on shortly.

The 22nd Jan update is clear.

"1P and 2P volumes assume conservative production parameters and also assumes that at Indico the Oil Water Contact ("OWC") of the structure exactly coincides with the Lowest Known Oil ("LKO") defined by logs and in-situ sampling and pressure tests in Indico-1X."

"The 3P number is similarly conservative, and assumes that the OWC is located approximately 40 feet deeper than the LKO already established in the well, i.e. an additional 13.6% of effective oil column."

3P number currently stands at 33.3MMBO, 10.6MMBO more than the current 2P reserves.

"The Company expects these estimates to be refined as appraisal and development activities are performed at the Indico discovery. Given the size of the proven oil column, the extent and geometry of the Indico structure, the Company believes that the appraisal and development programme could lead to an increase in the reserves volumes."

I have been looking forward to the Indico appraisals more than the Calao and Pavo-Real drills. They are low risk and could well deliver substantial increases in reserves. Let's not forget that AMER currently hold 17.8m in 1P reserves. Indico-2 should add considerably to that figure.

Right now even the original 17.8MMBO isn't receiving very much respect in the SP but perhaps finding the true OWC will.

Tank you Alfacomp. I have seen Ocasio-Cortez speeches before and she is very good because she is very real, which is rare in politics. She is what America was seeking when they appointed Trump even if they never actually truly found it.

America is a big nut to crack as lomg as a Republican is sitting in the Oval office.

Good morning everyone. Good to see that the dust has mainly settled on yesterday's over reaction.

I am somewhat confused as to how these one off automatic trades are able to alter the mid price as and when they want.

I understand it can happen during te auctions but not inbetween. It is no great consequence but would appreciate any further knowledge on this in order to appreciate why it happens.

Minerals Council forced to launch an application to set aside certain clauses in Mining Charter 3 but continues to work closely with the Mining Ministry to reach an amicable conclusion.

Main sticking point.

"the fact that the charter does not fully recognise the continuing consequences of previous empowerment transactions, particularly in respect of mining right renewals and the transfers of these rights, remains untenable."

I suspect it will be easier to agree post elections.

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/minerals-council-appeals-some-mining-charter-3-provisions-2019-03-27

Now back my favourite topic, that Eskom BESS Project.

I do wonder when BMN/BE will feel confident enough to actually come and say that they are pooling their resources in order to maximise their chances of winning a substantial contract(s) for Eskom.

This RNS once again teases and leaves it for us to pick it apart in order to underdstand the true message being delivered. Great fun but that time should really be coming to an end soon.

In my last post I highlighted this line ;

"Advanced positioning to participate in 1,000MWh of opportunities in Africa by 2020."

Now the company has effectively been saying this for a good few years now but now it has becomes a highlight of the latest BE update and they have cemented the wording as being "1,000MWh of annual opportunities by 2020"

Annual.

They explain this by honing in on a several key events that have taken place recently.

"The World Bank Group ("WBG") committed US$1 billion for Battery Storage to accelerate investments in battery storage for energy systems in low and middle-income countries."

"South Africa's draft 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (the country's electricity plan) has massive opportunities for battery energy storage" which includes "15,000MW of new renewable electricity generation" "peaking generation capacity with provision for alternative technologies (such as battery energy storage)" as well as "200MW per annum for small scale embedded generation that can include storage."

They then go on to say ;

"The South African state-owned electricity utility, Eskom is preparing to roll-out 1,400MWh of battery energy this year and complete it by 2022, in an effort to improve the performance of the power system and integrate more renewable energy." (The 2022 part is new by the way)

Those that have read the articles that are posted on the Bushveld Perspective will know that at least $468m of World bank led funding is being invested into this initial Eskom BESS pilot project. So of that $5 billion, some 10% is already in "low and middle-income countries" in "Sub-Saharan Africa" because it is in South Africa in that Eskom BESS Project, which is right on Bushveld Minerals door step.

What BE are effectively doing here is listing their reasons why they expect to realise 1,000MWh of large scale annual opportunities, and those reasons are tied heavily to SA, they are tied heavily to the only known World Bank battery storage investment to date, and in reality the 1,440MWh Eskom Project I love so much.

Yes there will be other avenues but BMN has been hanging its hat on 1,000MWh per annum ever since the IDC came on board, and that hat is hanging firmly on the Eskom cost hook, which has been levered and manoeuvered to exactly where BE and the IDC want it to be.

If today's RNS says nothing else then it says very clearly that. Like i say it won't happen tomorrow but the most important thing is that it is going to happen, all we need do is wait.

I must say I do think that Dave3J has a point and the BB should be careful not to jump on every negative view point. The BMN story is strong enough to withstand these sorts of things these days and there is room for tolerance and less confrontation.

I believe one of the issues here is that between the collective contributors here (backed by the Bushveld Perspective) a lot of hard work is put in to establish these developments prior to the company making them official. So for a great many here much of the news in the RNS looks like old news, but the market as a whole that is perhaps not the case.

Nowhere is this more relevant than with the "Advanced positioning to participate in 1,000MWh of opportunities in Africa by 2020."

This is particularly true when we then see the wording around the World Bank Group commitment to $1 billion for battery storage. I have posted about this extensively (including producing 3 articles) here that there is a direct link between that World Bank financing and the Eskom BESS Project. Many regular visitors here know about it and have absorbed it such that the company talking about it today is merely a further rubber stamp that it is relevant and very much on. (More about that later).

The 1MW battery project at Vametco is a fantastic opportunity for BE to showcase how it can help SA industry alleviate the burdens being placed on it by load shedding at Eskom. Make no mistake it is great news. However, it will take time to be implemented. Given the client is essentially part of the development team I am confident that they will have it installed this year with a view to showcasing its worth from 2020 onwards. However, that is the key here. As excited as i am about what the future holds for BE one cannot ignore the fact that further time is needed to execute the strategies required to see the story fully blossom.

There are no dates for the electrolyte facility in the RNS but that is mainly because there is still the final DEA Approval hurdle to overcome. It looks to me that the H1 deadline could still be achievable but given my experience of SA processes to date, I am sticking by my Q1 2020 date for the facility going live.

Right now the Eskom BESS Project has a tender release date of "mid year" which is upto 3.5 months later than orginally planned. If all other timelines stay the same then contract awards should be around Christmas 2019. That in theory works in very well with the electrolyte and possible production enhancement at Vametco. However, it isn't happening now and so the company are deliberately skirting around the subject until the time is right to say they are all over it, which I am convinced they are.

BE is a fantastic story and in my view will deliver a very big result here in time but it isn't going to happen after this RNS. This RNS demonstrates that they are working towards it, that the game is afoot but that patience is needed to see it through and win the day.

Good morning everyone.

I am still mulling over much of the content of today's RNS but I tougt I would just share this with the BB.

When BE signed their co-operation agreement with the IDC back on 13th June 2016, they said this ;

"Establish two VRFB verification sites of up to 1.0 MW each in size in South Africa to demonstrate performance of the technology and its use in commercial and utility applications."

That RNS came out about a month after the SPA was signed with Evraz for the purchase of Vametco. So Vametco wasn't secured at that time, only the SPA was agreed which came with a set of tasks that would take nearly a year to resolve. However, that didn't stop BE signing an agreement that needed Vametco in order to have worth, nor did it stop them aiming for that "commercial" "application" which we see bearing fruit today.

The Eskom battery size was amended as the project was developed. Furthermore, the 1MW limit set by NERSA was only gazetted on 10th Nov 2017, so BE could not have been aware of this when they wrote that RNS back in 2016. However, the RNS says upto 1MW and in my view Vametco was always the target, which goes a long way to confirm the sort of detailed forward planning that BMN demonstrates time and again.

It is such details that drive my faith in this investment more than the individual developments themselves because it makes me focus on what I don't know rather than what I have just been told. That is where the greatest rewards are found, ahead of the pack not in it.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=BMN&ArticleCode=rky72vhq&ArticleHeadline=Bushveld_Energy_signs_Cooperation_Agreement

According to page 71 of the ONGC tender for Indico, Sol and Aguila ;

"In case there is a time gap of more than 1 month between the completion of a well and start of mobilization
for the next well, the contractor shall be free to demobilize the rig from the previous well location and
shall be entitled for payment of demobilization charges."

I doubt ONGC are going to let that happen considering the first appraisal well for Indico has highly likely been determined during the last 2 months that Calao-1 was drilled. I also don't believe for one second that the contractor completed the Calao-1 well yesterday.

That assumption aside, the clock is ticking for ONGC and it is down to whether they wish to press ahead with Pavo-Real or drill Indico-2. Watever the case we will hear inside the next 4 weeks.

@JP2000 I am certainly not going to bludgeon your opinion on this. You are entitled to your position as much as anyone.

Personally i won't try to convince you otherwise other than to say it is a little early in CP0-5 development to start throwing such comments back at AMER. Nowhere on Llanos 34 have they ever found 300ft of oil or indeed even broken 2,000 bopd.

It took nearly 7 years and 95 drills for Llanos 34 to it 70,000 bopd. CP0-5 was at 8,000 bopd after just 2.

And we haven't even started talking size difference.

JW and AMER didn't need to say those things. There are no cash raises needed here or need for funding. He said it because of what he believes in his extensive experience the bloack can offer once it starts to be properly developed. A development that AMER ave demonstrated they want ot expedite but are reliant on their partner to agree.

I will happily return to this debate/thread once those first 4 wells are drilled at CP0-5.

NicetoMichu No it wasn't. It was and is Bushveld Minerals.

Very well said Alfacomp.

@Bonscott I follow SA politics very closely and it never ceases to amaze me wat SA politicians can get away with but then perhaps I am judging their culture and their system on my own, which isn't fair.

That said, the ANC under Ramaphosa at the very least is showing a greater care towards its citizens and is fast approaching an election where despite his appointment and positive interjection, the ANC may just get a fright when the results come in. So if nothing else the ANC today is on its toes somewhat.

Therefore, to have these rolling blackouts so close to an election and to know they are being caused by deep rooted corruption that not only took place on the ANcs watch but was actively encouraged by teir own president and his minions, makes teir position all the more weaker. I do not for one second believe that the ANC will be unseated at these elections, the opposition is far too unorganised at this juncture. This is about a slippery slope and the ANC's fall from grace, which they aren't used too and that as them working harder than ever before and perhaps far more minded to protect their position by giving their people what they actually need.

I say all this because it is important to understand when considering the ANCs moves. I believe there is still a great deal of arrogance running through the organisation and indeed corruption, because it is engrained in society there but there is definite concern for teir futures because of what they have allowed to happen in their recent past.

So if unbundling Eskom is what is needed to save their hides it will get done. If allowing municipalities to procure electricity directly from IPPs is what is needed to ensure that their voters are satisfied then it will get done. Eskom will have to get meaner and leaner to survive and the unbundling should help it on the path towards that but it is a long path. Such programmes as the BESS project are a step towards helping Eskom realise its potential, to improve its systems of energy deliveries and to open up new value chains for exports of its goods to other SADC countries. So I have litte fear that opening up IPPs to municipalities will cause BE any problems. If anything it will concentrate Eskom's monopoly based mindset and push it further and fster down the route of energy storage, once it sees the benefits it has before it, and this will for me be backed by a more progressive but equally more concerned ANC, that is seeing the first real cracks in its support since apartheid, even if there is little in the way of strong leadership to replace it right now.

Sorry garyobrien but i completely disagree with you. How on earth is the result and subsequent reserves and conservative outlook for Indico-1 just "big talk."

It is times like this when investors have to take some time to think clearly and remind themselves why they are here. There is no way on earth that Calao-1 was important or critical enough to warrant £50m being scratched off the valuation.

Right now the market is acting as if Indico didn't even happen and so the SP is a nonsense and cannot be trusted to be the market's true evaluation of the progress made by AMER these last 6 months. There are clearly forces in play that are acting to reduce the value beyond levels where it should be, even when taking into account sector sentiment.

With patience it will pass.

Good afternoon everyone.

The Democratic Alliance are going to attempt to outmaneuve Minister radebe by challenging him to allow municipalities to bypass Eskom and procure energy direct from IPPs.

It is absolutely the right thing to do but it will be politically difficult for Radebe to accept a proposal from the DA in the month leading up to the elections. That said, how does he spin saying no when the country is in the midst of experiencing level 4 loadshedding.

I suspect the ANC will turn this on its head and into an ANC policy that they simply hadn't had the time to announce yet.

Whatever the case if Radebe allows this, then its game on for the likes of Bushveld Energy. Remember that solar project in Johannesburg? Remember those quotes from Paul Vermuelen of Johannesburg City Power back in 2017 when he talked about the potential benefits of energy storage for municipalities.

Johannesburg is a Democratic Alliance led municipality.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/da-mayors-to-ask-minister-permission-to-bypass-eskom-2019-03-26

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/south-africa-gauging-energy-storage-growth-opportunities-yet-greater-understanding-required-2017-10-13/rep_id:4136