Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Loudspeaker indeed. As more time passes and the BMN shareholder base becomes more diluted from those 2015 days, these drops of knowledge that enables us to better understand the people who run this company becomes all the more important.

That is not to say that each new move or strategy should not be interrogated and tested. More that there is strength to be found and appreciated in knowing what went into this company pulling off what ended up being 2 of the most tenacious and highly rewarding deals that i have certainly ever witnessed.

It is that strength that places any modern day clashes with the bears on this BB into the true context of what it really means because with all due respect they cannot possibly ever fully understand it all. They haven't lived those days or fought the battles that were won. It doesn't always work that way. Not every company is worth knowing everything about. Only the winners with winning ideas of which BMN is top of the tree.

If BMN 'fails' at anything it won't be because the BOD didn't give their all or failed to live up to their principles, or implement their strategy, that is for sure.

It is also important to remember that the circa 2 year process that was undertook by BMN management to secure the takeover of Lemur, ensured that for over a year (at the bottom of the last downturn) there was no additional dilution to shareholders. They didn't need to do that, they could have carried on with the Mokopone Project without care, but they didn't.

That is one of several signals that points towards the integrity of the BOD when it comes to protecting shareholders from dilution.

This is why item 5 (see below) is the key update for me. Lemur for me will be spun off as part of the conclusion of the finance term sheet, which will come with an equity raise.

"Since early 2018, Lemur has been in discussions with a number of financial institutions regarding project financing for the Imaloto project, with one of these parties completing its due-diligence in Q4 2018. Once all the parties have concluded their due-diligence, they will progress to finalise a term sheet on a syndicated project financing basis."

I am not the greatest fan of coal projects unless they are in a jurisdiction where the people simply do not have a better choice to gain access to power. It is all very well saying coal should be banned or does not fit with the renewable theme, but people have a right to better their lives and electricity is a vital part of that.

There is value to be had in what is a very solid project that currently contributes nothing to the BMN valuation. I would still like to see it spun off but I accept there is a right time to do it and from what I have just read it isn't just yet.

What I would also like to say is that thus far the Lemur team is making a very difficult process look very easy, and given we are talking about Madagascar and JIRAMA, that is to be applauded, because there are other examples of companies out there on AIM who are making a complete mess of the very same strategy, and it is costing their shareholders dearly.

@Faramog Unfortunately that isn't really the point of such actions. The bears are maximising their advantage driven by the poorer than expected Vametco results. They are playing on doubt and fear to make investors believe something that isn't entirely true and encouraging them to forget why they came here in the first place. It is the eternal struggle in this game we play.

This phase will be over soon enough. In the meantime I believe it is important for investors to re-visit their reasons for being invested, test that against what has changed and make their decision based on that and not what they are being led to believe, one way or the other, on a BB.

I have stated my reasons why i am bullish, it is because i am long and not short in any way shape or form whatsoever.

BMN had a great first year however they got there in the end and whatever anyone says, that will start to show itself in good time if one is patient enough and allow it.

But it is imperative to do your own research every step of the way.

@Ma5k One could say that when those that are bearish start posting such charts, they are themselves show signs of overstretching their beliefs.

What applies to those that are bullish can just as easily switch to those that are bearish too.

I would be worried for you if you truly believe that such a chart has a place on this particular BB.

@Vauch Whilst it may well be that BMN only secured the additional (effective) 14.9% on 13th Sept 2018, it should be remembered that the agreed payment included " full and final settlement of accrued but unpaid dividends on the sale shares."

And ;

"The Sojitz shareholding in SMC is acquired free from all claims, liens, equities, charges, encumbrances and adverse rights of any description, and together with all rights attaching thereto, accrued or contingent."

Ownership may have changed in September but in reality BMN owns 74% of what BMN has produced for the whole year, minus the $20m cost of course.

@Daisydog Firstly it is important to appreciate that the company has indicated that it will set out a dividend policy, not that it will pay a dividend. The percentages say that it will come this year, likely post results, but it is not a given because it has not been confirmed as such only the policy moving forwards.

Personally, I would rather see a dividend payment begin next year but that is because I would like them to build up a stronger cash base and proof of profitability. They have after all only just completed their first full year of ownership.

That said I believe it is a mistake to assume that what was achieved somehow places dividends under pressure. Vametco produced $107.5m in EBITDA. That is a very significant number which is getting lost in the focus on shortfalls in planned production.

It should be remembered that FM was talking up a dividend policy as late as 17th October, at which point the company would have known fine well just how much production was likely for the year. I also don't for one minute believe is that the company based its planned policy on vanadium prices at the top of the market, because that would be too risky.

What all of that in turn points towards is that future investments perhaps won't all be being paid for by BMN or that they will be more cost effective than the company is currently letting on. It is important to remember that the $170m estimate will have been pumped up as far as the company dare in order to deliver the highest impact for both BMN and the SA Government, so it will likely have every eventuality in place. Therefore, the actual bill for BMN shareholders is highly likely going to be far lower to achieve the same goals.

A good example of this is the electrolyte plant, which should cost just circa $10m to set up and will almost certainly be financed partially by debt from The IDC, so that they can take their share of the spoils.

It is also important to remind ourselves that the costs associated with dring the energy side of the business are reported as being minimal compared to the mining side of things. That is still to be demonstrated but that doesn't make it any less real. Access to a bigger recession proof market for less capital outlay.

I think what posts such a those by Totaltrader demonstrate is the clear collision points between LTHs and other more fluid or less engrossed investors here. This is a BMN BB for all members of LSE to be able to post commnents on this company, as they see fit. That means there will be LTHs, shorters, traders, etc etc. Right now opinions are clashing based on what is most important to the various minded contributors.

It is not a bad argument to concentrate on profitability and the issues that clearly exist with production. That is first and foremost what a great many investors want to know about and focus upon. However, as a LTH and someone who is entrenched in the story that is BMN, I continue to come at things from a different perspective.

I recognise the shortcomings on the production and will follow developments on that front closely. However, BMN is not just a mining story, it is a very unique integrated battery material play. Vametco is the cash generating vanadium producing element of the business that allows the other exciting ideas and strategies to come to life.

Therefore for me, simply taking the profits of the company as perceived and multiplying it by the MC, whilst perhaps relevant at this point in time, does not scrape the surface of the true potential or profit here. However, I recognise that within this particular short term cycle, that is highly likely where the market will remain focused.

However, for a company in such a steep growth cycle with total investments signposted at upto $170m over the next 3 years, for me the focus should be on how much cash the company has at its disposal to exploit those ideas.

As a LTH I know that there are moves afoot to grow production to 10,000 mtv and that Vametco will highly likely play a part in that. I know that the BEE partner at Vametco was introduced and financed by BMN. Therefore, what I see is not a BMN £34m profit margin, what I see is upto +$100m of cash ready to invest, which is circa 60% of the intended investment for the next 3 years, delivered in just 1 year. Yes it could have been more but it doesn't need to be, so the game is still very much afoot.

That investment will deliver 10,000 mtv, an electrolyte plant and introduce BMN the fully integrated VRFB developer, to the market. Then we can start to talk fair PE ratios becasue that will be a recession proof miner with access to the entire value chain.

Yes the company has work to do and yes it must demonstrate this story for the market to understand, but right now I am content with my own belief that it will happen, just like I was with the Vametco purchase in 2016. I recognise that an investment is often measured on its latest victory or lack of but I foresee greater victories to come and am happy to wait out this short term bearish cycle because it is focused on short term developments and short term gain.

I am here for much bigger things.

DYOR as usual.

@Buzzzipster Yes I did note that but it doesn't make the question go away.

On your other point, "growth initiatives" when considered within the context of what the company has been indicating these last 12 months or so, does make the mind wander. These could of course be Vametco or BMN orientated.

The Q4 update did state "The Company continues to explore several improvement initiatives to further increase production capacity to 5,000 mtV." but I took this to be internal at Vametco given it came immediately after the phase 3 update wording.

Without wishing to fall too far down the rabbit hole, stating that he is based at head office working on growth initiatives points towards work that is not associated with Vametco. If it were then for me the best place to be would be on site, where the project and the problems are.

Therefore if it is external to Vametco and it is indeed true, then for me it has to be to do with either brownfield expansion or electrolyte. They are the clearly defined upfront methods by which BMN intends to grow production through initiatives, and withb them still outstanding I see no reason to try to start to find other options at this juncture.

However, of those two the clearest option is brownfield vanadium processing because that is where Mr Curror's expertise lies and the electrolyte is highly likely being managed by BE and UET people.

So logic says if it is true then he is working on that because as you say, his expertise is SA based vanadium processing and in particular Highveld Steel and Vanadium.

@Dryland thank you for sharing. My own thoughts are I don't buy it. If that is the full answer then it does not say that Mr Curror is still CEO, it says he is working elsewhere.

Furthermore, if he is temporarily working on another BMN project then why remove him from the Bushveld Minerals Leadership slide in the latest presentation. He was there in the previous one, so the change is a conscious one. If the move is permanent then I perceive it as a demotion because he is no longer on that 'leadership' chart.

Instead the COO has been elevated and he is out of the picture. So for me the question still stands, be it not highly critical to know the answer.

An really candid interview with JW, in my opinionn it paints him in a far different light.

Off to Delhi on Friday for high level talks with ONGC because "the scale of the opportunity warrants more than one rig"

3D seismic infills only now required on CP0-5 so its mainly about defining the exploration targets.

Best line of the lot ;

"unique opportunity to build something extremely significsnt in Columbia"

No further acquisitions either. It is now all about exploiting the 1m plus acreage that they have.

All round a very pleasing interview for any AMER shareholder.

@Jamiejojo If you are referring to my comments in my earlier post then no that is not what i meant.

Eskom stated that they would test a zinc bromine battery in 2018. Thus the articles I wrote (see Bushveld Perspective) included the possibiity that there were 3 technologies in the mix. The confirmation that the zinc battery has not actually made it to the test site, now removes one of those possibilities, however strong or weak its technology may be perceived to be.

My thoughts at the time had been that perhaps Eskom would give each battery technology tested at Rosherville and a run out in the field (minus the clearly poor sodium battery from GE). However, since then it has become clear that if Eskom do indeed package the phase 1 BESS Project into 3-4 contract packages, then the chosen technology has to be capable because each package is fairly large. Therefore, the tender whilst perhaps not being alll about cost, will certainly be about performance and how appropriate each technology is for the task it is being asked to perform.

@AlastairMcgrift Here are the IDC's Annual Report 2017 and 2018 (each year ending March 2017 & 2018).

BE partnered with the New Industries Unit, which was set up in 2015. The BE partnership was the first investment made by the New Industries Unit of The IDC.

For anlysis please refer to pages 50-51 in the 2017 report and pages 44-45 in 2018.

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/IDC-AR-2017.pdf

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/IDC-IR-2018-Final.pdf

The closest thing to what BE is doing is the reported investment in lithium-ion battery packs for vehicles working in underground mining operations.

If the SA government is backing a clean technology industry in SA then it will be doing it through this New Industries Unit of the IDC.

The evidence shows that as of March 2018 the only player being backed by the SA government is Bushveld Energy and its vanadium flow battery technology (see page 45 of 2018 Report).

To date I have found no evidence that The IDC has backed anyone else since.

Here comes another minister backing up exactly what I have just posted about, this time Jeff Radebe the Energy Minister ;

“[The] mining sector needs to review its energy consumption patterns to ensure that the sector de-carbonises, decentralises and digitalises. The decreasing costs of renewables, the proven reliability of hybrid power technologies are now driving the interest of mining companies in renewables."

Decentralisation, hybrid power technologies, both battery orientated measures.

He goes on ;

“In Southern Africa, the energy intensive users group alone consumes over 40% of electricity produced in South Africa. About 48% of the energy intensive users in South Africa are from the mining sector."

The mining industry places an extremely high demand pressure on Eskom. By encouraging decentralisation the government isn't just showing its green credentials but also its desire to see the pressure taken off Eskom.

Then along comes the IDC's new partner Bushveld Energy. . .

All these examples I am posting are typical of the new SA government administration. It s always the same faces and they are Ramaphosa faces. You don't see the vice president Mabuza anywhere nearby because he isn't a Ramaphosa man, nor Magashule either. It was the same team at Davos and the SA Investment drive.

These are key government officials showing their discretionary support for moves that support Eskom's security and drive the Ramaphosa business friendly message.

https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/call-mining-industry-adopt-energy-efficient-measures

@Rob1967 These posts will no doubt soon drop away from the page and the endless clutter of short term gain orientated positioning takes centre stage. But some will be taking note and starting to put the numbers together.

What i have just posted clearly demonstrates a connection between Ramaphosa and BE. It shows that he is very much aware of what BE is trying to offer SA.

What that entails is a combination of answers to the key issues that Ramaphosa is dealing with.

Investment, jobs, local benefication that keeps SA minerals in SA to generate more value.

The start of an answer to South Africa's energy shortage problems be it a path that is longer than it is short.

An opportunity to de-centralise energy from Eskom without having to actually make Eskom do very much at all. Thus it is a political answer that he can sell.

A supportive solution for a mining industry that cites energy costs and security as its biggest concern in South Afroca today.

A new and relevant exportable industry with a value of upto $70 billion. There is no better or stronger South African beneficiation story than that.

All of which enables the South African government to financially benefit through the inclusion of The IDC as a partner.

What that article does is demonstrate that Ramaphosa knows all of that, and all The IDC and BE will be saying is it all starts with that very first externally funded BESS Project.

This isn't about today nor is it about how much the market currently values BMN at. The SP will go up and it will go down, but nothing will take away the fundamentals. Nothing will take away the strength of the percentage play I see laid out before me.

The facts are all out there for anyone to go and read and make their own conclusions about. It is abundantly clear where I stand, that's for sure.

"The development of hydrogen fuel cell-powered buses and vanadium batteries are some of the initiatives aimed at beneficiating South African minerals."

Those are the words of the Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies at the South African Mining Investment Roundtable on the margins on the Mining Indaba on Tuesday.

Ramaphosa's words from his 10 point Value Creating Principles.

"Several companies have seen the logic of local benefication and are keen to work with the government to develop downstream industries."

Is the picture becoming clearer for anyone now? When Ramaphosa is talking about those several companies, he is talking about BE and their partners.

https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/sa-focuses-beneficiation-develop-economy

@AlastairMcGrift Agreed and the beauty of it all is that we can currently call of that pipeline a bonus, a free carry. Playing out in the background with the chance of landing anytime.

What I like about the BESS Project is it is tangible, it is real. There are sources of information that demonstrate its value to BE that come from independant trustworthy organisations.

But what I like about the BESS Project the most, is just how little BE is saying about it all right now. It reminds of the vametco days all over again, and gives me very much the same feeling.

(2 of 2)
I don't believe that BE and their partners will need to demonstrate that they have everything in place at the start becasue The World Bank led funding is designed to support "maturity of the technology."

So for me it will be about demonstrating a path along which a successful tender will take BE and its partners, how it will assist Eskom with their future projects by guaranteeing a cost effective localised supply of VRFBs, that create a healthy number of jobs in SA, and involves SA mineral beneficiation.

Number 1 of President Ramaphosa's 10 value Creating Principles, announced at Mining Indaba 2019 states ;

"Companies should embrace benefication"

"Several companies have seen the logic of local benefication and are keen to work with the government to develop downstream industries."

BE partners with The IDC on both the battery and the electrolyte plant, the SA government's investment arm. BE has to be one of the companies tha President Ramaphosa is reffering to.

Eskom is part of the government becasue is an SOE, a State Owned Company.

BE is in my opinion at the ver heart of what Ramaphosa is trying to achieve, and so I cannot see a situation where they don't get given a chance considering they can offer everything that Ramaphosa is looking for. WIN/WIN.

And we haven't even spoken about the desperate state that Eskom is in and the glimmer of hope that a sustainable battery storage industry could do to help alleviate at last some of those problems. WIN/WIN/WIN

So front end for me the political game is the key and it is that along with what BE are offering SA and its government arms, that will win likely win the day in the first phase.

It is important to remember that while the fight will be fair, this is still SA and you have to play the game their way.

Cue Fortune Mojapelo and his statements about those South African levers he and hie team have been pulling (Energy Storage 101 Webinar).

(1 of 2)

@zeusfurla That lightbulb has been going off in my head ever since I established that Eskom were looking to alter the original failed CSP Project into a BSP one.

There is a clear path out there for those willing to read about it, that shows that key allies of BE have played significant roles in getting this BESS Project off the ground.

There are clear signs that it has come about sooner than was originally planned due to external financial pressures from such parties as the World Bank, who were becoming frustrated by the failure to insitigate the CSP Project. This project has after all been running since 2011.

But with new leadership comes new direction.

In an ideal world the electrolyte plant would be fully functioning and would deliver electrolyte to any successful battry contract from day one. However, there are many factors in play here and none of them are stronger than the political ones.

Ramaphosa's 10 point plan and his wording surrounding local beneficiation is a key signal in all of this. It is an insight to what can be expected in the bid documents. It is the very same message that the IDC has been giving out ever since they signed up with BE in June 2016.

At the time Christo Fourie the Head of the New Industries Strategic Business Unit at The IDC said this ;

"The signing of the Agreement with Bushveld Energy marks an important milestone for the IDC's initiative towards the development of a sustainable Energy Storage Industry for South Africa. The IDC and Bushveld Energy share a common vision for the development of a new industry that will ultimately benefit all South Africans through increased local minerals beneficiation, the creation of jobs across the value chain, the increased availability of power and the overall stimulation of growth in the economy. We are excited about our partnership with Bushveld Energy and the contribution that this project will make towards the achievement of our industry development goals for the local Energy Storage industry."

"local minerals beneficiation, the creation of jobs across the value chain, the increased availability of power and the overall stimulation of growth in the economy"

That is right out of the Ramaphosa rule book. Those elements are key to The IDC, they are key to Ramaphosa, they are key to The World bank, and they will be key to the Eskom tender.

(2 of 2)
The Eskom BESS Project bid document is going to be looking for high localised content, it will encourage local beneficiation of SA minerals. It will encourage localised industry to support job creation. All of those things are key goals set out by BMN and are stated as central to the IDC supporting BE.

However, for me the whole thing gets all the more better because price will still come into it eventually. No other VRFB manufacturer will be able to call upon locally produced electrolyte. Now it may well be that this influences phase 2 more than phase 1, but I don't believe that matters. There is ample room to demonstrate intent and with the phase 1 batteries due to be completed by the end of 2020, and knwoing how late th electrolyte is required (commissioning), there is ample good reason to believe that the electrolyte plant can and will play its part in BE's tender.

The plant needs to be built and H1 2020 is looking most likely now, but the cost advantage that will give BE, even on a leased product, will in my view be significant enough to make the difference.

Nothing is a given in life. The competition will no doubt be strong and will come from some very big players, particularly on the lithium-ion side of things. BE is a fledgling energy storage company and that may work against them somewhat but they are backed by UET and the IDC, and with what i have just described above, knowing that there is already a very strong mining business doing the business (despite my concerns of yesterday), they have positioned themselves in as good a position as one could hope for and the percentage play screams back it, from where I am sitting.

One last point. I am not looking for them to secure all the contracts. The World Bank says there will be 3-4 in the 1st phase. Win one. Bag a substantial contract that allow the company and its partners the confidence to sign off on further expansive investment. That encourages UET to come to SA, to build an assembly plant that BE can invest in. That's the goal, that's the trigger.

The World Bank makes it clear.

"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."

The cheque book is open and the will power is there. BE and their partners will have no better front end chance to launch themselves head long into the energy storage space.That's why in my view, BE's time is coming.

(1 of 2)

@zeusfurla The process for the Eskom BESS Project is clearly laid out in the World Bank Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet from 7th December (see below).

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/169331543473014695/pdf/Restructuring-Integrated-Safeguards-Data-Sheet-South-Africa-Eskom-Renewables-Support-Project-P122329.pdf

I take enormous heart from the latest article on the Bushveld Perspective because what it clearly demonstrates is that Eskom are only testing two forms of electrochemical batteries at Rosherville. The 2017 presentation made by Peter Langley (Eskom's senior consultant and for me highly likely their appointed 'technical advisor' for the BESS Project) clearly stated that Eskom was intending to install a VRFB and zinc bromine battery during 2018, with space allocated for a 5th battery.

For whatever reason that has not happened, so the available fully tested technology will be down to 2 because the sodium nickel chloride battery is clearly the unsuitable option.

The World Bank datasheet is clear when it says "The battery storage technology is currently being piloted in South Africa"

That datasheet is dated 7th December 2018.

Now there is a process to be followed here. Eskom will issue bid documents and any company in the world can tender for what is a very large and company making project. So there will be competition a plenty.

The key facts for me are this ;

as far as I am concerned any technology that has not already been tested at Eskom is strongly on the backfoot. Why test the technology and prove it is capable and then go and give the contracts to another technology. Doesn't make sense so i am writing it off. If a company wanted a part in those contracts so badly they should have been knocking down te door of Eskom just like BE, because you have to show willing. I believe Eskom will think exactly the same way.

So then it is down to the companies that supply lithium-ion or VRFBs (I would park the phosphate element for now).

Again there will likely be many tenderers but only 2 companies will have had their technology proved by Eskom. So no matter how good the other options may appear, eskom cannot say 100% that they suit their systems. Only BYD and BE can say that.

But BYD does not have the IDC in its corner, the investment arm of the SA government. Nor does it have the USTDA, authors of the study that paved the way to the BESS Project being created.

Nor from what I have found does BYD have an investment in SA that would meet the localised content that is bound to play a part in the tender. Ramaaphosa just yesterday at Mining Indaba banged the drum about beneficiation of SA minerals. His appointed Eskom BOD is therefore not going to let that slide. Localised jobs and the support of BEE structured suppliers are also going to play a part because they have to. It is all key to the Ramaphosa message and this project is over $660m, so it has to follow those rules.