Member Info for BigBiteNow

JW being interviewed by Mr Graham-Wood on Core Finance TV today. Perfect timing given the announcement earlier today.

https://twitter.com/mgrahamwood/status/1092322825246068738

An excellent start to the week, not just because Calao-1 has spudded but that it spudded near as damn as per the guidance. It shows there is renewed intent from both AMER and ONGC, which will help grow trust in the market.

An announcement cofirming a 2nd rig would really drive that message home.

@gkb47 I dismiss it because according to the World Bank restructuring paper, the technology to be employed for the BESS Project "is currently being tested at Eskom."

There are only 4 battery types under test and the Sodium battery is stated as being unsuitable for Eskoms needs. That leaves the 3 I have mentioned.

Logic says that Eskom wouldn't spend upto 2 years testing 3 electrochemical battery solutions and then go and procure a completely different type for their very first major project. I appreciate that the BE led VRFB perceived as being a little late to the party, but there is more than enough evidence in those 3 articles I have written, to support my belief that BE have sufficient backing (driven by the IDC) to make their inclusion a formality.

Right now the IDC aren't backing anyone else.

@Expert10201 Nobody knows how many contracts will be vanadium, as there are 3-4 known electrochemical technologies being tested.

The reality is it will come down to Lithium, Zinc or Vanadium based batteries.

Phase 1 is 800MWh and will be split into 3-4 contract packages. So in theory the minimum goal would be 1 package of circa 200-250MWh of batteries. One can make an argument for that requiring around 1,000 - 1,250 mtv.

There are 42 sites in phase 1 and there is no expectation that they will all be rolled out at the same time. Phase 1 runs from late 2019 to Dec 2020. So in theory it is possible that electrolyte from BE could be employed for at least part of any successful tender. My issue though is the vanadium to make the electrolyte.

That aside, it should not be forgotten that phase 2 doesn't even have a tender date yet, but it currently runs to the end of 2021. Again in theory, that would give BMN sufficient time to overcome production problems and deliver meaningful electrolyte supply.

It should also not be forgotten that the current dates are planned and not guaranteed. That said I believe Eskom are under pressure to deliver this time around.

There are currently many conclusions to be made but what we need is more information from the company on what they are actually planning. That said this is a very big opportunity ad I am sure BMN will be moving mountains and pulling those reported levers, to be a part of it. The chance is just too good to do otherwise.

For the avoidance of doubt the main Eskom test runs for just 90 days. The full test runs 3 years but it isn't relevant to the BESS Project.

The earliest possible conclusion of the bidding process for the Eskom BESS Project is 30th April, and the evaluation of the bids isn't due to be completed until 2nd June 2019. If the BE battery commenced some 10-12 days ago, then the 90 day test will be completed before the end of the deadline for the bids.

I have posted the enclosed document before and have included references to it in the various posts and articles I have published both here and on The Bushveld Perspective.

I would encourage all investors to review said information once again but particularly the presentation below. If you read the wording carefully then the so called head start that the BYD lithium battery is perceived to have had, is just that, perception. Eskom wanted to prove that battery storage could be rolled out at grid level. The BYD offering proved that. However, they want to test other versions and find the best solution for each of their required applications.

Take a look at the date of the presentation (end of 2017), the programme was well und way at that pount, so it highly likely has not been changed. Why would it be? It has led to the BESS Project. It's tests demonstrate exactly what Eskom are looking for within this first 1,440MWh pilot project.

If you don't believe me, then take a look at the test criteria, tie it back into the Energy Storage webinar findings.

As far as I can see the BE battery has been commissioned in good time and the test will be completed such that any BE led tender will gain from having had its battery tested at Eskom.

That places them at the front of the VRFB queue if nothing else.

Commissioning of that battery in January means it's very much game on. The thing I would like to know now is where is the electrolyte going to come from.

https://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Peter-Langley_Eskom_Key-learnings-from-a-battery-test-facility.pdf

I would also like to add that the tenders are due out mid March 2019, so we are not talking about a project that is a wish or a dream. It has a set of deadlines that are clealry stated in the World Bank paper. Eskom has a certain amount of pressure on it because of the time wasted attempting to ge the previous project (The 100MW CSP Project) off the ground.

As an absolute minimum, the current SP is supported by the current levels of success at Vametco. Imrpoved V prices and signs of stronger production can only add further upwards pressure to it. That makes everything else a free carry from these levels. If BMN and its partners are indeed successful with tendering the Eskom BESS Project, in whatever format that takes, then the SP at these levels will be significanrtly undervalued because BMN will have demonstrates that they are indeed a fully integrated vanadium producer with access to profits in all areas of the value chain.

The market may not react straight away, it may need figures, relationships etc to be defined, but it will happen because success in tendering for Eskom, and what that means for future access to what will be a greater expanded programme of work, what it would mean for access to other customers who will be able to see that this team can win work for the largest utility in Africa, will at the very least be a significant move into this space.

Right now that is a free carry because Vametco, even in its diminished state, is delivering enough to support where we are right now. Believe or believe not, that is everyone's choice. The information is all there to be read and reviewed.

@Bolgas I have carried out a detailed review of the events and connected relationships that have led up to the pending Eskom BESS Project. These 3 pieces of research can be found on The Bushveld Perspective under public articles.

It is true, the World Bank with a number of other supportive organisations such as the AfDB is supporting Eskom with its plans to roll out battery storage across a number of solar and wind projects within Eskom's fleet.

The minimum spend for the battery element alone is $468m (as stated by the World Bank in the enclosed document) and will cover some 360MW of storage capacity over 2 phases.

The paper is dated 30th November 2018 and states quote clearly that the lending parties are positive about Eskom's recent actions in achieving the actions set to date.

The paper is also absolutely clear that this is project involves electrochemical batteries only and the chosen technology is currently being tested at eskom's Rosherville facility.

The paper is also absolutely clear that this project is not designed to be profitable. This is about supporting the roll out of battery projects and scale up of the technology ;

Item 25.
"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."

I could go on but I have already put a great deal o work into this and those articles, so I would recommend reading them and making your own conclusions. There are no guarantees in life but my findings, taken from a great many sources, tells me that BMN and the IDC have played a mjor role in making this project happen and The IDC is backing only 1 player in this space, and that's an SA business with plans to set up a localised energy storage industry based around beneficiated South African minerals and therefore high local content.

There are no guarantees in life but the Eskom BESS Project is as good as it gets for a young company wishing to establish itself in this space. They will have no greater incentive nor greater cost and regulatory advantage, than they do with this particular project. So if nothing else I expect them to be going all out to secure one of the 3-4 contract packages that the first 800MWh phase will be split into.

So its not about getting carried away, its about getting ahead of the pack once more.

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

Good morning all. I have been a shareholder here for a good few months now but have had little time to post my reasonings on why.

Having read the key releases by the company, my own opinion is that this is a very solid and well organised little business that has overcome the major risk factors and set itself up for a prosperous future going forward. The only question mark that remains is sales and that for me is being over playedas there i ample evidence that profitabiliy is within reach.

A key document for me is the Q&A document, which gives very solid data on the expected outcomes for this year.

Key points in this document as I see it ;

"The Company has made a decision to hold off revenue recognition until the new financial year to properly align revenue and related production expenses and additionally to assist investors in seeing performance from a "standing start"."

"it is apparent that there is going to be a period of some months where all production will be required to meet the existing sales orders" Full production as I see it is circa 27,000 tons per month.

"At the moment, the sales orders that are already in the book are more than sufficient to see the Company reach profitability and become cashflow positive."

"At the start of the year we spoke publicly about a sales target of 30Kt. The contracts we have signed significantly exceed that target and so we are well ahead."

"the Company will reach profitability and become cashflow positive once it achieves sales of approximately 25,000 tonnes per annum."

RNS 17th Oct 17
Brian McMaster "it is anticipated that the bulk of our robust potential order book, currently standing at over 20 independent farmers and corporations, will cross the line quickly after certification."

RNS 7th March 18
"Contract is for an initial supply of 36Kt of KPfértil"

"Supply will come from existing stock already produced at Arapua"

"Delivery will commence in early May 2018" The agree sale price was $60/t. That's $5 above the sale price advertised in the latest presentation.

RNS 11th June 18
"initial 50Kt of KPfértil. . . The terms of the Contract are consistent with previously reported sales.Harvest will not incur any transport costs as it is not assuming responsibility for delivery of the product. It is anticipated that sales will commence in September 2018, or earlier at the Company's election, and continue for 12 months"

Given the time lag, I expect the 36kt delivery to be completed. The 50Kt delivery is indeed commenced in Sept should have delivered upto 16Kt also at circa $60/t.

Even with the additional investments made in the plant in the period, the sales look strong enough to overcome that at around 50Kt, payment periods aside. If additional sales can be demonstrated in the update then the current valuation will be left for dead.

In my view everything looks very good here. Oil looks to have found stability above $60 and has more than enough to supporting factors to keep it there during 2019.

The base production figure of 5,400 bopd is more than enough to support the current SP, be it that oil stocks look to be carrying greater discounts than normal on what they are achieving. With platanillo 22 and 8 still to come back on line, at the very least the 5,400 bopd is trustworthy as a base case production figure.

However, putting to one side hopes and aspirations for additional drill rigs on CP0-5 and any success with OXY in Putamayo later in the year, we have a minimum 4 well programme in and around an oil discovery with an oil column of over 200ft and a 6.5km run all the way to Mariposa. 2 of those wells are appraisal wells designed to increase production and refine resources. Therefore, it isn't beyond reason to expect all 4 wells to deliver and for 5,400 bopd to be pushing 10,000 bopd later in the year.

The current SP even with these modern discounts is not even close to respecting that, and there is every chance that a 2nd rig will indeed be contracted, because why wouldn't you knowing how big a fariway this is.

The SP has had a pull back but that is all it is, the next leg up will happen when it is ready, but it is for me a when and not an if.

Good morning all.

Well in some ways I am delighted and others not so. I will start with the positives. $107.5m in EBITDA in what I consider to be a poor year of production is a very strong figure for a company in a steep growth phase.

From the figures demonstrated by the company in the table, Vametco average $75,000 per mtv sale price against a yearly MB average of $81,200.

This then allowed the business to achieve EBITDA of $41,900 per mtv. So unsurprisingly operating costs increased a little against H1, coming in at $33,100 per mtv (H1 $32,500).

What that means is that when Vametco sells 2,573 mtv of vanadium at $75,000 per mtv sale price, it has the ability to achieve at least $107.5m in EBITDA.

There are clearly been a multitude of bedding in issues at Vametco and this young company has been clealry been overzealous in the targets it has set the Vametco management team, but as so many posters here have reminded us, actual figures is what this is all about.

At 2,573 mtv sold and a $75,000 realised vanadium price, BMN at 74% ownership is generating £61m in EBITDA.

With a current indicated production ceiling of 3,400 mtv, which admittedly will not be reached immediately given the tasks involved, there is significant growth available even without a fully functioning Phase 2 or indeed Phase 3.

What is clear is that the company expects to produce more than the 2,560 mtv achieved in 2018, which let's face it they should.

I have the current MB EUR FeV average price at circa $81.70 per kg after 8 weeks of Q1. My Q4 average was $112.40 whilst the company has called it at $108 against an actual achieved price of $102.5 per kg. So a 5% discount.

Whilst my ongoing estimate was still close at only circa 3.9% difference, moving forward I will includ the 5% discount figure until further evidence is available to challenge it.

Employing that same 5% discount places Q1 realised price at $77.60 per kg, so ahead of the 2018 realised average figure with prices clearly set to run higher in the coming weeks.

Therefore, right now 2019 is delivering a figure above the average price achieved for 2018. In my opinion the company is clearly going to beat the 2,560 mtv figure.

My conservative view was 3,300 mtv but given the issues that still need to be overcome, I would argue that this needs to be reduced until stronger evidence exists that the problems with the plant are being solved.

My revised target for SALES would therefore be 3,000 mtv.

At a maintained EBITDA of $41,900 per mtv that would place full year at $125.7m when FeV prices come in at $81.70 per kg for the year. That looks very solid to me.

I think that is the key figure to be focusing in on because this is a company in a steep growth phase, so its not about profits, its about cash flow and having the firepower to attack the company's goals. Whatever the disappointments of what could have been, that sort of cash generation is very significant and remains my focu

@Expert10201 It is 29th Jan and the company has still to update the market on its Q4 and 2018 financial achievements at Vametco. It is about as imminent as they come. If this werea game of chicken then the contestents eyeballs are almost touching.

If the market isn't getting excited about that by now, then it simply doesn't understand the impact or doesn't yet believe it. If the numbers are indeed strong, then a bull run is sujrely about to be triggered.

In terms of the perceived news blackout/ delayed releases, i would say this.

It is wise to remember that the second payment from the employee agreement that was signed following the strike last year, will be based on the full year results from Vametco.

RNS 21st Sept

"A second payment in respect of the period 01 July 2018 to 31 December 2018 shall be payable after the release of the financial results of Bushveld Vametco Alloys Limited for the FY 2018 which is expected to be paid by 31 March 2019."

"The Company and AMCU have further committed to accelerate discussions for establishing a framework for a new ESOPS structure to be implemented from 1 January 2019"

The only reference anyone has for the Q4 Production Update is 2018 and the date of 22nd January. It is only 28th January now. Whilst I too would very much like to see consistent reporting I am also very much aware that the company has to get the figures nailed down because that second payment is tied into the success of it.

Furthermore, whilst it is the company's own doing, the Bushveld Vanadium updates are comprehensive and could well include the Vametco and Brits resource updates.

More importantly they will include the 2019 guidance, which given the wording associated with reviewing the timing and investment associated with Phase 3, is a potentially very delicate item because it may well give the game away. If it does then the company has to be sure of what they are saying, which may well be worth waiting a few more days for. That in turn affects production cost guidance for the year.

Those 2 items will go a long way to demonstrating Bushveld Vametco's capabilities for the year, so it needs to be done thoroughly, particularly after the mistakes of 2018 where 3,680 mtv became 2,650.

What is absolutely certain is that those Bushveld Vametco figures will be released because they have to be to satisfy the employee agreement.

Ophidian I would also encourage you to read through the information in the Admission Document on the Mineral Resources estimates (pages 199 - 219). It was this informaiton that was released as part of the resource review in the RNS dated 16th November 2017. The same update that highlighted discrepancies within the existing drilling at Vametco.

The Indicated resource element of the resource sits only within the Lower Seam. It is this area that is currently being mined at Vametco. Figure 7-11 shows this is detail (page 216). The blue area depicts the 3.5km current strike length. The red area is the current indicated resource area and it is 'only' 2km long at its furthest points. Furthermore, it sits roughly 1.25km from the boundary.

Table 7.1 on page 200 lists all 52 drillholes conducted within the Mining Right Area dating back as far as the 1960's.

Section 7.2 page 201 "Drilling intersected magnetite mineralisation in all the holes drilled along 3.1 km of
strike of the 4.7 km mining license area"

"The Lower Seam intersection drilled thickness is between 3.96 m and 51.57 m with an average thickness of 30.58 m. This zone is the thickest of the three magnetite layers and has the highest V2O5 magnetite grade."

BVL 1 to 8 the first drillholes from the Brits Project campaign all hit the LS and demonstrated it holds the highest magnetite grade V205.

There is far more within the those pages but one would assume that the focus would remain on the LS and if so then perhaps extending the indicated resource in the direction of the site boundary is the first assignment, and that perhaps would stem from the updated Mining Works Programme that is expected in Q1 2019.

http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/247647-Project-Boost-120-dpi.pdf

This will answer our question. See Item 4 onwards. Very detailed and explanatory.

"Basic Assessment Process to be undertaken."

https://sahris.sahra.org.za/sites/default/files/additionaldocs/Project%20Information%20Document_Dunrose%20Investments%20174.pdf

@Ophidian Yes you could say that.

I found this later announcement that confirms the sign off and depicts the plan for the extension. At first glance would say that is exactly what Vametco would/could do, if the intension is to expand onto Uitvolgrond Portion 3.

The way I interpret Section 3.1.3 is that a section 102 is only required when an additional property is affected. Vametco sits on Uitvolgrond Portion 1, so an extension to the boundary does not involve an additional 'property.'

If that is true then the argument for extending within the 1km area of Vametco (for now) is even more relevant and within the regulations.

That all said, there is now a clear method for the inclusion of Portion 3 within the mine plan of Vametco at a later date. This would involve a Section 102 and would need a EMP. An example of which is included in the second document below. The process looks lengthy and so as I say, expansion within the Vametco area looks more and more likely.

https://www.south32.net/docs/default-source/exchange-releases/south32-approves-klipspruit-life-extension-project.pdf?sfvrsn=4d4cfdc2_6

https://sahris.sahra.org.za/sites/default/files/heritagereports/COP2428_NID.pdf

Here's anothe rlittle gem from the Admission Document, which is an Aladdin's cave of wonderful details on a company that doesn't really like to talk about itself too much.

Page 29.

"Products are predominantly exported. Evraz was historically responsibly for sales globally (excluding South Africa, Japan, China and Korea). Sojitz, a 21.2 per cent. minority economic interest in SMC, is responsible for sales into Japan, China and Korea. Customer contracts were directly with Evraz who received a 5 percent. Fee. Following the acquisition of the SMC Group by Bushveld Vametco, an agreement was entered into with Wogen to provide the sales and marketing services previously provided by Evraz. Sales in South Africa are made directly by the Vametco Group."

The removal of Sojitz did more than simply remove a minority partner that was potentially preventing the accelerated expenditure of existing cash flows, it opened up the Asian markets including China.

That is what I wanted to hear Ophidian, thank you.

Game on.

The enclosed presentation from June 2018 (slide 11) demonstrates the customer base as of 2017.

http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Bushveld-Minerals-Junior-Indaba-presentation.pdf

This additional extract from the 2017 Admission Document gives further insights into the customer base. Note the marked increase in the share of revenues from the top 10 customers in 2017. However, only 3 customers account for over 5% of sales an no customer more than 8.5%.

"Customer concentration
The top 10 customers accounted for 34 per cent., 35 per cent., 27 per cent. and 48 per cent. of revenue
for Vametco in FY2014, 2015, 2016 and YTD2017. Whilst no individual customer accounted for over
10 per cent. of sales, three customers accounted for over 5 per cent. of sales with Tata Steel accounting
for 8.6 per cent. of sales. Whilst Tata Steel has been a customer of Vametco for over 35 years, there is no
contract in place with Tata Steel with individual purchase orders placed for each sale and for each entity of
the Tate Steel group, including Tata Steel UK. The management of Vametco plan to negotiate a contract in
the near term."

@Ophidian That sounds very promising indeed. I was also thinking that any extension would be north easterly.

What I am not entirely clear is on is why they would not have conducted more drilling in this phase within the 1km extension area.

Also, why the company continually talks about the Brits Project supporting the Phase 3 expansion when under this plan, if correctly identified, the real news is an extension of Vametco towards the site boundary.

What is absolutely clear now that I have analysed it, is that Plan A must be an extension of the open pit at Vametco based simply on the fact that the company has made no visible moves to allow Brits to become active. Without regulatory approvals I struggle to see how Brits could advance.

Lastly, I took another look at the Sable Minerals 2015 Report. It was always Uitvolgrond Portion 3 that was the most advanced. In the valuation within that document, Uitvolgrond Portion 3 was the only farm that had an inferred resource (be it very basic). It was Uitvolgrond Portion 3 where the sample borehole UUG302 was taken and it was that sample that was tested by Evraz Highveld Steel ahead of a potential offtake agreement being signed.

As a reminder here is what the Sable Minerals CEO stated in that same report ;

"negotiations commenced with Evraz Highveld Steel to supply vanadium ore to their plant in Witbank. A draft
agreement for the ongoing supply of ore was ready for signature in June 2014, when Evraz Highveld Steel decided that they needed to process a bulk sample through their plant"

A strong indication that Brits ore can be processed by Witbank, which brings into play both Highveld Steel and the Vanchem plant. we knew that already but there's nothing wrong with a healthy reminder.

In the BMN 6th November 2015 RNS the company stated this regarding the purhcase of Brits ;

"Acquired project adjacent to Vametco Alloys (primary vanadium mining and processing operation) and several other potential processing facilities; well serviced with logistics infrastructure linking project area to these processing plants."

Again all news from the Vametco investigations back in 2015. Since then Vametco has been acquired but the RNS always stated processing facilities and plants, plural not singular.

That said i am talking about a bigger longer term picture because if the medium term plan is to extend the Vametco strike towards Briots, then that ore is directly linkable to both Highveld Steel and Vanchem.

The company can keeep on talking about generalistic options, but the reality is that Highveld Steel going out of business delivered more than just a distressed asset in the form of Vametco. This particular love triangle includes both Highveld Steel and Vanchem and until they are off the table they remain on the menu because they are logically the right way to progress because of the previous connections held through Evraz.

(2 of 2)

There are 2 ways that I can see this could happen ;

1. As you have said, the intension all along was to first and foremost take advantage of the near 1km extension that exists between the current 3.5km open pit at Vametco and the boundary to Brits.

2. There is an intension to sell/rent Brits Project Portion 3 to Vametco so that it can somehow be included as part of the Vametco Mining Plan and Right. How that is achieved i have yet to determine but I lea towards it not being acceptable.

However, the easiest option as far as i can see is option 1 because it keeps everything within the confines of Vametco. Plus an upto 1km extension would theoretically increase the Vametco pit by circa 30%.

The question I have is why wasn't this done previously?

I do see an argument that drilling would need to take place close to or over the border of Portion 3, in order to revise the Mining Works Programme, but would that have been absolutely necessary? Over to you on that one.

What is significant is that under the 2011 Amendment to the SA Mine Health & Safety Act Chapter 17(11), the following rules apply ;

"Boundary Pillars

The employer must take reasonable measures to ensure that on the inside of every mine boundary, continuous pillars are left standing (in situ) the width of which, measured horizontally and at right angles to the boundary line, must not be less than -

(a) for underground coal mines, 15 (fifteen) metres;
(b) for all other mines, 9 (nine) metres."

As Vametco is open cast then the 9m rule would apply, thus Vametco could adjust its mine plan and exploit pretty much all of the near 1km stretch up to the boundary. The only thing they need to do first is confirm the ore body is there.

Given the lack of urgency in pursuing a conclusion to the dispute on Portion 2 and the fact no application for a Mining Right for Portion 3 has been made, logic says that the focus (initially at least) is to expand the Vametco open pit to the boundary of the mine.

This is further supported by the wording used by the company in the Q3 Update ;

"These assay results provide evidence of continuity of ore grades and thicknesses similar to the adjacent operating Bushveld Vametco Alloys mine and confirm the potential for an eastward extension of the current orebody being mined at Vametco."

It clearly says extension.

If it is indeed true, which is looking likely, then that effectively takes all regulatory issues associated with Brits off the table and the ability to implement these works lie in the hands of the Vametco team. Upon implementation we should see significantly increased reserves but also previously highlighted production cost savings.

A 1km extension east will add many years of lower cost mining to Vametco giving the company ample time to complete any regulatory requirements for an eventual further extension onto Portion 3 of the Brits project.

Thoughts welcome.