Member Info for BigBiteNow

I have a great many quotes boucning around in my head. Here's another one from the BE Q2 update dated 11th July.

"An EIA is also required for the chemicals plant that will be co-located with Bushveld's existing mining and processing facility at the Vametco vanadium mine. This application will be combined with Vametco's overall expansion application and thus not add any additional time or cost to Vametco's EIA process, highlighting an example of the synergies of vertical integration in Bushveld's business model"

"Overall expansion programme."

2017 Admission Document page 229 describes Phase 3 as follows ;

"The last phase of the expansion will be focussed on upgrading the kiln feed and discharge
equipment in order to produce to at its maximum mechanical capacity. Further evaporative capacity
will need to be increased to cater for the additional evaporative capacity required with the increased production volumes"

I am not expert on EIAs in SA but the above list of activities does not lend itself to a full EIA with public participation. A new open pit would do though.

@Coffeecups I appreciate you thoughts and belief regarding Mokopone but I do disagree.

I know the company has stated that it remaisn part of the company's plans but it does not have a Mining Right and therefore I struggle to see how the company can make a bold statement of reaching 10,000 mtv in the medium term, if it is involved in those plans.

For me it is as I have always said, Brits and Vametco is the key central hub to all of this and with Brits about to declare a resource early next year, there will be more than enough high grade material (higher grades than Mokopone and closer to brownfield) to achieve 10,000 mtv.

Mokopone no doubt has a place in the future expansion and perhaps will drive accelerated production earlier, once the Mining Right is received, but in terms of cost to develop, brownfield plus Brits is the logical choice for me.

@middleEastMoney I am not looking into the broker because I already know enough about them to know what they are about.

For me this is about raising capital for expansion and if its equity related then that ties naturally into the JSE listing. As much as that appears unnecessary that is where the logic takes me.

Some investors may question the need to dilute ( if they are of course) but if that is indeed the intention then i would be focused on what the cash is going to be used for. Its not what you have got, its how you use it.

Just take a look at the 26th March 2018 raise and what it and the subsequent investments did for the SP and the company's position. Let's also not forget that £4m is still being employed for ;

"Expansion of the vanadium reserves and resources at the Vametco mine and Brits Project for future production and support Vametco's expansion plans to increase production to more than 5,000mtV and beyond"

BEYOND.

The Sojitz deal helped close out the first major leg of the BMN strategy by bringing the maximum amount of Vametco available into the fold, removing all corporate obstacles, and marking the path to 5,000 mtv. That strategy is now progressed as much as needs be at a corporate level, it is about the Vametco team now bringing it to a natural conclusion. My view.

Clearly those plans were designed with 2018 in mind. So we are on to new corporate actions and a new year.

This appointment sets things up very nicely for a January/February corporate strategy announced off the back of a cash injection to achieve it. Remember the last broker appointment was 25 days before the $22.2m equity placing.

Remember Brits resource is due Q1, Vametco Q4 figures and 2019 guidance, and brownfield expansion to 10,000 mtv is medium term starting H2 2018. To hit medium term they have to raise cash, buy something, gain regulatory approvals and then either build or renovate it, then ramp it up to full production.

2 years is justified and if that is the case then the time to reveal what it is, cannot be very far off. Hence my Jan/Feb dates. Plus Vametco will come up short on cash flows if they are needed early next year.

Anorther point worth noting. If Bris resource is being announced in Q1, then the plan for what happens next must naturally follow because the resource will be defined as a reserve.

I might well be wrong, I have been before. Its just my opinion but this event only strengthens my belief.

BMO have been appointed joint corporate broker, not nominated advisor. This is about cash for investment and given how well Vametco is doing, it must be significant, which means the plans are too.

@Daisan I wouldn't be so sure about that. I keep coming back to the Sojitz deal and what it means in terms of freeing up cash flows for future plans, but also what that then ties into.

I have had an itch in my head for a while now that all of these indicated but not fully communicated plans are connected by something.

There is every justification in saying that Vametco is generating enough cash flow to cover all of the anticipated plans making up the $170m of investment planned over the next 3 years (which lets be clear includes the Vametco phases).

Therefore, the JSE listing should not need to raise cash particularly when one includes the fact that BMN is still debt free.

But and it is a big but for me, I can't help feel that something is cooking in the BMN kitchen. As I said earlier I am ruling out Mokopone completely because it has no Mining Right and that is a key catalyst for investment sign offs.

Also the expansion to 5,000 mtv is fully paid for through existing cash flows. I also believe the electrolyte plant will be covered through the same means because it is quoted at 'just' $10m and FM has stated there will be debt elements, which tunes in with IDC forms of support.

VRFB assembly is too early and is likely to be investment as opposed to development, or so we are told.

So I am back to the expansion plans that will take production from 5,000 to 10,000 mtv and with it the purchase of further brownfield processing and the development of Brits, because they are all clearly tied together.

There are however several other options out there, such as the interview with Chika Edeh (see below).

https://alliancenews.com/in-depth-bushveld-minerals-planning-dividends-alongside-jse-float/

A key line is this ;

"To get to 10,000 metric tonnes a year, the company is looking at either building a new USD100 million kiln at Vametco or buying brownfield sites nearby, or even both."

The company has talked also about a dividend policy, which I believe will define percentages, which i can't help feel will need to come with a plan of how the company will develop moving forward. BMN aren't big on communicating plans until they have to but at th same time growing into a mid tier company comes with new responsibilities and a need to demonstrate how things will be achieved. I am certain the company is aware of this and it is merely about timing.

This is not about ramping, this is about investigation and reading how the company does things.

The BMO appointment could well be a strategic move based on SP Angel's limitations and BMN's growth. After all SP Angel is good at looking after miners and next year BMN will be an energy storage developer.

But that itch just won't go away. I remain convinced that something is afoot, driven by the close out of the corporate actions at Vametco and the removal of Sojitz from the picture.

We shall see.

@Orange88 I don't believe that your concern can be fully answered at this times, as always with investing it is about the percentages. Yes it is disappointing that the production guidance declined so much over the course of the year but I do not see a lack of transparency on this particular issue.

Firstly, the company has clearly recognised the issues through its Q2 update and instigated a plan that is explained in the Q3 update. For me the revised guidance was always going to be the key because it was going to be given so late in the year (9th Nov). At 2,600 -2,650 it states very clearly that the mine is back to producing at least 700-750 mtv per quarter. That places full production for the start of 2019 at at least 2,800 - 3,000 mtv. Thus 2,500mtv has no factual support at this juncture.

That all said, those that have been here a long time know which messages to focus in upon and which to monitor. That isn't to say that investors should have blind faith but it also doesn't mean that we should show no respect for what has been achieved in what is a very short amount of time.

The Q3 update also states this ;

"With the completion of most of the corporate action aimed at maximising Bushveld's ownership of Bushveld Vametco, the Company can accordingly now focus on ensuring maximised production output and efficiencies at Vametco.

What the company is clearly telling us is that the continued existence of Sojitz was hampering the company's ability to improve output at Vametco. Now that could be based on Sojitz being obstructive or as I see it, BMN's desire to avoid demonstrating the true future worth of the plant and thus achieve its goal of a low price.

Remember they paid just $20m including a $2.5m dividend payment, which was " full and final settlement of accrued but unpaid dividends on the sale shares."

Thus all of the cash flows for 2018 on top of that payment are for BMN to employ where and how it likes. They then say this ;

"While higher vanadium prices partially mitigated the impact of the production shortfall, with the Company expected to generate healthy cash flows, Bushveld intends to use this opportunity to sustainably maximise production volumes and drive operating costs down. Accordingly, we are pleased to have commenced with Phase 3 of our expansion plan, which will increase capacity at Vametco to 5,000 mtV per annum. Phase 3 will also benefit from advancement of the Brits Vanadium Project, which has yielded encouraging drilling results."

That was 9th November. Sojitz was removed from the picture on 13th Sept.

To be clear, I am not saying that production was deliberately held back, not at all. What I am saying is the removal of Sojitz is a catalyst, the results of which we will see moving forward.

Now whilst one could say that the above is theory, is it any more speculative than your own view on production shortfalls? And if I am right, then what does that say about 2019?

@Orange88 your concerns are your concerns and I will do my utmost to respect them.

First and foremost, if prices were to normalise at $75 per kg then as a long term holder I would be delighted. What that would do is give BMN solid cash flows from which to implement their expansion plans and develop their energy platform,

Full year guidance currently, which was updated at Q3 on 9th November, sits at 2,600-2,650 mtv. With 9 month production currently sitting at 1,897 mtv, that places Q4 production at between 700 and 750 mtv. Therefore, the mine is demonstrating the ability to deliver circa 2,800 - 3,000 mtv.

If you wish to believe that this may be false adveetisign then that is your perogative. However, with the guidance being provided some 5-6 weeks into the Q4 13 week cycle, i am inclined to believe that it will be achieved. The other important factor here is time. The facility has much of 2019 to continue to improve its performance and thus push that figure higher.

However, if we assume your figures of 2,500 mtv and $75 per kg, then at the current all in costs of $32,500 per mtv, BMN at 74% share would still generate £60m in EBITDA. Given they are expanding to 5,000 mtv, developing an adjacent near surface mine at Brits, demonstrating plans to purchase further brownfield as they did with Vametco and pushing on to 10,000 mtv, then one is entitled to expect a ratio of 6-7 on that figure in terms of valuation. So we are taking about a business worth as a minimum, £360-420m, based on your figures.

That doesn't say to me that the SP would be getting hammered and that figure is heavily discounted.

If one were to take a fairer but still conservative figure of 2,800mtv, given what I have just said, then we are upto £68m and £408-476m, which is a fair bit higehr than we are today.

However, prices aren't actually at $75, they are currently at $97.50 and if that holds to Friday then 2 weeks into the BMN 2019 pricing year they will have averaged around $102 per kg. The longer they stay above $75 the greater the profits and the higher that base figure rises.

That's the current base case but the reality is the Vametco facility has time and pricing on its side to further improve its performance such that 3,000 mtv plus should be comfortably achieved. It may be that they fall short of nameplate capacity at 3,750mtv but the reality is anything over 3,000 mtv with prices at $75, in my view, makes the current SP oversold

So right now I cannot see that the SP "would get hammered" given that the base case more than supports the SP at levels above this, and in this exercise we have done nothing but analysis what Vametco is and not what BMN will be becoming.

Good morning.

European FeV mid prices have dropped to $97.50 per kg, which is a near $10 drop since last Friday. From what I have read I am pretty certain this is down to 2 things. There is normally a drop in demand around this time of year but this time it appears to be being excerbated by the fact that many steel mills stockpiled ahead of the rebar regulations coming into force, only to find out that they aren't being enforced as strongly as anticipated. If I were to specuolate I would say the Chinese authorities are giving their industry some leeway due to affect the regs have had on the vanadium pricing market, but its merely speculative thinking from me.

If that is the case then the fall in demand in China and the length of time needed to see demand pick up may be longer than usual. Time will tell.

This may cause one or two investors concern but in my view it shouldn't. What it may mean is that we see this severe drop continued into January, but it will have to slow because there is clear evidence that the raw material is still in short supply, which is key here.

My own guesstimate at the moment is that prices will drop into the $70-80 range before demand starts to pick up but investors should steady themselves for lower prices to. It all depends on how much stockpiling the Chinese did.

To place that in perspective, SP Angel have a 2019 average FeV price of $75 and the BMN achieved price for 2018 was around $78 per kg. So if the market bounces off those average this time around then it points to a very good year ahead fro the mining platform of BMN.

Europe as usual is feeling the affects of increased exports from China coupled with sluggish demand. However, European demand is not based on new Chinese regs and so should pick up a little quicker than the Chinese. Last year this was shortly after the Christmas break, so first full week of January. The question will be what the Chinese do. If they have plenty of stock and sluggish demand then they that may temper European prices. However, I have a feeling that the Chinese will begin re-stocking prior to the Chinese New Year, hence my believe that prices will hold around $70-80. But it is only my thoughts.

The key take away is prices are dropping and dropping fairly hard, but it is a hangover from sluggish demand not improved medium term supply. So it will turn but whilst it doesn't there will be those voices that say its all going wrong. Well it isn't, that's just short term games driven by traders. Long term 2019 looks like a pivotol year for BMN as the energy arm goes into business in a very big way.

DYOR as usual.

Candelilla-1 discovery report for those that would like to review it.

https://www.energy-pedia.com/news/colombia/petrominerales-begins-production-from-candelilla-well

Llanos 34 is producing 55,000 bopd and it is a far smaller block at 82,000 acres. CP0-5 is over 492,000 acres, so some 6 times bigger.

More relevant in my view, back in 2011 Yatay-1 under natural flow produced 10,440 bopd from a discovery that was "114 feet of potential net oil pay in the Lower Sand-3 formation."

This discovery was in turn a "structure located down dip from the Candelilla structure and across the bounding Candelilla fault. The Candelilla structure produced over 7.3 million barrels of light oil in 2010 from the Lower Sand-3 and Guadalupe formations"

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/petrominerales-yatay-1-exploration-well-produces-10440-bopd-tsx-pmg-1375894.htm

If one then takes a look at the Candelilla 1 discovery back in early 2010, this was mainly made up of "97 feet of potential net oil pay in the Lower Sand 3"

Mariposa-1 we all know hit 120ft of oil saturated net pay in the Lower Sands. Now 6.5km away Indicop-1 has hit 209 feet net oil column. Both discoveries at CP0-5 are on initial viewing are larger than their neighbouring counterparts, and Indico-1 is roughly double the size, and all are concentrated on the Lower Sands 3.

If Sol-1 can confirm that the field extends that far and they are indeed linked, then we are talking about a 13.5km long discovery. The entire length of Llanos 34 from Tilo all the way down to the top of Bacana is only 17km, and for CP0-5 13km is barely scratching its surface area.

Its also now most interesting that the next planned well (prior to Indico-1 result) was always Sol-1 and not Aguila which is on route.

Whatever the case even if Sol-1 doesn't come in, its a very large discovery and next year I am certain will see an uplift in further drilling to expand what is a whopper of a discovery. But if Sol-1 does hit and hits big, then there is plenty of room to further expand south into the block. A very crude measure of the block tells me that there is another 18km or so from Sol-1 to the south adge of the block. So much room for expansion, which is why I think even with ONGC's well documented perceived failings, things will start to get very busy next year because the discovery is demonstrating it is more than worth it.

Short term there is certainly money to made, but for me with OXY guaranteeing 5 wells through to 2020 starting with Tacacho at 364MMBO, plus the potential for continued expansion of the CP0-5 discoveries, this is a minimum 2 year hold for me prior to review because that it is where the real money will be made.

@leas with all due respect at 15p this isn't about "holding up nicely", this is merely about temporary breathers and position taking. This stock is re-rating right before our eyes and for me it is only just getting going.

It was undervalued at 11-12p but perhaps with minor justification given the pullback in oil. The OPEC deal if nothing else has given support to brent at $60. That's more than enough to remove concerns over the oil price and Amerisurs ability to generate enough cash to support its exploration plans.

If we then add in the OXY deal, which has received very little market recognition thus far, and the Indico-1 discovery, which for me is going to be a very significant discovery indeed, then the drive north simply has to be far more substantial than just 3-4p.

Good afternoon everyone.

So with last week we are now officially into the BMN 2019 pricing year and what a really solid start it has been.

European FeV mid prices for the week ending 7th December were $106.50 per kg. Whilst we could always sit around talking about what could have been, given prices were as high as $127 just 3 weeks ago, the reality is that anything over $100 per kg should be beyond any BMN shareholder's wildest dreams.

As a comparison, the very same week in 2017 (thus the first week of BMN Vametco's 2018 pricing cycle) delivered around $43 per kg, and that year still produced an average $78 per kg pricing level.

I expect prices to continue to soften over the next couple of weeks but I am delighted to see that Wednesday's prices pretty much held through to Friday, which is a positive.

Many things can happen as we move forward but at the very least we start this year with prices 148% higher than we did in 2018, and Vametco even with the hiccups it has had, will be producing far more product in 2019, further supporting expanding profits for the business.

Good morning.

The Chinese vanadium index looks at first glance to have gone into freefall, dropping nearly 30% in just 2 weeks. Having studied what limited detail there are available out there, it looks very much like the pattern of demand temporarily drying up as steel mills complete their bidding is continuing. However, this time around the traders are far more nervous due to prices being so high and thus their potential losses being far greater in a falling market. What this has in turn done is encouraged Chinese traders to export into healthier prices in Europe, which in turn has pushed down prices in that market too.

The key take away though is that I have found no evidence of supply increasing, it is purely a rest bite in demand, be it far more influencial on pricing than usual.

At this time last year the Chinese steel mills came back into the market in the days leading up to Christmas. If the same pattern occurs (assuming the steel mills have not stockpiled, which I personally believe they have not), then that is the point at which prices will begin to turn.

In the meantime, I think we will see European FeV prices of around $100 per kg this week with further falls over the next 2 weeks or so.

To place that in perspective, I would be more than happy to see prices for 2019 of circa $80-90 per kg. I expect Vametco is more than capable of producing 3,300 -3,400 mtv during 2019. Achieve that and BMN can deliver over £100m in EBITDA for the year, which given the extensive expansion plans both in production and energy storage, is more tha enough to drive the share price and the business forward. So one should remember and consider that when assessing the market drop.

The severity of the price drop is something worth closely monitoring but demand should return in the coming weeks and then it will be all about the affect that then has. If the steel mills are following the new rebar rules then demand should be greater during each bidding period moving forward, as each mill needs more material. But as with life, things are never that simple.

I would not be surprised to see prices drop to that $80-90 range before stopping their descent, simply because of the severity of what we have seen in the last 2 weeks. If that pattern then repeats itself then we should see a market bouncing between a range whose bottom starts at around $80. If so then we are in for a very healthy year with BMN, whatever else happens.

@SOTRR Even with last week's average price dropping to $117 per Kg, the BMN Q4 aver average came in at $112.40 per kg.

I expect a minimum 725 mtv sales figure for Q4, meaning Vametco would have produced $81.5m (£62.7m) in revenues and circa $58m (£44.6m) in EBITDA, when employing the Q2 $32,500 all in operating cost.

That equates to £33m at 74% ownership.

Not a bad month's work when one considers that production should actually come in a little higher.

Most importantly 2019 is off and running and prices are still comfortably over $100per kg.

@numpty5 I'm afraid that's not quite correct, they are strategic partners along with Balong New Materials, who currently provides Rongke Power with their electrolyte.

The common link is Dalian Bolong Holding Group Co., Ltd who started both companies. This is why the UET tie up has always been much more significant than just it's battery technology and American links.

http://www.rongkepower.com/Wap/index/catid/64.html?lang=en

"World Bank Group Announces $200 billion over Five Years for Climate Action"

"In Energy: Support the generation, integration, and enabling infrastructure for 36 GW of renewable energy and support 1.5 million GWh equivalent of energy savings through efficiency improvement;"

These guys aren't messing around anymore. The right technologies delivering the right benefits are going to get the investment and the projects they need to help make the change.

Battery storage technology is still a child in terms of its development but what it offers in terms of helping the fight against climate change, its simply too great for it to remain in the shadows.

Large scale battery storage roll out is now inevitable and anyone who doubts that is walking the Donald Trump path of denial.

If one believes that battery storage will succeed at those sort of levels then one has to accept that VRFBs and more importantly Bushveld will be there to take their inevitable share.

VRFBs aren;t going main stream if Bushveld and its 445m tons of vanadium aren't too.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/12/03/world-bank-group-announces-200-billion-over-five-years-for-climate-action?CID=CCG_TT_climatechange_EN_EXT

@Richken,

I trust that you and all shareholders here will see a positive year to remember here in 2019 because 2019 will be the year that the fully integrated Bushveld model come into full focus.

UET have multiple contract successes but apart from their work with Rongke Power in Dalian, they will have never have been presented with an opportunity like the one they now see with Bushveld. Investors have all too often pointed to the deal that BMN achieved with them but the reality is it is all about the size of the prize UET themselves have snared.

It does not matter how great your technology is, if it cannot make the right level of progress with 2 key things.

1. Security of vanadium/electrolyte supply at a price that allows projects to be realised.
2. Regulatory approval at a level that allows battery storage to be implemented at scale.

In China that regulatory approval has begun to be seen but even there I would suggest that pricing is holding back even the likes of Rongke. Outside of China the picture up to now remains very much the same. One need only briefly review the UET website to see the slow reality of progress that has been witnessed.

With what was no doubt an exploratory partnership with a fledgling company in the form of BMN and BE, UET now finds itself as the chosen technological partner for a company that is proving its ability to deliver significantly on both those 2 key needs. The Eskom BESS project in terms of market development is absolutely enormous. The fact that it is designated as a electro-chemical battery project and is backed by World Bank and African Development Bank money at a cost that is uneconomical to the buyers, makes it all the more special.

It is a market enabler on a whopping great scale and BMN are right in the middle of the action.

Success in the field with this project will help turn a $468m investment into what is the real prize here, VRFB recognition and acceptance that drives market investment to improve costs and therefore cement competitive advantage.

The $5 billion that the World Bank wants to see invested in battery storage projects is no doubt just the first wave of investment of what will turn out to be a snowball effect, once the technology gains status and proof of what it is capable of when implemented through an integrated model such as Bushvelds.

The Eskom BESS project delivers the sort of scale to give Bushveld and its partners the confidence and ability to implement a full South African based energy storage industry. The exact industry that the IDC wanted from the offset and BMN have seemlessly planned all along.

Its not about profit at this stage, its about stepping stones. It is about establishing the market and the tools to answer and drive that market further.

At some stage next year the market is going to twig onto what this all means and then the real fun is going to start here.

Just my opinions as usual.

@RichKen Firstly, I just wanted to say that I find your positivity in the face of what you and your wife are dealing with inspiring and you are to be applauded for it.

I wish you, your wife, your family, and the familes of every other visitor here the very best for Christmas and the new year. Money may at times make the world go round but it isn't a patch on good health and the love of one's family and friends.

Very the best of wishes be they anonymous or not.

(7 of 7)

At 360MW and minimum $468m, I do not know how much of the project Bushveld seek or indeed could handle, but it isn’t about that, even though the most elementary of calculations says $468m divided by 3-4 contract packages, equals a very big minimum number indeed.

What this is about is establishing Bushveld as a fully integrated vanadium producer, with access to revenues along the entire value chain, which in turn will deliver what are for me, the 2 true main goals on slide 58 of the Energy Storage Webinar ;

1. “Higher valuation multiples, as energy and diversified listed companies carry higher earning multiples than miners (in part due to relatively lower capital requirements)”
2. “Reduced volatility of revenues and profitability, as energy storage features lower market volatility than commodity markets.”

That is what this is all about, giving the market reason to believe that the model is viable and that it can deliver strong results. That in turn gives the market the incentive to revisit the numbers on stationary storage’s potential and to believe just how far Bushveld can go to exploit it. All whilst coming to appreciate that what Bushveld will have done, is made a giant stride towards establishing themselves as a recession proof miner.

In my view, with the release of this paper, Bushveld just sealed the last remaining piece of the puzzle to deliver on all of what they said they would do.

The 1,000MWh target is now a very strong message as to the strategy that Bushveld has implemented and the goals that it seeks, and in my view they will now go on to realise them.

(6 of 7)

Conclusions

In posing my question to the Bushveld team, I wished to hear that they could be ready for what is an enormous opportunity for the company to cement itself in the pending but not yet achieved VRFB market, thus carving out an even bigger opportunity both within Eskom and SA, but also in the wider African market.

Mikhail made it very clear that the company has spent a number of years preparing for such an opportunity, a message made abundantly clear by Bushveld’s “been working towards being ready for this since launching Bushveld Energy in 2014” tweet immediately after the Eskom announcement back in October.

But plans don’t always run as smoothly as one would like, there are delays, such as those seen with the demonstration battery at Eskom. My concern as an investor was that this may lead to the company missing the greatest opportunity they will ever have.

Bushveld however have never been anything other than supremely confident in their plans and their goal to deliver circa 1,000MWh by 2020, and now we can see why.

They have employed their “levers” to create this opportunity within the SA market and to position themselves for it, and they have been at it more than 4 years. Which other company tendering for that project will have done that much preparation, or indeed known that such an opportunity would come their way?

Therefore, Bushveld would have always known that such a project could not be delivered in the sort of timescales Eskom were first quoting. With the influence of the World Bank and their call upon “energy storage experts,” the project during this financial “Supported Execution Release” (See item 19, part 8), has realised more achievable, if still rather sporty, timelines. Those timelines enable Bushveld to complete its preparations, to demonstrate the clear advantages of the VRFB technology to the client, and to properly execute its competitive advantage ahead of the various implementation periods for the project.

(5 of 7)

The Eskom test was designed to enable a project such as the BESS project to be realised, and most importantly it includes multiple discharges of the battery.

Batteries tested at Rosherville have a distinct advantage over their competitors for obvious reasons. Right now there are 4 different ‘electro chemical batteries’ (the chosen technology for the BESS project) that have been tested there and only 3 have made it onto the podium.

The Lithium-ion phosphate battery is from BYD of China. Whilst I can fully understand the Chinese wishing to tender for such a sizeable and lucrative project, I simply cannot conclude that when the World Bank says “concessional funding is needed at this stage to support maturity of the technology,” they were thinking about supporting Chinese producers of lithium-ion batteries, which have already reached Giga factory scale. Others may think otherwise, but it is clear to me that this funding is designed to help other players in the game.

Now would be an appropriate time to revisit slide 23 of the Energy Storage Webinar, which communicates the advantages the VRFB holds, when cycled more than once a day, and that remember is before the Bushveld fully integrated model delivers its fully integrated competitive advantages on the doorstep of the project and its owners.

http://www.bushveldminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Energy-storage-101..pdf

I repeat the key message once more. The BE led demonstration battery has up to 5 months of testing at Eskom, prior to a decision being made on the tenders for their BESS project.