Member Info for BigBiteNow

(5 of 6)

I am sure that the process will be fair for all firms that tender but Bushveld Energy not only has the best technology for the applications involved, it will have easily the highest local content, and will be able to demonstrate a clear path to those jobs. Most of all though, BE are going to have the political will on their side, driven by The IDC’s desire to see a new local industry built that can offer jobs to South Africans and support the ailing SA economy. As I have already said, the size of this opportunity, initiated by an ever increasingly desperate utility in Eskom, delivers the necessary opportunity and justification for investing in a “Energy Storage Industry for South Africa.” As Bertie Styrdom of The IDC said back on 13th October 2017 ;

“energy storage could unlock local opportunities in mining and beneficiation, research and development, commercial exploitation and industry development, as well as opportunities in the global market.”

It should not be lost on anyone that Ramaphosa himself secured the necessary investment with Theresa May, and it is he that needs those jobs more than anyone. But it must be understood, this is no flash in the pan, the opportunity is simply huge. The VRFB was never about how good the technology was. What the vanadium industry and the VRFB have been waiting for is the political willpower and drive to see VRFBs given their chance. In SA a combination of a weak and previously captured economy and state utility, a utility I might add that still supplies 45% of the electricity in Africa today, has perhaps opened up this opportunity faster than would normally have been expected.

I therefore cannot see how with such will and such fine positioning by Bushveld Energy (remember Mikhail Nikomorav is the chairperson of the recently formed South African Energy Storage Association and it was at the recent South Africa Energy Storage Conference where Eskom chose to announce the details of their initial 1,440 MWh BESS project), that they won’t succeed here.

(4 of 6)

This is dealt with in more detail in the Eskom ‘Supplier Development and Localisation Evaluation Criteria’ document, where it says on Page 1;

“Supplier Development and Localisation (SD&L) as an evaluation criterion will be allocated 20% of the total tender evaluation points, i.e. a maximum of 70% must be allocated for price and technical criteria (including SHEQ), and 20% allocated for SD&L, and 10% for BBBEE”

“Participating Suppliers must score a minimum of 60% against the stated targets for SD&L in order to qualify for further tender evaluation.”

http://www.eskom.co.za/sites/idm/Documents/SD_L_Criteria_Framework.pdf

Now the true local content requirements will be defined in the tender documentation itself, but it is highly unlikely that they are going to be watered down to allow foreign companies access to Eskom work. Those days are at least for the foreseeable future, behind SA. As an example, the current Eskom led REIPPPP non-negotiable local content targets are between 45% and 65%. BMN are likely close to 40% just because they mine the vanadium in SA, but as FM states, when they assemble the VRFBs in SA, plans that are highly likely now further developed than we currently think, they will be over 70% and likely unassailable in this area of the tender process, and that is before we even start discussing the 10% for BBBEE and the use of local suppliers etc.

However, what FM is also alluding to is the opportunity that the awarding of those Eskom contracts will open up for SA as a whole.

Nowhere is that opportunity better pronounced than in the UK government’s own statement on it’s very own website when it says the battery project ;

“will use an innovative technology to transform the country's energy system” “enabling the creation of thousands of jobs for young South Africans”

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/renewable/uk-to-boost-south-africas-clean-energy-/21427

I can certainly buy that both lithium ion and zinc bromine are innovative but would any firm tendering for this work really be able to guarantee “thousands of jobs for young South Africans” other than Bushveld Energy and their plans for SA based electrolyte production and VRFB assembly.

(3 of 6)

The USTDA awarded that grant just 2 months prior to the Eskom announcement. The USTDA is not a charity; it is a promoter of US companies abroad. The USTDA sponsored the Techno-assessment, whose entire existence was driven by The IDC of SA, therefore the USTDA is also central to the process that the assessment has driven, they will therefore know in which direction it is heading and they will be keen to ensure that US companies play a part in the process that they have helped pay for.

Furthermore, since the release of the techno-assessment and since the demonstration testing at Eskom got under way, The IDC has continued to back Bushveld Energy to the point that they are partnering on an electrolyte plant construction in SA and with it the assembly and eventual manufacturing of VRFBs in SA.

As Christo Fourie head of the New Industries Strategic Business Unit for the IDC said way back in June 2016 ;

“The signing of the Agreement with Bushveld Energy marks an important milestone for the IDC’s initiative towards development of a sustainable Energy Storage Industry for South Africa”

Jump forward a little over 2 years and Bushveld Energy doesn’t just have the IDC in it’s corner, but through UniTechnologies (UET) and the direct issuing of a grant, it also has the USTDA on it’s side. So the key driver and assessor for the development of a South African energy storage industry both support Bushveld Energy.

But the key factor to all of this will be the tender itself and the requirements for local content. That is where not just the lithium-ion and Zinc-Bromine batteries will struggle but all other VRFB manufacturers as well. In his last interview with ProactiveInvestors dated 17th October, so just a few days prior to the Eskom announcement, FM actually referenced Eskom’s pending “moves into procuring energy storage”

“with VRFBs which comprise when they are assembled in SA of more than 70% local content, we can't think of any better battery solution for SA than VRFBs."

What FM is actually saying is that because Eskom is an SOE, it must follow the SA Department of Industry requirements under SATS 1286:2011. He has known that for a very long time. That is the reason BMN tweeted that they have “been working towards being ready for this since launching Bushveld Energy in 2014.” The following SA dti document deals with local content (see page 1)

“the local content of a product is the tender price less the value of imported content, expressed as a percentage. It is, therefore, necessary to first compute the imported value of a product to determine the local content of a product.”

http://www.dti.gov.za/industrial_development/docs/ip/guideline.pdf

(2 of 6)

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

The suppliers of the Eskom batteries are as follows :

1. Lithium-ion – This is a BYD of China supplied battery but “deployed by local construction and property development company, Afri-Devo” Neither company is listed in the USTDA techno-assessment’s known supplier list.
2. VRFB – Bushveld Energy
3. Zinc Bromine – Primus Power

I am under no illusions that there won’t be ample other ‘suitable’ battery manufacturers willing to tender for this work, but in terms of physically having one’s battery tested by the customer, only the above 3 companies have done so, and one looks dodgy at best. Now some may say that BE have yet to have their battery fully tested because it won’t be commissioned until Q4 2018. Well that shouldn’t be of too much concern because as the following article states, the tender will not be released until Q1 2019 with the contracts awarded in Q2, so there is ample time for Eskom to test and assess the BE led battery. That therefore at the very least, puts all 3 technologies on an even keel such that other factors will now play their part.

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/eskom-gearing-up-for-big-grid-scale-battery-storage-roll-out-2018-10-22

Since the release of the USTDA sponsored assessment, a number of telling developments have taken place. On 22nd Aug 2018 it was announced that the USTDA was awarding a $500,000 grant to Bushveld Energy to help demonstrate their energy storage system at Eskom.

“The goal of the pilot is to demonstrate how UniEnergy’s vanadium redox flow battery technology can reduce energy costs for commercial and industrial operations, offset the need to use diesel and other fossil fuels for peaking power, increase the capacity of South Africa’s electric grid to successfully integrate renewable electricity generation sources, and improve the operating efficiently of existing baseload plants.”

“This pilot will also highlight the value of innovative U.S. technologies in a growing sector in South Africa.”

https://ustda.gov/news/press-releases/2018/ustda-supports-energy-storage-south-africa-creating-opportunities-us

If we compare that to the wording employed in the Eskom ESMF document for the proposed Battery Energy Storage System, we find they will be ;

“installing and operating distributed battery storage infrastructure at Eskom sub-stations including sub-stations located at existing Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) plants operated by Eskom Renewables (including the Bank-funded 100 MW Sere wind farm), upcoming distributed solar PV to be implemented by Eskom Distribution, and the new REIPPP sites.”

Sound similar to you?

(1 of 6)

On Monday morning I posted on the LSE Bushveld Minerals (BMN) forum that I believed that I have found out where the first ‘large scale mandates’ for Bushveld Energy were going to come from and that it was, to begin with, circa 800MWh. Almost immediately after that, considerable developments took place on this front, driven by the announcements made by Eskom at the South African Energy Storage Conference, and in particular their phase 1 800MWh battery energy storage system project (BESS). Given these recent developments, I have reviewed the details thoroughly and am delighted with what I have found.

In my series of posts entitled “BE Your Time is Coming” I discussed the findings of the USTDA sponsored ‘South Africa Energy Storage Technology and Market Assessment’ and the influence that The IDC had on the process as a whole.

As discussed at the time, “"The objective of the South Africa Energy Storage Technology and Market Assessment was to provide advisory services to the IDC and Steering Committee that will help guide and promote the adoption of energy storage technologies in South Africa."

What that study revealed was that there were a number of technologies that offered SA significant near to long term utility scale energy storage solutions, and that these included 3 electrochemical battery storage systems.

Those were;

1. Lithium ion
2. Vanadium Redox Flow (VRFB)
3. Zinc-Bromine Flow

In the following ESMF document released by Eskom for phase 1 of it’s proposed BESS project, Eskom writes on page 3 that “The Electrochemical/battery storage system was selected as the preferred solution to meet the strategic requirements.” Whose exact strategic requirements, we will discuss a little later on They then go on to describe a number of main examples. However, on page 11 they state that “The battery storage technology is currently being piloted in South Africa.”

https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/South_Africa_-_Eskom_Distributed_Battery_Storage_Program_%E2%80%93_ESMF_Summary.pdf

There are currently 4 known batteries being tested at Eskom’s Rosherville facility (See slide 8 below). Of these the GE Sodium Nickel battery looks to have fallen away because on slide 10 it says “one system under test is not suitable for use within Eskom.” Whilst the actual name is not given, I would challenge anyone to conclude that they were talking about the Lithium-ion battery.

Therefore, unless Eskom are testing another undisclosed battery, then the Eskom BESS is being targeted towards those very same 3 electrochemical battery storage systems that the USTDA identified in its assessment. Thus the USTDA assessment has done its job (Remember Eskom along with the Department of Energy and NERSA, worked closely with the steering committee that delivered and reviewed the YSTDA assessment).

Good morning everyone.

I am about to break my own record in terms of connected posts (6 parts coming), but i trust it will be worth it and all visitors here will at the very least be able to take something new from it

From what i have ascertained, Bushveld Energy is about to arrive in a very big way indeed.

Enjoy.

Good morning.

I am seeing talk of a communication from the company regarding indicated Q3 updates, but cannot see any evidence of it on the BB. Can someone help with this?

The words may help me with what I am currently working on.

Thank you in advance

Bushels Energy presentation page 9.

"Bushveld Energy's VRFB rental product takes advantage of he unique properties of vanadium and VRFB's technology"

This is no longer an idea being presented, it is a product. Therefore, the 'intermediary' is already decided, which means the key piece of the business model is concluded.

Over to you BE to tell us shareholders more. . .

@Fatbanker agreed. The release of this model for the first time via a presentation for the SA Energy Storage Conference of all places, and on the same bill as Thava Govender of Eskom, says to me that the release of the BE financial model must now be very close.

Things have moved up a gear for certain.

Brad29 It is not so much about when the RNS lands but more the knowledge that they are coming. There are arguments to be had that at times that BMN has perhaps reached it's fair value based on what is truly known at that time. It is not an argument I support but I do understand it, that is market dynamics after all.

However, the added surge in V prices put pay to that even if the market needs more time and detail to appreciate it. If it weren't for the strike and the perceived reduction in production then the valuation would already be much higher. Once the company is able to demonstrate that it such matters are behind them then it's a green light scenario once again.

However, once the full package that is BMN + BE is released to the market and the market has had sufficient time to digest what is a very complicated animal, then a truly significant re-rate will take place. Those that live and breathe the data know at least part of the result that is awaited but remain frustrated by it's failure to materialise as quickly as they can see it.

Patience is therefore the key because just about everything the company needs is now in place, it's just about the market understanding the full profitability and security that will bring to BMN. Thus it is perfect time to start releasing the financial model fo the energy arm, a move the company has already proclaimed and now we can see why.

So all thoughts of 'is' BMN fairly valued are now firmly put to bed. It is now once again time to concentrate on where BMN's valuation should be as the next leg north begins in earnest.

Things appear to be going into overdrive on the BE side of things and the developments of the last few days are simply epic.

BMN's tweet was the final piece in the investigative puzzle and was a sign that even they cannot contain their excitement any longer.

The VRFB has always been the best technology in class for the vast majority of grid scale solutions but until it was able to convince governments, the regulators, a utility, then it remained merely a great idea without a true home.

Well yesterday the VRFB as good as found that home and it is in South Africa, the home of the largest highest grade vanadium resources in the world.

The projects still have to be won but can anyone really argue against BE being awarded a high percentage of the initial phase of 200MW on offer. They have everything that Eskom requires in terms of local content , job creation, cost efficiencies, The IDC, etc etc. So for me it is a done deal.

Whilst BMN is a hugely exciting investment as an expanding miner in a wonderfully strong vanadium pricing environment, that is nothing compared to having an established BE business sitting along side it.

With "large scale mandates" secured with Eskom and delivered, BE has the necessary track record to demonstrate to the rest of Southern Africa that it can deliver these projects and their benefits to them too.

I have no doubt that Eskom and The IDC see great gains in the exporting this technology to The SADC and with it taking advantage of the freetrade agreements that exist there. No other battery supplier can possibly compete with the local content element that will drive that opportunity.

That in turn then secures BMN as a whole against any possible downturn in the steel sector. The momentum and need generated by fera of global warming, is driving big money into such areas as the Clean technology Fund, and now the SA Climate Finance Facility. These funds are only going to get bigger as the world attempts to turn the affects of global warming around. That money isn't going to suddenly dry up because of a downturn in world trade.

Thus BMN will soon be able to demonstrate both it's capabilities for major expansion of its energy arm but also clearly demonstrate it's ability to deliver large regular returns even during cyclical downturns, thus making it arguably the one of the best mining stocks in the world today. paying dividends only strengthens the argument

This week will go down in BMN history as the day that things truly went orbital. Large scale mandates are coming, it's merely how many at at what return.

Huge huge development that cannot be stressed enough. Anyone holding BMn stock tday should be very very excited indeed.

@Alfacomp yes the BMN clock is definitely ticking louder than it ever has right now. Big big news on the horizon.

The world of battery storage is certainly going to be sitting up and taking note when the BE financial model news lands.

Good morning all,

I have been doing some digging over the weekend and I am now convinced I know where the first 'large scale mandates' for Bushveld Energy are coming.

I don't have time right now to write up my thoughts fully, but the key lies in the cancelled CSP Project and this particular quote ;

"Eskom disclosed that in March its board approved the development of the battery storage with distributed solar photovoltaic at sites close to renewable independent power producer plants and Sere wind farm."

From what I have found the project will be signed off in one deal, so we are looking at around 800MWh, be it likely spread out over a period of time.

If I am right, which the evidence certainly points towards, then that is very big news indeed.

DYOR as usual though.

https://www.esi-africa.com/eskom-ditches-csp-project-for-battery-storage-development/

(2 of 2)

Note the following quote from an article released today.

"Saesa welcomed the agreement between Eskom and the World Bank to invest in 175 MW or 800 MWh of energy storage systems in lieu of the abandoned concentrated solar power project"

http://m.engineeringnews.co.za/article/renewable-energy-industry-comments-on-draft-irp-2018-10-17#.W8g_u8sBRuQ.twitter

Now that should perk up a few ears here. The original CSP Project and the reasons for cancelling it are described in the article below.

https://www.esi-africa.com/eskom-ditches-csp-project-for-battery-storage-development/

Previously the €75 million investment was earmarked for 100MW of CSP. If the South Africa Renewable Energy Council quote is correct, Eskom already now know that they can achieve 175MW of energy storage (battery storage) for the same amount of money. How do they know that already?

Remember the second article clearly states "battery storage." So it's got to be either Lithium-ion or VRFB. Whose your money on? ( Note IDC presentation notes in my post on Tuesday)

The electrolyte offtakes does leave one wondering, but going once again down the simplistic route, thy key battery supplier in BMN's life is UET. BMN are using UET technology at Eskom with their own name on, that comes at a cost. Right now in this market BE electrolyte will be highly sort after, so I cannot see past UET passing that opportunity up.

If those 2 above assumptions are correct, then item 3 is covered by their closure, thus giving BMN the ability to demonstrate it's "financial model" to the market.

I do not know at this point in time how BE secures such a large scale mandate without comprehensively proving the battery they have installed at Eskom, but the fact that Eskom have a specific pot of money that is earmarked for battery technology, they don't really have a great deal stopping them, other than security of performance.

However, after yesterday's interview I do not particularly care, because it's very much on.

Given the support BE has through The IDC with their influence and leadership of all of the other key SA stakeholders (which I also recently posted on), can it really be the case that Eskom will turn around and give that project to a lithium-ion company that is not based in SA, does no beneficiated SA minerals, does not promise SA jobs and a "new industry" dawning in SA.

So I am staring at a 175MW battery project that has BE's name written all over it. That being the case, that would be one heck of a "large scale mandate." to be kicking off with. It would propel BE into the upper echelons of the world VRFB distributed market, and open BE and SA up for some very large VRFB business.

As of yesterday, FM as good as confirmed that that is coming inside the final 11 weeks or so of 2018.

Now if that doesn't get you excited, then it damn well should, because that is game changing.

(1 of 2)

Further to my thoughts on that significant interview with FM yesterday, I wanted to share a couple more ideas.

Firstly, in answering the last question regarding "what are the priorities for the rest of this year and into 2019?" it was interesting that the only 2 items that FM specifically tied back to 2018, were the dividend and the BE value proposition.

The fact that he remains confident that these 2 items can be delivered this year, says very loudly that

a. the production interruptions at Vametco have at worst case had minimal affect on cash flows ;

b, the delays to the commissioning of the battery at Eskom does not directly affect the compamy's ability to demonstrate the value proposition of BE to the BMN business as a whole.

Now whilst item a. is very exciting, item b goes way beyond that.

FM talks about presenting what the "financial model might look like" "what is the earning potential of Bushveld Energy"

If BMN are going to achieve that this year then they need to make good on the list of BE priorities set out in the 2017 Annual Report (released 30th June 2018).

Chief Executive's Report page 16 states :

"We see 2018 as a transformational year for Bushveld Energy"

1. Proving the Company’s capabilities and securing its position as a developer and integrator of utility scale energy storage projects by delivering its initial projects and securing large scale energy storage mandates in Africa"

2. "supporting the global industry through the low cost production of electrolyte while securing offtake agreements"

3. "Securing additional strategic relationships with downstream stakeholders in the global vanadium battery supply chain and electrical power developers and producers operating in Africa"

"With these developments, the company will be in a position to outline its business model, cash flow capabilities and valuation contribution within Bushveld Minerals."

With these developments. . .

If BMN are going to present to the market the financial model, then not only does the Eskom battery need to be delivered, but there needs to be "large scale mandates" "electrolyte offtake agreements" and "further strategic relationships".

That set of developmenst right there, is so significant, that I cannot see it not being launched in some spectacular way.

I don't see any reason to over elaborate on anything and find too many new partners. The Eskom battery is clearly pointing towards a large scale mandate with Eskom and Eskom have upto 175MW available, which is already financed by external sources. So no worries about Eskom being able to pay the bills.

(2 of 2)

I repeat again, brownfield is a done deal, why, because FM clearly states that the BE arm needs substantial mining to support it. You don't reveal your BE business model if the road to 10,000 mtv isn't already paved, particularly when you state things like ;

"with scaled up production capacity, particularly, again when you do this on a brownfield basis, you can do it fairly quickly, you can solve for the availability of vanadium for VRFBs"

I repeat again, VRFB electrolyte and assembly is a done deal, why, because FM clearly states that when BMN SA assembled batteries come to the market they will have "over 70% local content."

You don't say that if you do not have a clear plan of how you are going to achieve that 70% content. That means you already know exactly what your battery technology partner (UET) will be supplying, who will be building it locally, how they will be building it locally, what will be shipped in etc etc.

70% local content gives BMN SA built VRFBs free access to the SADC free trade agreement, which means 13 energy hungry but grid straved countries in Southern Africa.

Finally, the dividend policy. The words used are a sustainable distribution policy. Those words say very loid and clear to me that it will be set percentage of profits, be it from a minimum point or from the toal made each year.

Again, if it is coming this year, then the company knows exactly how it is going to achieve the plans it has already set out.

Therefore, this company is clearly heading towards being a 10,000 mtv brownfield led vanadium miner, with an electrolyte plant and VRFB assembly line, with large scale mandates led by electrolyte leasing, and it knows that it can pay for it all and still pay out a sustainable dividend and highly likely remain debt free.

No wonder FM finishies by saying the SP should be "significantly north of where we are today".

DYOR as usual.

(1 of 2)

Well that was quite something now wasn't it just.

Without wishing to repeat what no doubt many contributors here have already said today, here are just a few thoughts.

Firstly, as I have on several occasions already made very clear, the whole package that has been for sometime now foretold by the company, is a done deal.

Main giveaways.

Brownfield acquisitions - FM states "We are very encouraged by what we see in the market." If anyone thinks for one momet that BMN are currently looking around and sounding out options, then they are wrong. That is a classic FM understatement, which essentially means we have something very favourable, which is secured, it's just that we aren't quite ready to tell you yet.

VRFB Electrolyte leasing - "It is a product that we will be bringing out into the market"

If they are bringing it out, then it isn't simply some fancy brochure with a wishy washy message and no customers. It is directly tied to the comments FM makes about demonstrating the "earning potential" of BE to investors. Electrolyte leasing is central to the BE story, which means it is highly likely central to the large scale mandates that have been hinted at. This is why FM and MN have ben so relaxed about the company's ability to take advantage of the vanadium price and still not undermine the VRFB element of the business. Wattch this space.

Eskom and the revised IRP - As I waxed lyrical about the other day, the revised IRP is key to BE's ability to unlock the SA energy storage market. FM goes further than I did when he talks about that same peaking capacity but states that there is upto 9,000 MW allowance in the revised IRP.

Target sighted and locked.

The IDC angle has worked that particular angle like a dream. Once a level headed Energy Minister such as Mr Radebe was assigned to the role, it was very much of when check mate would be achieved, not would the game be won.

Completion of Sojitz - Again FM clearly reaffirms the message I have been so keen to communicate. The removal of Sojitz unlocks the cashflows. We know that because those are the words the company has clearly said, but do we really appreciate what they mean.

These plans that BMN are great, the execution i s simply wonderful, but to date it has always been constrained by the company's desire to protect shareholders from dilution. For nayone who doubts that please research the Lemur takeover and the YD backed Vametco buyout.

FM is very clear that those same values still apply, but now the rocket has got some fuel and it's time to go flying.

@faramog if only I had the willpower

Afternoon all,

I haven't yet had chance to listen to the interview as I am out today but from what I am seeing it looks very positive.

Just a quick thought on what was a very positive Lemur update.

This is FM's quote from today's RNS.

"Bushveld remains committed to delivering on the value of the Imaloto Power Project by ensuring that all key milestones are achieved according to schedule. This positions the project favourably for the various strategic options the Company is considering to ensure Lemur continues to receive the focussed attention needed in terms of human resources and capital requirements in order to reach financial close"

If one returns to the Lemur MOU RNS of 5th April 2017, the following MOU objective was included :

"Potential establishment of a future company for the Project upon completion of the BFS, in which Sinohydro's parent company, PowerChina, may take an equity interest"

Directly beneath this last objective was the line ;

"Lemur will continue the development of its mine in order to supply coal to the Imaloto IPP."

In today's RNS we can see that the BFS for the mine was started in Q3 2018, which would indicate that it is still separate to the IPP BFS process.

Given the thus far smooth execution of the IPP process, particularly the successes achieved with the Lemur authorities, I see no reason to believe that the MOU agreement would be altered.

It is simply about how much of a stake Power China will take and at what price, particularly when we can see that finance is being sort from other financiers. It may be that they cover a percentage of the build costs, enough to get the other debt financing over the line, who knows.

The key is that the objective is very real and would certainly be a tipping point for the value realisation, if Power China do indeed take an equity stake in the project.

In my opinion, the key thing to remember here is that BMN is a staggeringly good story simply because it is at the centre of the one of the great mineral stores of our time.

Chinese FeV may well hit $150 per kg next week, which is ridiculous. Vanadium is the best performing mineral of the last 3 years bar none, and BMN has the world's largest highest grade deposits with plans afoot to exploit localised brownfield. The costs of which when finally revealed will be the envy of the junior vanadium exploring world.

The market has barely priced in the H1 results, nevermind the phase 2 expansion, nevermind the move to 5,000 mtv, nevermind the further near 50% jump in realised prices, nevermind that additional low cost speedy route to 10,000 plus mtv.

And then of course we have the BE story. Something the market has little or mno understanding of and yet it could well end up being the most valuable part of the business.

Back in late 2015 the market did not know or believe what BMN was planning with Vametco, but a good many here did and they backed that belief.

The same is now unfolding through Bushveld Energy. The market cannot possibly entertain what BE can and will mean to the valuation of this business, but if one does enough research and reads what is out there for all to see, then it is clearly demonstrated that BE will be a force to be reckoned with in SA energy storage and the world as a whole.

There are investors that running wary of mining because they fear a downturn is on the horizon, and it may well be the case, but once the BE story takes hold, BMn will demonstrate itself to be not just a business that can exploit the upside on the mining cycle, but also shield itself through its energy storage arm, which cannot be affected by the same cycle.

Why? because global warming isn't going to wait for a recession to end, governments cannot hide from their responsibilities just because money is a little tight. We are beyond that phase, the writing is on the wall. So if anything investment in clean technology, in battery technology, is going to multiply at eye popping rates.

So BMN will highly likely be a winner for all seasons. Place that in the investment risk equation and suddenly BMn becomes a miner with a safe haven angle.

Once that is understood the number of funds lining up at the door will be quite something to see.

Like I say, what a story.