Member Info for BigBiteNow

I find it very interesting that we find ourselves once again in such an environment as we see today. However, it is not surprising.

BMN is heavily backed by smaller retail investors, which is exactly why it is a good target. FM I am sure knows it and would dearly love more professional fund backed investment.

Unfortunately, retail can be far more easily got at emotionally.

The shear fact that BMN is being punted as needing a placement, demonstrates how easily some factions out there, see it can be got at.

Crazy but not the first time it has been seen here and likely not the last.

@ColonelDrake. 20% would get the company 2 board members but it is an unnecessary step at this stage, given cash flows are better spent elsewhere.

That said, a further 10% in Redt at the placing price of 1.65p, would cost BMN 'just' $5m.

Is it really worth going to the markets and worst still the gutter brokers, to raise such a sum?

I'm sorry but the argument has no sensible grounds. 20% is unnecessary and even if deemed worthwhile, can be paid for out of cash on hand.

@ColonelDRake Please see my last post. I have changed the thread title to make it easier for you, as the last one was quite frankly rather silly

I noted that and remarkably enough, i did some numbers on the Redt deal some time ago.

It should not be forgotten that upon achievement of finance, BMN's $5m (£3.9m) loan to Redt, will convert into Redt shares.

Redt currently has 951m shares in issue.
BMN would receive around 236.4m shares for their loan at 1.65p a share.

The proposed further "at least" $30m (dollars) was total and BMN's loan of $5m was part of it. So the remaining circa £20m raise, would generate 1.212 billion new shares.

That brings the total to almost exactly 2.4 billion shares.

BMN would then be the holder of a smidgen under 10% of the new Redt company.

The significant number is 5%. That percentage gives BMN their 2 year exclusivity agreement on vaandium supply and a place on the Redt BOD for one year.

To extend their BOD place by another year, they must be at 10%.

Will they go for the 10% at re-admission? Possibly but it would involve a minimal sum to ensure they sat above 10% and avoided being diluted out of their position on the BOD, which is safe for a year at least.

I therefore don't see that being relevant to current BMN price movements.

@ColonelDrake in all honesty what we need are the production cost figures from Vanchem. What the vast majority of investors are working on are the Vametco figures.

What I like are the constant references to synergies, which owning both operations brings, both at administration level and through production. That said, without the figures we just don't know.

Vanchem currently has an advertised $45m refurbishment cost spread over 5 years. Vametco has a further expansion programme to take it to 4,200mtV but again it is spread over an extended period.

Mokopome has a $20m price tag for its development as a mine to feed Vanchem but that for me includes the DFS. However, all 3 developments only need to happen once the funds are there to execute. They don't need to up production.

My one caveat on that is Vanchem. In my opinion, it has to be more expensive to run than Vametco. So I would think greater production there is needed to pull down its operating costs.

If necessary it can be fed with ore from Vametco, if that is deemed the right decision economically.

My point in general which is a discussion I am having on several investments right now, is that we are talking capex for expansion. It is not capex to survive or to get into production in the first place. It is targeted investment to take advantage of the market as it is and where it will be.

So it can be suspended if that is deemed the correct decision for the business. That still leaves BMN producing around 4,500mtV at the start of 2021 It still leaves them producing electroyte in 2021 and supplying 3 VRFB OEMs with vanadium, that is highly likely going to be profitable to a level, that further investment in the business can be made.

In my view, focusing in on the steel market too much or indeed the exact profitability of the business through 2020, is not what is key here. It is about getting the fully integrated platform full operational, so that business in the VRFB sector can be expanded and profitability shared between the two sectors.

That's the game changer here and it is worth a little pain because its getting closer and closer by the day.

Apologies, I missed the $3m paid to Yellow Dragon on 31st Oct. Still not enough to drive the need for a raise.

What I will add is that capex plans may well be interrupted, which I talked about yesterday. That does not mean a halt, more perhaps it will be about focusing on the greatest needs. However, that is not proven. Mokopone DFS is due for completion in H2 2020. Then there will be a final investment decision. A lot can happen in the world, good or bad, between now and that decision.

What I cannot see being a policy, is any reduction in the support of VRFB OEMs or the push into energy storage. It is that market that is the very thing can remove BMN from these cycle patterns and the alarm that comes from being a member of the mining sector.

Lastly, decisions to postpone capex will not be taken easily. The full extent of corona is still not known and its impact to date is more psychological than reality. That said i am sure all plans are under review and a great many BODs out there are doubling down on their strategy efforts.

One thing is for certain, new vanadium mines will have taken a hit on their time frames, whatever they say publicly, which in the medium term is very good for BMN.

Good morning ColonelDrake, interesting to see you here.

I would welcome more details on why you believe BMN would need to raise funds.

The theme around cash flows is a common one, appearing across the various investment communities right now.

I do not see any grounds for pushing such an argument and believe such topics should be backed with evidence.

BMN had $66m in cash at end of June and has agreed a $25m debt facility.

In H2, whilst cash flows were down, the company has highly likely remained in profit.

Since H1 end, Vanchem cost them $30.5m in cash. Redt $5m and Enerox at 50% advertised commitment $8.5m

So circa $44m.

Ignoring the profitability in H2, that leaves them around $47m in available resources.

I accept the question mark over sales going forward and their ability to deliver to customers but that situation has to date not materialised. It is merely perceived. However, the business clearly has enough capital behind it to deal with any interruptions, which are likely to be limited., be it they need to be monitored.

On that simple basis, the placing thought, is just that, a thought. One that is being shared across every BB right now and quite rightly so. Here, in my opinion, it is worthy of review but has no legs, as things stand.

I am not in the 2020 is a write off camp just yet. We simply do not know enough to make such a statement. For every steelmaker in China that cannot produce steel, or any contractor that cannot install it, there are vanadium producers that cannot manufacture.

There has been no real collapse of the vanadium market in China. Even Europe remains profitable, which given the state of the auto industry, is interesting.

That said, the virus is not contained outside of China and even in China, questions remain. However, there is evidence that China is getting back to work. With vanadium prices remaining stubbornly stable, there is certainly much to observe as the year develops further.

The biggest economies of the world with China at the helm, are going to throw a considerable amount of resources at what is perceived to be stagnation in growth. Infrastructure will be central to that. Who knows what that will mean for vanadium as we move into H2.

Then we have the development of the relationships with the OEMs. The contract announced on Monday, will not be the last this year. Every contract win, removes vanadium from the wider market and delivers a different kind of profit to BMN (be it that the exact make up of these early contracts needs to be defined).

Then there is the Eskom BESS project. I feel strongly that NERSA need to issue a concurrence with the IRP, prior to Eskom releasing the tender. It is a demonstration project but it is energy procurement, so should be included. Where else is all of that 513MW of battery storage allowance for 2022 going to come from?

NERSA are under pressure to deliver. That said, it will take time but the odds are heavily in favour of a Q3 release.

BMN in some shape or form are going to be gunning for that tender. Will winning it move the SP? Who knows. Does it matter? No.

That tender drives other key investment decisions that move this business materially forward. It pushes BE much further down its path. It is not the only project out there. It is not the be all ends all. But it also cannot be ignored how significant it is and thus how much time and effort BMN will have and are putting into it.

A Q3 tender release puts the electrolyte plant (I stick by my Q1 2021 production date), right at the centre of tat battery project. Nobody else as far as my investigations have uncovered, can offer that sort of localisation, that early on.

That tender is coming this year and Coronavirus or a global downturn, is highly likely not going to prevent that.

So 2020 is very much alive for me. It has its troubles but as usual they are being overplayed and one has to dig in, in order to appreciate the reality over the propaganda.

"Spot sales of construction steel comprising rebar, wire rod and bar-in-coil. . . trading volume averaging 126,718 t/d over March 1-10"

Against "average level of just 52,585 t/d in late February.

Right now, China demand is coming back.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1237680015569010689?s=20

It is for each individual contributor here to decide how they conduct themselves and what they believe to be true.

I would however, if I may, caution against driving a narrative that cannot be backed up with insurmountable proof. There are a great many intelligent and experienced members here, who know their stuff, be it bulls or bears. Such weak narrative for me does a disservice to the bigger picture and leaves oneself open to attack, from said intelligent persons, be it direct or worse still, indirect.

At times like this there needs to be a honesty about where BMN is and where it could/should be heading to. Its difficult given that many long term holders have, through their faith in the mission, stuck by this company and watched a lot of money gradually fall away. That's emotional. It is testing to say the least because the vast majority will never have been through such a roller coaster of financial gain/loss.

That needs to be respected by being realistic about where this business really is right now.

To be clear and as I have stated already, I believe the company is on a very strong footing financially. It remains profitable, which is what is most important, be it in my view, not to the levels still being advertised here. BMN has positioned itself really well and is sufficiently far enough advanced, to allow it to weather any storm that this virus or indeed a global downturn would bring. Knowing that means it will be in an excellent position, once things turn, be it this year or later.

In addition, it has a very exciting and potentially very large new business opportunity, that to date has not been recognised by the market and can flourish, even during a downturn. That is a very important point here.

I appreciate that some contributors here, do not buy into this. They do not or will not see the opportunity for what it is. That is of course the beauty of investing. If we all liked or believed the same things, then there would be no market.

I believe in it and that is why I see great value at these sort of valuations. However, i also recognise the threats, which do exist right now. This is not a dead cert. Trouble can strike any company at any time but as I have already said several times, I don't see it right now BMN. I see a ,lot of progress ahead, a lot of pent up potential and a bright future for the SP, given enough time and space to execute.

Out of interest, price action since 19th Feb 2020.

Glencore -32%
Evraz -35%
BMN -42%

Evraz was up 9% today. Without that its drop would have been 40.5%

Glencore and Evraz are substantially more established than BMN with greater more established ii backing. However, even Glencore has relatively recent experience of near collapse and major share price swings.

Some might say its the nature of the beast. This is mining. Prone to heavy swings when the wider market experiences extremes.

Who knows? But BMN whilst not being entirely established just yet, is certainly working itself towards such status but even upon reaching its goal, may still experience violent swings, so long it remain a pure mining proposition.

But there lies the question and answer, all at once.

I don't own Glencore or Evraz. They don't interest me. I own BMN because it isn't just a miner. Its an energy play in the making and when it makes it, the wild swings should have dissipated, without the need to stop enjoying the benefits of what BMN the miner can still achieve, when it wants too.

There are times in investing, indeed in life in general, when the mind can exercise a will to play tricks upon us, in an attempt to search out an answer that is uncalled for, but that the mind demands in order to make sense of what it is being asked to process.

It is important to be clear. BMN is not making $1m profit a week now and nor has it been for quite some time.

The exact situation is difficult to determine due to the investments being made into Vametco, BE and soon Vanchem. Plus marketing and sales percentages remain elusive.

My best educated guess is that at $30 per kg and in today's climate (Rand, planned production etc) Vametco is running at (slightly conservative) around $20,000 per mtV + whatever the company is investing back into the business, which is what is truly key here and what will ultimately skew the numbers as and when they come out.

We can run the numbers but they don't really matter. BMN is a growth company with sizeable ambitions to more than double its vanadium output, deliver electrolyte production and serve up VRFB contracts. That means that right now it is about capital availability and regulatory green lights.

As I offered in my earlier post, the capital requirements are not that great right now on the BE side of things but the rewards are substantial. On the production side more so and it could be that the plans, for good reason, are slowed. However, if they are slowed here then it will be across the world vanadium supply board. BMN is after all one of the biggest players outside of China now. If they struggle then so does everyone else.

Personally, I do not see any problems with capital availability. The company has enough cash/facilities available to it to deliver the BE story and likely a percentage of mining expansion plan, if it is deemed sensible to do so.

That means they don't need to return to the market unless it is deemed value enhancing, so the SP, where ever it goes, is not the story here. PIs understandably make it the story but it isn't what is key right now.

In the last 12 months or so, BMN have delivered the Mokopone Mining Right and the electrolyte plant EIA. Both are ready to go on their terms now. The unknown regulatory blockages are now gone.

BMN is free to grow as it sees fit and as the market(s) allow it. Hence why FM stated in the 30th Jan update that " one cannot just grow for growth's sake."

But as I say, it is completely in their hands and along with one or two others out there, they now have the ability to instigate that growth as soon as it looks worthwhile, because the regulatory blocks have been removed.

To me, that all points towards a business in a healthy state, but operating in an unhealthy share price world and that is all.

Whilst the market will do what the market will do, its important to remember that a debt free BMN ($25m facility noted), with very limited capex demands, will be a minimum c. 4,500 mtV producer by the end of this year.

Furthermore, it requires limited capex (c. $5m) to complete its electrolyte plant and needs limited further capital to support both VRFB OEMs and the assembly of VRFBs in S.A.

The deal yesterday demonstrates clearly that when Redt (and they will not be alone) win a VRFB contract, BMN's rental model will be implemented and the vanadium will be sourced from BMN, if it is deemed financially worthwhile for BMN to do so.

Why? Because VRFB contracts are at their most competitive, when sold in this format and the more that get sold this way, the more the interest will grow in the business model.

The same will apply to Avalon and Enerox.

This is all happening in an environment where vanadium prices are low (still profitable mind) and the market is focused on what that means for BMN the miner. However, that same low price environment is exactly what is going to support the roll out of VRFBs even more.

It should be easy to appreciate why the market is looking in the wrong place but here on this BB, it should be clear that it does not matter.

What matters is that energy storage growth will not be truly hindered by a downturn in global markets. Its energy supply. Its climate change, omissions and proof that materials supplied meet the norm, meet customer requirements to be responsibly sourced, by not placing a burden on the climate.

What matters is that BMN do not need a great deal of capital to grow this side of the business. The hard work has been done. A sufficient number of OEMs have been captured and their vanadium supply secured.

If BMN have to temporarily reduce their mining expansion plans, it won't matter because 4,500 mtV is ample right now. However, they now have 2 markets driving their reasoning to expand their production. One is a baby but its growth spurts will likely surprise.

The point is BMN is seen as a miner, waiting for its pricing to turn but it is a miner no more and here of all places that should be understood.

Once the market gets it too (given time and more patience), then today's valuation won't make any sense.

We have a market and its an exciting one at that. We have a competitive product. We have projects under way, so proof of concept and a portfolio. We have limited capex requirements and so burden on cash flows.

That's a very potent ****tail for growth in what is perceived to be a downward part of BMN's miner backed cycle.

So why isn't the wider market getting it? Who cares? I get it, that all that truly matters.

By my calcs, as of yesterday, the gold price needed to average $1,650 per oz for the remainder of the month to deliver a $1,600 per oz average for Q1.

As with pretty much every other gold miner, that is not priced into the Serabi Gold valuation right now.

We have seen some really good consolidation, which was needed after the push through the resistance at circa 93p but since then the fundamentals have only strengthened.

At some point, something has to give.

Very interested.

As I just communicated in a tweet ;

Also important to remember that of the total 181,000 oz reserves currently assigned to the Palito Complex (June 2017), only 24,000 oz were from Sao Chico.

Inferred grades were already nearly double that at Palito mine (13.70 g/t vs 7.02 g/t).

Latest drilling results indicate a large extension of this higher grade resource, meaning far better inputs to the processor, later down the line.

With added ore sorter benefits still to come.

This is just the tip of the iceberg with only 40% of drilling completed and still the exciting wider extensions around Sao Chico mine, still to come (Abelha, Besouro, Cicada and of course the 8km long Cinderella).

The Serabi team is building a very solid and exciting story here.

I have put some information in the following set of tweets, which for me help support the grounds for a considerable uplift in installs this year.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1230493615585202176?s=20

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1230414595120123904?s=20

"Interest from more larger faculties, larger zoos, larger aquariums, who want to run 50+ headsets"

Clearly lots of work in the pipeline. CEO Martin Higginson talking around what are clearly ongoing discussions with potential new clients. The Rhode Island install will be the first (8 seater also) outdoor install at a zoo, which is a far bigger market than aquariums and clearly the next big target area.

There is a great deal to like about what IMMO are putting together here.

****************************/articles/q-a-with-immotion-group-ceo-martin-higginson-766bf93/

I don't believe this should be about finger crossing. This is about patience, positioning and timing.

The "further details to these measures" point is interesting because Mantashe has already gone on record as saying that the Section 34 ministerial determinations will come first and that they will be in the next few weeks (dated 17th Feb).

Ramaphosa has stated that said section 34 determinations will unlock amongst other things, investments in battery storage, which to me clearly includes the Eskom Battery Storage project.

"a Section 34 Ministerial Determination that will be issued shortly to give effect to the Integrated Resource Plan 2019, enabling the development of additional grid capacity from renewable energy, natural gas, hydro power, battery storage and coal."

The Mining Minister has effectively been publicly instructed to issue these Section 34 determinations. He has no wriggle room on this. Nevertheless it will be interesting to hear exactly what he has to say and when these things will most likely come to pass.

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/full-text-we-will-not-surrender-our-future-to-doubt-despair-and-division-president-cyril-ramaphosa-in-2020-sona-speech-20200213

1pm GMT or 2pm CET

A potentially very big day in the life of S.A energy and Bushveld Minerals.

https://twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1230064168641974272?s=20