Member Info for BigBiteNow

As Ophidian has already pointed out, the Mokopone Mining Right is confirmed and allows them to move to mining, post the completion of the DFS in H2 2020.

It was also very pleasing to read the following ;

"Eskom, South Africa's national utility, during Q4 2019 implemented industrial power rationing. During this period, Vametco did not experience any periods of total power loss but implemented load curtailment which required a reduction of total power consumption of 12MW to 10MW between the hours of 8am and 6pm each day."

"Vametco's operational bottleneck is not affected by these periods of load curtailment and there is no impact on the plant's production performance. It is a priority for the management of Vametco to build on the strong relationship with the Eskom regional management and customer relations officer in order to continuously engage on proactive methods to reduce any impact it might have. In doing so, management feels confident that the situation will continue to have no impact at Vametco."

That is a surprising and most welcome piece of news, which adds strength to the belief that the 2020 guidance will be met.

Here's another way of looking at it.

Take today's average prices in the market, circa $27 per kg (playing safe).

Vametco is holding 441Mtv of inventory based on the 2019 figures alone. When sold, costs for distribution and selling would need to be considered. Selling is deemed 5% of production costs (see BMN 2018 Annual Report).

Let's say its 5% all in of the sales cost. So the average realised price would be $25.50 per kg.

That equates to circa $11.25m in inventory that could/would be classed as EBITDA.

Why didn't they sell it? Either because they did not want to or did not need too. That's because this journey isn't about what the business achieves in 2019 but what 2019 helps the business to go on to achieve in 2020 and beyond.

Morning all,

Firstly I would like to say just how bullish and pleasing an update this is and in my opinion, focusing on the Vametco EBITDA is not where investors should be concentrating their energies right now.

The main reason being that Vametco chose to hold back a whopping 441Mtv of its production in 2019, 277Mtv of this came in H1 when prices were much higher.

Note this part of the update ;

"FY2019 Vametco geographic sale split: ~50% the US, ~20% to Europe, ~10% to China and ~20% to the rest of the World."

As an example, a quick calculation employing the average prices provided and the stock held back, says this ;

US - 50% of sales = 221Mtv @ 2019 ave. $49 per kg = $10.83m
Europe - 20% of sales = 88Mtv @ 2019 ave. $41.60 per kg = $3.67m
China - 10% of sales = 44.1Mtv @ 2019 ave. $36.80 per kg = $1.62m

That's +$16m with another 88Mtv still to be recognised.

The costs to produce this product have been included in the 2019 figures, the sales aren't. So the EBITDA figure is to a large degree irrelevant.

@Derbyone I never truly left. I reduced down a while back having had a very good run but still have a good sized core holding that I intend holding through to production and beyond.

Reading through the evidence to date on this subject, it looks like the president’s comments have been at best misconstrued.

Removing legally backed concessions from foreign investors of the likes of Ganfeng, is a very dangerous path for any politician to follow.

Here’s an example of an article I have just read ;

If true then meetings between the Sonora government and Ganfeng to discuss battery plants and future investment, smacks in the face of concessions being confiscated.

https://southfront.org/all-sights-on-mexico-as-it-discovers-worlds-largest-lithium-deposit/

Afternoon all,

Having seen the post from Corvidae, I decided to run some further checks.

The enclosed copy of the PFS, pages 16-17, gives details of the 10 concessions held on and around Sorona. Page 17 detail a legal opinion from Melicoff & Asociados Abogados, issued in 2014 when BCN listed on AIM.

The opinion and the standing looks watertight to me.

The second document below is the guidance for the attainment of mining concessions and the process to needed to exploit minerals.

As far as I understand, the key document post the concession approval (which allows for exploration and exploitation) is the EIA (see page 23 onwards).

That was notified by BCN in their RNS dated 20th October 2017 (see below) and stated that it covered the current 35,000 tpa lithium carbonate operation at Sonora.

http://img.project.fdi.gov.cn/28/1800000628/%E4%B8%AD%E5%A2%A8/6.1.1%20-%20Investor%20mannual%20%E5%A2%A8%E8%A5%BF%E5%93%A5%E7%9F%BF%E4%B8%9A%20Part%201%20of%202%20-%20%E8%8B%B1%E6%96%87.pdf

http://www.cadenceminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PFS_-_April_2016_-_Sonora-1.pdf

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BCN/environmental-approval-for-sonora-lithium-project-wq1g59c53b1r1cf.html

Lastly, the Q3 2017 management update from BCN (again see below), stated that ;

"The approval represents a major milestone for Bacanora as it grants the Company government approval to construct an open-pit mine and a large scale beneficiation processing facility at Sonora."

https://www.bacanoralithium.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BACANORA-2017-09-30-MDA.pdf

There is always the chance that a wayward thinking president and his team could/would look to change this but as far as I can see, the statement (and I recognise the limited detail available in the links provided regarding the Mexican president's recent comments), is not supported by the facts, and any attempt to remove said concessions and approvals, would surely be on very shakey ground.

I do however recognise the existence of the articles and that if true, could be problematic for BCN. However, the statement is simply not correct in the case of BCN.

For me what this RNS actually states, is that IMMO are now planning for their move beyond simple break even at the EBITDA level.

Today's cash raise secures a path to 625 headsets, which at even just £300 per headset achieved on the 225 headsets above the so called magical 400 goal, delivers £3.5m above the EBITDA break even point.

However, such larger installs, which may well be repeated as H1 develops, will surely push that average revenue closer to the £476 that the aquariums are achieving.

Hit £400 per headset, then we are talking closer to £4.7m in revenues above the EBITDA breakeven mark on those 225 headsets.

So I agree, the initial attention is very much on the placing but where it should be is on the fact that said money pays for the move to 625 headsets, inclusive of larger locations, highly likely making the company 100% self reliant and more.

Whilst the placing may well of grabbed most of the initial attention to the RNS, the deal at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino's Shark Reef Aquarium, is rather eye catching.

At not less than $2.50 per ticket sold expected and historic visitor levels of over 500,000 per annum, those 36 headsets at a conversion of $1.30 per pound, will generate £960,000 per annum, which is around £513 per headset. It will take a little time for the installation to complete and gather momentum, but that's a better outcome than even the aquarium sector achieved in 2019 (£476 per headset). In addition, it is not based on actual participation but on an entry fee with exhibit included.

It is a shame that this announcement could not be made separately but that slight irritation does not remove the facts. This deal for 'just' 36 headsets, can deliver more than 25% of the total revenues achieved in 2019, from one location, which is a significant development.

Key quote from today's RNS ;

"We expect this additional capital expenditure to enable us to build an installed base of circa 625 headsets, at which stage we believe the business should be able to fund further capital expenditure from both operational cash flow as well as debt facilities, which we believe should become available."

(2 of 2)
Whats more the same 4th Sept RNS stated the following ;

"Notably, ASX listed Black Rock Mining (ASX: BKT), which also operates in the region, released excellent downstream test-work results on 14 August 2019 that exceed the industry standard for battery anode materials."

Chairman Nick Johansen's comments at the time ;

"With others in the region, such as Black Rock Mining, achieving their own excellent downstream test-work results, we are optimistic that Mahenge Liandu will deliver similar results to further enhance its already robust economics.”

Those Black Rock Mining results are included below.

"The trial has demonstrated a yield to final product of 48% and 53%, and final purity of 99.98% TGC* using commercial scale equipment in commercial processing and in dedicated research facilities"

"These outcomes significantly exceed Chinese Industry Benchmark yields of 35-45% and purity of 99.95% while using standard equipment and techniques."

There sits that "stringent requirements of prospective Chinese off-take partners."

The results are still outstanding but if ACP can deliver what Black Rock did, which they are certainly confident of, then the value of the finished products basket of goods should rise even further and those (Chinese related) binding offtakes should be brought home successfully.

https://blackrockmining.com.au/wp-content/uploads/BKTSPGProductionTrialDeliversIndustryLeadingResults12Aug19.pdf

(1 of 2)

I would be a little cautious with such numbers and I still believe that the 62,300 tpa figure is more realistic, given it delivers 10 years front end production and not just a few years.

What is more important, is what this front end higher grade mining will mean for the project's ability to extract higher worth larger flake.

On 8th August 2019 ACP released an RNS on the metallurgical test work. In that update the company published a table stating that Jumbo and large flakes made up 30% of the total basket of finished goods.

This same test work delivered the news that a consistent +97% purity was achievable.

However, "the average grade of the composite was 8.65% TGC and this produced an average purity of 96% across all flake sizes with an average of 97.0% in the high value jumbo, large and medium flake size ranges." (ACP RNS dated 8th August 2019).

Furthermore,

"Test-work on a higher grade composite of ~15% TGC is currently underway with a focus on maximising the proportion of higher value larger flake sizes while maintaining high purity levels."

As far as I can see, ACP has to date not reported back on this additional test work but at 15%, we are talking a 73% improvement in the quality of the TGC being employed. In my view that has to lead to a higher jumbo and large flake content.

As an example, Walkabout Resources at 5.51Mt at 17.9% TGC have 74% of their total basket in the +180 range, of which 49% is +300.

A reminder again, ACP have 30% above +180 and just 9.4% above +300. The 15% TGC employed for the more recent test work, is a lot closer to those Walkabout grades, so law of averages says we are going to see the large and jumbo flake content increase, which will impact positively on the total basket price of $1,272/t.

More importantly, if nothing else, there should be sufficient uplift in larger flake content to allow any drops in prices since the Scoping Study analysis, to be offset. I suspect it will be much better than that because the 73% uplift in sample grading is so significant.

Then we have the 4th Sept 2019 update to announce further downstream test work ;

"Armadale has commissioned Batterylimits in Perth, Australia, to expand the scope of the DFS to include downstream analysis on high-quality, high-purity flake graphite concentrate produced from Mahenge Liandu during the metallurgical test-work programme to verify it meets the stringent requirements of prospective Chinese off-take partners."

By this point the downstream test work on the 15% TGC was well underway because the 8th August update stated as much. Whether this announcement combined the two or not is for debate, but whatever happens, I cannot see how there will not be a significant upgrade in large and jumbo sized flakes, which will further improve the project economics of the DFS.

If that weren't enough, within that 4.3Mt resource, there is 1.2Mt of resource at 17.3%, which could in theory deliver 203,000 tonnes of extractable graphite (98%) over the first 3 years, which would be nearly 68,000tpa, which is even better.

However, I am more inclined to concentrate on the total 4.3Mt higher grade resource, because if my interpretation is correct, then the DFS should reveal a much bigger operation over the first 10 years, with the chance to deliver far stronger returns than the current Scoping Study headline numbers, lend themselves towards.

Hello Backwoodsman apologies for the late response. Yes I am very much invested in ACP and am looking forward to 2020 here because there is much to like.

I find it most intriguing that ACP secured a further 3rd offtake just 10 days after the 15th Oct RNS, that delivered the resource upgrade and that this offtake brought ;

"the total offtake under an MOU to 60,000tpa representing 122% of the 49,000tpa average annual production target."
(RNS 25th Oct 2019)

If the first 2 offtakes remain relevant, which the 25th October RNS states they are, then why have ACP committed to a further 25,000tpa, at such a late stage?

The key it would seem is in the throughput, which in the Scoping Study is set at 400,000 tpa, which makes sense as the processing plant will be sized as such.

However, the "average of 49,000tpa of high quality graphite products during a 32 year life of mine". . . "is based on an average life of mine grade of 12.5% Total Graphitic Carbon (‘TGC’)" (Scoping Study RNS 27th March 2018).

The resource upgrade that was released on 15th October 2019 and which was highlighted in what was ACP's first tweet of 2020 (a point worthy of observation when one considered they tweeted 25 times in December 2019 alone), delivered 4.3Mt of resources at an average 15.9% head grade. That is a very noteworthy 27.2% higher average head grade than the Scoping Study average, over what should be the first 10 years of the mine's life.

According to the scoping study, the average 49,000tpa is based on 13Mt of resource at 12.5%. That equates to 1,625,000 tonnes of contained graphite of which 1,592,500 tonnes is extractable over the 32 year mine life. That equates to 98%.

What that means is that in the first 10.75 years (4.3Mt/400,000tpa), the same throughput should gain access to 683,700 tonnes of contained graphite, which at 98% extraction, equates to a front end (c. 10 years) 670,000 tonnes of graphite, at circa 62,300tpa.

The latest MOU, signed as I say, 10 days post the resource upgrade, which delivered the confirmation that the front end resource was there, took the total offtakes to 60,000tpa.

That sum fits very nicely into the above figures and is for me why ACP are so keen to talk about that resource upgrade.
Furthermore, all 3 offtakes are for "an initial term of five years," which makes perfect sense given the higher output can only come in that first phase of far superior head grades.

The DFS may well still deliver a 32 year mine life at 'average' 49,000tpa, but the October update states that the mine is capable of operating at 20% higher. If so then the operating cost in those first 10 years will be much lower, EBITDA much higher, and cash flows to expand the throughout for when lower grades come through, much stronger.

The above is hidden in plain sight in the Scoping Study, but I don't believe a great many investors actually appreciate it yet.

Morning all,

I was personally very pleased to see that a healthy amount of warrants have been exercised. It goes some way to explaining the selling that has been seen here of late, be it limited to date.

Prior to this announcement ACP has approx 100m warrants in play at an average of 2.4p. That's up to £2.4m in potential additional cash resources.

For a company that to date requires 'just' $35m (£27m) in order to get into production, that is a significant sum of money.

The more warrants that are cashed in as the expected progress to financial close comes to pass, the less ACP has to raise for further working capital or indeed the mine capex itself.

It would be even better if the DFS, which is signposted as at least matching or bettering the Scoping Study, could deliver the sort of pre-production capital costs reductions, that the Walkabout Resources updated DFS achieved. So circa 5-6%.

That would knock another $2m (£1.5m) off the bill and make those warrants even more influential.

Some strong news on the DFS and 1 or 2 binding offtakes, could well see enough uplift in the valuation to drive more of those warrants out. Even 15-20m warrants (£360k - 480k) over the next few months would for me mean sufficient cash resources to take them through to financial close.

Certainly worth keeping an eye on as things develop here over H1 2020.

Just to add that Aspro Park's L'Aquarium Barcelona must be high on the wanted list with 1.5m visitors per annum, it is the 4th highest visited attraction in Barcelona.

Morning all, fairly new shareholder here.

I just wanted to add the following ;

On 20th Dec the company stated that the 185 partner headsets were averaging a year to date of £305 which would give the company "annualised revenues of circa £3m."

With today's update, Partnership headsets should now reach 278 with 55 of the new headsets being in Aquaria, where 2019 average earnings were £476 per week.

If we assume that the new entertainment headsets announced today, only match the current £305 per week average (bear in mind the 10 headsets contracted for the London Eye and the zoo installation may well exceed this), then at 223 partner headsets, revenues would be £3.54m

Then add in those 55 new headsets, which when hitting the £476 per week Aquaria average, would deliver an additional £1.36m

That potentially places total partnership revenues at circa £4.9m in revenues, based on a full year accounting basis with the 117 IVR headsets still to be added.

However, then there is the message that "we are in advanced talks with a number of larger locations and look forward to updating the market on these new additions in due course."

From my understanding of the RNS, these larger locations are not included in the 93 headsets because those headsets have agreed terms. So the advanced talks message would not be so critical. The we have whatever the rest of the year can deliver too.

Finally, I note that the Bristol Aquarium is included in the contracted headsets, which means that Aspro parks have completed a successful trial at their Blue Planet aquarium (see 10th Oct 2019 RNS), which potentially means that the other 66 Aspro sites (Rod Findley stated they have 82 sites in the 10th Oct Proactive interview) are on their way to being opened up.

From the 10th Oct RNS ;

"Beyond the Blue Planet Aquarium installation, and dependent on its success, we are in talks for an installation in the Aspro-operated Bristol Aquarium with a further roll-out to other Aspro operated aquariums with the 'edutainment' slate of content, and leisure centres with Immotion's pure entertainment content, both Cinema Pod-related and multiplayer interactive experiences."

Incidentally, Aspro has another 8 Aquaria in its stable.

Costs will be interesting but as has already been posted here today, cost of sales should reduce significantly on those headsets that are already installed, which at the end of last year was 302, of which 150 were added in 2019. Still more information would be welcome.

Of course with an even greater number of installations in 2020, costs will still be high but that is what happens in companies that are on sharp growth cycles.

Despite this, I am more than happy to take a stake at this time, as the business model looks to be demonstrating real strength in what should be a watershed year for the company.

@Lindon I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with your interpretation and conclusions on this one.

I too have read those articles and there is no mention of the BESS Project. It is strongly rumoured that Mantashe is out to protect the coal industry and so has been putting an unofficial block on the raising of the self generation model from 1MW to 10MW. In addition, the same rumours state that he is also actively undermining the IPP process and thus any future bidding windows.

However, neither of those two things have anything to do with the funding or the sign off of the BESS Project. The enclosed article from 30th Sept 2019, which coincided with the webinar introducing the tender to interested parties, stated the following ;

"The tender has already been approved by South Africa’s Ministry of Finance, Moyo said. However, the Department of Public Enterprises is yet to sign off on the project. That consent “has been escalated to the highest level,” he said, without committing to a date."

https://www.esi-africa.com/industry-sectors/future-energy/large-scale-battery-storage-tender-opportunity-eskom/

Mantashe is the Minister of Mining and Energy Resources. Pravin Gordhan is the Minister for Public Enterprises. So when the quote says "highest level," it means him.

I do have my concerns regarding Mantashe's influence on the IRP, the IPP programme and self generation, but in terms of the BESS Project (which is externally driven and carries a great many problems for the SA government, if they fail to implement it as agreed), Mantashe should not be able to influence the decision directly.

It must also be remembered that it is a pilot project, designed to in them main, support existing REIPPP infrastructure (Phase 2 60MW solar plant accepted). So it is not a direct threat to the coal industry that Mantashe does a very poor job of hiding his strong support for.

Finally, it is a key understanding that the truly biggest hurdle, the sign off from the Ministry of Finance, has already been overcome. Given where Eskom finds itself right now, that would have been the biggest potential delay. However, these politicians aren't stupid. The finance for the project is being driven by concessional funding, which they would be fools to turn down, given that they have very little of their own funds available to support such a substantial project.

I am also keen to see how the Enerox and Redt/Avalon deals develop.

I do not feel there will be a problem with either deal. However, I don't see the closure of the deals themselves as being catalysts here. I don't believe the market is able to appreciate what the those deals will lead onto and so will unfortunately expect more detail, in order to price their impact in, which is fair in my view.

Where I see the impact really starting to take shape, is when sizeable battery projects (possibly ones already announced), are brought to the market with BMN vanadium supply behind them. I believe we have to be careful not to expect too much too soon because the early projects may well be sacrificial in nature (profit wise).

The key is that the door is open to 2/3 prominent VRFB suppliers and BMN, starting from this year, has the ability to influence their offerings to their customers, in a manner that has not been witnessed before. So the impact should be two fold. Increased vanadium supply for BMN into a market that does not undermine current vanadium supply/demand dynamics, plus increasing market share for VRFBs, which should begin to get the attention of bigger investment players out, once visible enough.

I have every confidence that this will happen. so for me it is about the tipping point, which should be quite a period in this company's still young life, when it comes.

Another major development should of course be the Eskom BESS Project.

Whilst the ANC have been dragging their feet a great deal of late, I really do feel this is close to going to tender now.

However, I cannot see how Eskom can possibly justify holding onto their phase 1 Dec 2020 deadline. So I expect a renegotiation with the World Bank consortium and I expect, given the importance and significance of the project to the World Bank, that an extension will be forthcoming.

What I do not want to see is Eskom/ANC government stubbornly trying to browbeat any contractor to meet the current dates because that would demonstrate a lack of understanding for what this project can offer both S.A. and the wider continent. My belief is common sense will prevail and the extension will come.

Then it will be about how BMN comes at the project. Personally, given Mikhail Nikomarovs words in the Crux interview, I expect BMN to co e at this project as a developer with IDC in toe. If so then I think their chances are extremely good.

Good afternoon everyone and a very happy if very turbulent New Year to you all.

From the 7th Nov 2019 RNS ;

"The Company will now refine its plans for the refurbishment programme and update the market once its detailed assessment is complete."

"We are now able to fine tune the plan for these assets and then provide, in due course, a comprehensive strategy to our stakeholders."

Firstly, I am trusting that this comprehensive strategy is worthy of a stand alone update and not included as part of the Q4 update.

What I really hope to see is guidance on what Vanchem products are costing pre-refurbishment and what they will cost as the various stages come to pass.

As previously stated, I am hopeful that the stage 1 upgrade will be light on cost but fairly heavy on impact, much like at Vametco (be it they fell short in the end).

I would dearly like to see what integrations can be expected between the 2 plants. From the Vanchem presentation in may 2019 ;

"Vanchem has significant surplus ferrovanadium smelting capacity that will enable surplus MVO at Vametco to be converted
to ferrovanadium at Vanchem."

Furthermore, the acquisition of Vanchem ;

"Provides further capacity for electrolyte manufacturing through the existing chemical plant and vanadium oxide production."

If so then how much and how fast can it be produced and what does this mean for the Eskom BESS Project?

The same Vanchem presentation employs the Mokopone PFS and talked about a $130m development cost being less than half of the stand alone Mokopone costs.

Of course, since then we now know that the Vanchem price was reduced by some $15m but also that all of the costs to purchase it and likely half the price to refurbish it, comes from cash on hand or a convertable loan. Therefore, the finance costs for the project are greatly reduced (thus far circa $25m).

What that means is that the NPV for the combined project should be much higher.

However, I would still want to see what the company believes the product costs will be for a combined Mokopone/Vanchem production hub, coupled with such tie ins to Vametco, as have been hinted at previously.

It has been 2 months since that update. One would trust that the strategy is nearing publication.

It is my opinion that the drilling update and the expansion drilling at Palito, is being underestimated. From what I can see the recent recovery in the SP is being driven by the gains made by the gold price, over the last few weeks.

Much attention is paid to Coringa and what it will add to SRB production but the reality is that production from Coringa won't seriously kick in until 2023.

The majority of the production increase in 2021 is expected from Palito, which is already well on its way. The ore sorter may well 'only' truly add to this years production in Q2, but the CEO is clear that they expect circa 2,000 oz per quarter when it is fully operational.

That places 2021 production at over 48k oz already.

The Sept 2019 presentation states ;

"Raising production at Palito Complex to 60,000oz pa(2) by 2021 through production improvements and development of
mine site exploration success. Exploration programme in progress at Palito and Sao Chico, with further mine development to confirm mineral resources"

with a footnote stating "Target assuming exploration and development success."

This expansion is centred around geophysical anomalies situated 2km to the West of Sao Chico. Results have yet to be returned but I am greatly encouraged by words that read that ;

"These anomalies, which we originally confirmed in November 2018, are quite spectacular when compared to the equivalent geophysical anomaly that overlies the Sao Chico orebody, which has produced approximately 75,000 ounces of gold to date."

The drilling update stated that the programme there started in early December and states that "drilling will need to be suspended approximately every two months to allow for the processing of results."

So the first set of results should be with us in February and should signal that the expansion is very much on. That has the ability to deliver the SRB target of minimum 60k oz in 2021, even without Coringa.

That itself places the whole financing of Coringa and its timing in a far different context. SRB don't need Coringa to expand and therefore shouldn't need to hurry their finance or indeed accept any finance offer that isn't fair to them. Hence why we see a 3 month extension.

In what fort me is a gold bull market that has only just started to get going, a 60k oz operation (which will come with significant AISC savings), is more than enough support for my investing at these levels, because it is relatively low risk, if one believes that the gold price has strong support, which I do.

So it is about merely waiting and watching, which I will gladly do.

https://www.serabigold.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/PMS-Corporate-presentation-Sept-2019-Final-1.pdf