Member Info for BigBiteNow

@Alfacomp Would you like to expand on that thought?

Edison broker note for reference for those that have not seen it.

Note they stated a more reserved position on South Disouq ;

"We assume start-up in January 2020, with production ramping over the course of the year reaching a 50mmscfd plateau."

So their anticipated 2020 net entitlement figures could well improve, along with their target price, be it that I don't tend to read broker notes for their target prices.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/fy19-management-guidance-reset/24443/

Good morning everyone,

For my sins, i am a relatively long term holder, having taken my main position back in 2018 but have been fortunate to added further during the low points.

Despite being under water, I have held onto my shares because of the change of leadership through the elevation of Mark Reid to CEO:

Market trust has clearly been tested to its limits with SDX, but to date, Mr Reid has delivered exactly what has been asked of him.

In the 2019 Half Year results dated 22nd Aug 2019, SDX stated ;

"Construction of the South Disouq central processing facility ("CPF"), pipeline, and well tie-ins continued in H1 2019 with first gas expected in Q4 2019."

"Planning for the drilling of 12 wells in Morocco is at an advanced stage, with the campaign targeted to begin in Q4 2019 and complete in H1 2020."

Edison in their June 2019 note, went as far as stating mid November 2019, and that is exactly what has been achieved, if not a tad bit better.

Furthermore, the anticipated Morrocan drilling campaign, has also kicked off on 25th Oct, thus delivering it a good 9 weeks before the end of Q4.

It is early days but these achievements will start to repair the trust that has been lost and further support the grounds for appointing Mr Reid as CEO, an announcement I see was also released today.

According to that same Edison June note ;

"Gas prices remain fixed at US$2.85/mcf, but netbacks are expected to remain high based on unit operational costs of less than US$0.2/mcf at plateau production."

That's a really strong netback even in Egypt.

At what is stated in today's RNS as being, a circa 25mmscf/d net interest, Edison are reporting a pre-tax net entitlement income of circa $16m, post opex, capex, bonuses and royalties.

Post tax its around $9m. I do not see how that can possibly be priced in right now, given that SDX can deliver upto $26m in net cash from operating activities (based on H1 figures), even before South Disouq came on line.

So now we are talking potentially (on paper) over $35m in net cash generation per annum, and the company is already adding circa 50% of South Disouq production for the remaining 6 weeks of 2019, which is not to be sniffed at.

If this build up of trust can be continued and the first gas date hit or even bettered, then 2020 could be a very good year for SDX and its share price, which is why I am staying.

(4 of 4)

In addition, under the V23 Resources section of that Cellcube update, the company states this ;

"Although the underlying business units of CellCube are well positioned to take advantage of growth in their respective industries, each division is suffering from a lack of working capital. In addition, CellCube does not have the necessary working capital to pay for its corporate overhead"

"the Company is reviewing strategic alternatives focused on maximizing shareholder value. The strategic alternatives expected to be considered include, but are not limited to, a sale or merger of the Company, continuing to pursue value-enhancing initiatives as a standalone company, capital structure changes, or the sale or other disposition of certain of the Company’s businesses or assets."

So its certainly not all rosey over at Cellcube and the risk profile may be too high for BMN right now.

I am clearly attempting to join a few dots together here but there are good grounds to believing that Cellcube could end up being a target for BMN investment, that the mini grid solution could well form a part of that support and introduction into the S.A. Market. Also, its worth noting that Vsun market Cellcube in Australia, among others of course.

I appreciate that UET are highly likely the main partner for S.A. Including the assembly of VRFB there. However, there is nothing wrong with a little healthy competition, especially when said competition comes with a potential portion of direct ownership.

We will need to wait and see, but I find it interesting that the procurement for the mini grid is under way, but we, the market, do not know which system they will be employing yet.

On the negative side, what was clearly stated by BMN management, was that good management was key to their investment in VRFB OEMs. I cannot vouch for Cellcube management capabilities but if nothing else, I noted Stefan Schauss' resignation as CEO of CellCube Energy Storage Systems Inc was included in that 22nd Oct Corporate Update.

In addition, the investment in Redt/Avalon was made because the merger itself creates a new scale of production capability, which in BMNs view, is key to the success of VRFB companies.

Cellcube do not have that yet, and so an investment there may be too early, but if nothing else they do have that project pipeline, a 136 project installation and 10 year track record. In this fledgling industry environment, that must hold considerable worth. So if nothing else, BMN must be having a good long look at Cellcube and maintaining a watching brief.

All food for thought if nothing else.

(3 of 4)

They have not done that because they clearly aren't finished yet. So perhaps there are more struggling VRFB OEMs still to help.

This brings me to Cellcube.

Cellcube plans have recently been included in the Vametco Solar mini grid VRFB. I appreciate that words have been had between Alphacomp and their leadership, but I am not buying the fact that the inclusion of their plan, within the basic Environmental assessment (BEA), was purely because they required a sample plan. The basic environmental assessment requires more respect than that.

The BEA is dated late August. The latest RNS dated 7th Nov states "Commenced procurement for the project." It does not say initiated contract award. To procure one must have a contract in place. If its not decided, then you don't procure.

Recently Cellcube have had financial problems. They have just sold the majority stake in their EnerCube SwitchGear Systems company, but they have retained Enerox GMBH.

According to their latest press release (22nd Oct 2019), that particular company has "close to 140 project installations and a 12 -year operational track record," and "is now engaging to finalize its first major sales"

"Over the past year Enerox launched the Generation 4 product series, the most advanced (“VRFB”) on the market today as stated by independent industry experts.

"Product interest for its newest generation remains to be very strong. The company is nearing several large-scale contracts which will be executed once production capacity can be planned to adequate levels."

"It has taken a lot of time and capital to get to a position that Enerox is at today, but until the company can produce and execute projects with a consistent number of units, the company will continue to be in a monthly working capital deficit position."

So essentially the pipeline is there, a lot of investment has already been made, it is just that they need a capital injection and support, in order to deliver their projects and grow. What that means is that the right industry partner, who is willing to help this company out of its troubles, will receive a lot of capital investment for its money."

Furthermore, Cellcube in February this year, announced a 20MW deal with Immersa in the UK market.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cellcube-partnership-with-immersa-paves-the-way-for-80mwh-energy-storage-deployment-300802923.html

So the project pipeline is significant enough to raise interest, given which market it is in.

(2 of 4)

However, according to the latest AVL presentation dated Nov 2019, the "start up, commissioning and ramp up of the Gabanintha project, will at best, begin in Q3 2021. That is reliant on a financial close by late Q2, for which they have an MOU with a Chinese partner. Now they might make it but as I said yesterday, new pure play vanadium projects are in my opinion, even more up against it, because of the recent dramatic drop in vanadium prices. Furthermore, the law of averages is heavily against AVL, in terms of project deadlines being hit.

I therefore do not see that ramp up taking place until 2022, meaning they have a minimum 2 year gap before Gabanintha.

As I say, the clear barrier that I see to a BMN investment, is that Vsun are a marketer and developer, as opposed to a OEM, and the VIP platform is specific in that it is aimed at VRFB OEMs. However, that "and the industry" line does exist and the Australian market is potentially a very large one, that right now does not have a strong enough local player. Vsun could potentially fill that gap.

However, right now the fact that the Vsun website is lauding the fact that it has received 2 VRFB contracts in 2 months, says very clearly that it is stalling.

So if it suits BMN, the opportunity is there to stake a claim.

Points 3 and 4 from that same RNS are as follows ;

"Joint development of region or project specific business models for vanadium electrolyte rental. Bushveld enabled the successful deployment of a vanadium electrolyte product in industrial-scale batteries developed and sold by Avalon Battery"

"Joint development of large potential customers or projects well-suited for VRFBs. This includes the work showcasing the technology at the Eskom Research & Testing facility in South Africa."
Note that both have clear references to goals that have already been achieved in this pursuit. That's not to say that they are finished in this regard.

I have already posted my thoughts on the UET partnership, which for me is merely a matter of time.

The above reference to Eskom is for me is a direct reference to UET, given it is their battery that is in that test centre.

So we are back to the other major item that has not been fully covered in that 1st November RNS, which is item 2.

"Supply contracts for vanadium material, vanadium electrolyte and vanadium electrolyte rental. Bushveld has already been supplying sample materials to multiple OEMs."

Sample materials to multiple OEMs.

The above is directly linked to OEMs, so not the likes of Vsun, although the pilot electrolyte plant from C-Tech, could be classed as a OEM.

UET, Redt, and Avalon, must be on that list, which makes it multiple. However, if the list was completed, then why issue a VIP platform RNS or even establish one. Why not simply announce the partnerships and deals, and be done with it?

(1 of 4)

Good morning all,

Further to the discussion regarding further potential VIP investments, I would off the following ;

In the VIP Platform RNS dated 1st Nov 2019, BMN laid out 4 key areas of investment assistance for VRFB OEMs under the title "Clear strategy to partner with VRFB companies."

The first of these covered the basics of the VIPs and included the following lines ;

"The VIP will leverage Bushveld Energy's expertise in the energy storage market, its capacity to ramp up vanadium supply and its capital investment to attract additional external funding into the VRFB OEMs and the industry. Bushveld's role would be that of a significant minority investor, with strategic involvement such as vanadium sourcing. . "

Now to be clear, the VIP is aimed at OEMs, but the above does talk about "vanadium supply!" and (BMN) "capital investment" to "attract external funding into VRFB OEMs" AND "the industry." So there is a small window of hope for Vsun Energy.

According to the Vsun website FAQ ;

"We sell batteries from a wide variety of manufacturers including redT Energy, Schmid, UET, Pu Neng and CellCube."

Then we have the article that I posted yesterday regarding the Vsun Apple farm project, employing an Avalon battery.

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/09/07/victorian-apple-farmer-installs-vanadium-battery-to-increase-solar-consumption/

So as a minimum there is already a connection there with Redt and Avalon.

Vsun have partnered with several industry wide players, but their electrolyte production partner and thus capabilities, are still limited, despite the fact the agreement with C-Tech, was signed as far back as Oct 2016.

C-Tech have provided the pilot electrolyte plant, but they are not as far as I can see, a company that provides the vanadium. At the time of the initial delivery of the electrolyte plant, the following article was published ;

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/167857/australian-vanadium-prepares-for-electrolyte-processing-pilot-plant-167857.html

In that article, it was stated that ;

"AVL has commenced sourcing low-cost, high quality vanadium pentoxide for quality testing purposes from a wide variety of global sources including Brazil, China and Africa."

So as a minimum, Africa and potentially BMN, were already on their radar for supply. Whilst I recognise that Glencore also have a vanadium plant in Africa, for me the connection is far weaker and also, being that it is Glencore, there would have been little need to say Africa, because they are a global dealer in vanadium. So the inclusion of Africa is for me telling.

Naturally, the article goes on to say ;

"In the longer term the company aims to supply its own vanadium pentoxide from the high grade Gabanintha Project for use in the production of vanadium electrolyte."

I said it last week already but if I were BMN, and i believed in the Redt/Avalon proposition strongly enough to be the very first investor in the merger, then I would make absolutely sure that I kept my holding well above 5% now, such that any further investment in the business, by others, did not take away my right to do so.

"A right of first refusal to supply vanadium, vanadium electrolyte and vanadium as a rental to the merged entity for two years and thereafter subject inter alia to Bushveld continuing to beneficially own at least 5 per cent of the merged entity"

It is test amount to the situation that these VRFB OEMs find themselves in, that the first refusal deal is completely controlled by BMN.

In 2 years, Redt/Avalon could be quite some beast, and BMN would still have the right to maintain that supply contract. Such a deal means that BMN really need other partners to de-risk their supply chain, more than filling up their order book.

Its a remarkable agreement, which points to a WIN/WIN situation, likely driven by the details in the paperwork and a willingness to support and not suffocate, which itself points to a great deal of new ammo for those two companies, in their quest to convert their sizeable project pipelines.

BMN RNS

@Ophidian Agreed and timing will,be key, but also they must avoid being too greedy, which I think they will.

Whats certain in my view is that the East London facility will not stay at 200MWh capacity for very long.

What we might also start to see is partnerships being formed with OEM electrolyte producers in other areas, or at the very least vanadium supply.

But at the end of the day a scaled up sold out 8,400 mtV business, supplying a variety of customers, with a variety of value chain based products, would be more than enough to create a truly significant business here, even in a 'low' vanadium price climate.

I of course welcome more, but it really wouldn't be needed to make me a very happy investor indeed.

We should perhaps all be aware of that greed and overstretching ourselves too much.

Bella6532 At this stage i am throwing out one or two theories of my own, I am sure others have many others that they can think of. I think the key right now, and what is so beautiful about all this, is that there are so many potential layers to, that the opportunity is there to theorize across the board.

From the interview, the message for me is very clear. If its on the continent of Africa and especially S.A. then BE will/is very active indeed, and looking for maximum participation where it is achievable.

If its outside of Africa, then the role is more supportive of others, with the ultimate goal of gaining inclusion in as many opportunities as possible, at a vanadium supply level.

I am certainly hearing a connection to discretionary funding, which for me right now is WBG led, and that funding is aimed at lower to middle income countries, of which Africa has many members. Whether that is with Avalon/redr, UET, Cellcube, or someone else, for me doesn't really matter (though I accept that it is fun trying to find out), it is more the case that BE feel capable of accessing it, that they have something of interest, and that they can play a part on the outcome at various levels, in order to satisfy the needs of themselves, their partner and the client in question.

Give me ;

1. A Redt/Avalon partnership and full offtake accessing "North America, Europe and Asia."
2. A UET partnership at VRFB assembly/manufacture scale covering S.A and Africa and ;
3. A Vsun Energy investment and support in Australia ;

and those doors will likely never see the back of that van ever again because that'll be all 5 continents entered, covered and likely delivered.

I think that Vsun and AVL, are a perfect example of a fledgling VRFB participant that has a very good idea, but that cannot compete in this current market, due to a lack of finance. I do not know what Vsuns project pipeline is but without AVL progressing their mine, I would think they have limited options to move Vsun forward.

So a supportive role that does not take away the opportunity for AVL completely, must surely be worthy of consideration, given the potential that Australia offers as a market.

It would certainly help get AVL on track to its ultimate goals as an integrated Australian play. I cannot see the worth in investing in the mine because it needs too much capital. But investing in the Vsun business and providing a rental product with Avalon (RedT) in toe, surely has a lot going for it if! the Vsun projects/ potential is there.

If it did happen, we would be talking about a former competitor/rival (just like Redt supposedly was), as a partner and a means for BMN shareholders to improve their returns, which would be quite something.

Agreed Sanchez599. At what level is still to be determined, but it is more the fact it very much looks like it can happen, and that it takes BMN into wider markets, opening up even more potential for the company.

It is interesting that Vsun have employed a Avalon battery for their recent contract win at "Priest Bros orchard in Pakenham."

"The VRFB solution for the orchard project is being supplied by battery manufacturer Avalon Battery"

Not only that but the article makes a point of mentioning that ;

"Avalon Battery recently entered into an agreement with South African vanadium producer Bushveld Minerals to provide a leasing option for vanadium electrolyte."

One must be careful not to over assume, but we all know how well these guys know each other through Vanitec, so its interesting that Avalon were able to secure this project. Whats the chances that the project goes on to secure a vanadium rental contract, and that said vanadium comes from BMN?

https://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/901994/australian-vanadium-vrfb-will-be-part-of-solar-and-energy-storage-system-at-orchard-901994.html

(2 of 2)

"The ability to source external capital for clean energy projects, for clean energy products, for sustainability in the circular economy. That money is out there, some of it is actually discretionary finance, where it is actually cheaper than what you could ever get, if you were trying to borrow money to build a mine."

We all talk about the $1 billion World Bank battery storage fund and its connection to Eskom, but I wonder if BE are looking to access that funding in a more direct manner. I am absolutely sure that the IDC levers helped secure that funding for Eskom, and they may well be working hard again to directly access investment from the WBG. After all the whole purpose of the fund, is to create opportunities for battery storage companies and their technologies, to scale up and deliver more projects on a much greater and more cost effective way. Can anyone say that any battery storage company out there. is doing more to promote the battery storage market, and deliver that scale?

The direct reference above, certainly points to a direct link into that WBG led discretionary funding, because right now they are the only one BMN management is highlighting, and as we all know from Vametco and Vanchem, BMN do not tend to mention these things unless they have something in the pipeline.

So I am definitely keeping an open mind on Be's ability, be it directly or indirectly, to access more of that funding, and at a scale that is meaningful.

Just a couple of ideas I though worthy of posting on.

(1 of 2)

There are a couple of theories/beliefs forming in my head after watching the Crux Investors interview. I will lay them out and shareholders can test them or challenge them as they see fit.

Firstly, another quote.

"We will continue to look out for other VRFB companies, that we can partner with, support. The more there are that are successful, that have got scale, the better for the entire industry."

This ties in in part with my earlier posts on the Crux interview. However, coupled with other wording from the interview, including ;

"Now i want to be honest, we are not going to develop every single vanadium battery project in the world, but if it is in Africa, then its extremely active."

That quote was stated shortly after the "4-6 activities on just one single project" statement.

What that says to me very loud and clear, is that the Eskom BESS Project is a big focal point for BMN. If they are extremely active in Africa, then how active are they when the project is on their doorstep?

The beauty of the Redt/Avalon deal is that it should effectively take them temporarily out of the loop, at exactly the time when the BESS tender is being activated and decided upon. However, even if they are not, and assuming that they complete their merger and indeed tender, then at the very least, they would have to be employing BMN vanadium products to fulfill for the project, because that's exactly what the contract says they must do. So that's one active S.A. VRFB OEM under control.

However, with their desire to be a recognised developer and VRFB assembler, I just cannot see how BMN would want to let this BESS project escape them. So for me its about those 4-6 activities.

The partnering element of the above quote, for me, signals the partnership with UET (and IDC) to assemble VRFBs in S.A.

I don't see a direct investment in UET, due to their Rongke/Balong New Materials connections. What I do see is UET wanting access to those S.A. based levers, and those Eskom contracts. Things have been very quote for a very long time with UET, but the pure fact that it is a UET battery at Rosherville, that BE achieved and sort a grant from the USTDA, for help with that battery, means UET are very much in the picture, when it comes to S.A. and likely the wider Africa market.

Here is a quote from the interview that really hit home to me as an investor, not just here but in the markets in general ;

"each time you have to face some level of scepticism, it is a blessing because it makes you re-think your assumptions. . . I think every single time we have done it, we have got even more conviction that it is absolutely the right time for this and the opportunity is that real."

Conviction is not always easy to hold onto, particularly in this modern world of social media and the bombardments that come with it.

However, we thrive most when the doubters theories can be tested and disproved, not simply because we want them to be wrong but because we can prove that they are, or that it is not core to the investment case. There is no better conviction driver than that, and so we should all welcome that input and the continuous test that they create.

That process is no different for any company and its directors, whoever they are and whatever they choose to do.

(3 of 3)

What I am basically attempting to convey here, is that BMN has the ability to step into any potential vanadium market it wishes to, at basically any level it chooses is appropriate. Hence the 2, 4 and even 6 "activities on just one single project" statement.

Hence why they could both so readily talk about Australia and how as an example ;

"we are probably not involved in the development but we will (could) be supplying vanadium, electrolyte, possibly having an equity stake into the company that is invested there, possibly having a stake into the rental company that is supplying electrolyte through rental there"

As Mikhail and Fortune both make clear, it is still early days even for the Redt/Avalon deal, and more importantly it is still very early days for the VIP investment platform, but what is clear, is that the investment does not stop there. What is clear is that they will reach out much further into the market and take advantage of this first mover status, this first mover understanding, and the competitive advantage they have as a vanadium supplier, to strike the first deal, but effectively create the necessary snowball affect, as other funders become more willing to come on board, because they see a very clear de-risking of the venture because it has been able to secure guaranteed cost effective vanadium supplier and finance.

So for me the Australia move is on. Who would bet against it? And it shouldn't be alone.

Mikhail is very clear ;

"because we actually think the market is large enough for a few different companies to be successful"

If so, then right now those companies are as accessible as they will ever be, so why would BMN not take advantage of that.

By doing so BMN spreads its risk and takes advantage of a market can can thrive in low vanadium prices, and that's before we even start to discuss the things BMN are and want to be doing directly.

All of which leads FM to say ;

"when we talk about the natural hedge that energy storage provides, the power of that is not appreciated yet, but it is incredible."

We all know it is incredible because of the potential size of the energy storage market. What we perhaps haven't previously appreciated is that by the time BMN are finished, they may well have signed up all necessary/worthwhile OEMs to "first refusal to supply vanadium" deals, and with it, provided future partners/financiers, the necessary proof of their ability and right, to exploit their resources, on a scale that has never been imagined before.

In the early days of a mining venture, off-takes provide a solid basis for finance to be agreed. Why would it be any different for BMN in their downstream phase?

In the last 4-5 years that I have followed pretty much everything that FM has ever said. I cannot remember him ever saying "incredible" before. In understand completely why he has chosen now as the time to finally introduce it because the opportunity is truly that.

(2 of 3)

However, this time around its not about low vanadium prices, but higher ones. Said higher prices in 2018, have helped stall the development of what are still fledgling companies, such that they need further support to continue to develop their hard won project schedules.

As Mikhail says ;

"we think there are some that have good management teams because they have actually executed pretty well to date, the issue why they are not larger, is they have only been around for a few years and they need capital to grow."

Isn't that just beautiful? This is not about investing in companies or partnerships that are saying give us capital and then we will show you something. They are saying, look what we have in the pipeline, but cannot get over the line.

For an investor with an open mind and capital to support it, that could be an interesting investment. However, with BMN we have the capital and access to a supply chain of vanadium products that can further support the OEMs plans to grow, by giving them competitive advantage in their market place, which immediately de-risks the investment further than other more conventional capital sources, could achieve.

Higher vanadium prices have contributed to that need and availability, substantially.

Now we see a lower vanadium price environment but it is one that is coupled with fear over volatility, which makes OEMs all the more willing to make a favourable deal, particularly to anyone who is willing to move first.

What this should effectively do, is give BMN through their VIP, the ability to handpick not only the best VRFB companies, but also seal very strong deals. That's because the likes of BMN are very rare. There aren't 20 pure play vanadium producers to compete with. Infact there are effectively no pure play vanadium producers to compete with, and there aren't going to be many new ones soon, because if nothing else, the recent volatility of vanadium prices, will surely have put the wind up any potential investors.

So once again we find ourselves in the inner circle looking out, but this time around its not just a vanadium producer circle but a VRFB, energy storage, fully integrated model circle, and to date, its a very small one with not many other members.

So low vanadium prices delivered Vametco. Higher vanadium prices delivered the capital but cut off OEMs from their revenue generating work. Lower vanadium prices deliver the opportunity for those OEMs to now thrive, but they are short of capital, fearful of volatility, and desperately in need of guaranteed vanadium supply.

Talk about riding the vanadium wave to perfection.

(1 of 3)

Afternoon all,

The Crux Investors interview takes some digesting and so I would like to offer my own thoughts on it as and when I can collate them, and tie them back where possible, to what we already know and have discussed.

It is incredibly rewarding to see the actual realities of the plans BMN has, being relayed and executed in a manner that ties in so closely to those that have been discussed here at length, by so many BMN shareholders.

For all the endless discussion and dissection, that takes place on this BB, for me the wider market still has little chance of fully appreciating what BMN is putting together here. However, the efforts and commitment of so many participants here, are for me, going to pay handsome dividends in the years to come, so the wait should be more than worth it.

The Bushveld Minerals fully integrated model, from the mouth of Mikhail Nikomarov ;

"In some ways we are in direct control. Lets take an example of a project like our mini grid. There we are the developer, so we get a development fee when that project reaches financial close. We are an investor, co-investor, so we get the return on equity or dividends from the PPA, that is signed to pay for the energy that that mini grid produces. By the way we are supplying a battery into it, so if we want to, we can charge a mark up on somebody else's battery. If we are invested in that company, we get an additional benefit, because our investment has now appreciated in value, because that company now has more deployments. We're supplying electrolyte, so we get a fee for manufacturing the electrolyte into that project. By the way we have mined the vanadium, so now we've got a sale on the vanadium."

"So this integration allows us to capture value, sometimes from 4-6 activities on just one single project."

There we have it, the to date, currently being executed methods for delivering added revenue streams to the overall business, by allowing BE to participate in the downstream battery storage opportunity, as and where it sees fit, depending on how it is invested and with whom.

Right now the opportunity is limited by scale. BE are changing that by investing, partnering, or supporting OEMs of VRFBs, in order to drive those multiple revenue streams, over a much wider project base.

What is so beautiful about all of this, is the fact that BMN's first mover status, is once again allowing them (in much the same manner that it is working for their early investors), first mover status on the downstream battery supply chain, just like it did earlier with the very brownfield that is now paying for all of this and the low vanadium price environment it was achieved in.

Now those vanadium prices are once again working to BMN's advantage at just the right point in the cycle.

@Knighthood Agreed. My own window is set at 2 year intervals, as it normally always is, then it will be reviewed and adjusted as I see fit.

I would, at the very least, want to see LIB phase 1 in production and Serenity appraised. 2 events that, if successful, will add significant value, even with limited dilution in play.