Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Just to add a little bit more background: Anton du Plessis, CEO of Erris (ERIS) since October, 2018, was formerly a director of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and, before that, a director at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley. He has worked on a variety of commodities and for AngloGold Ashanti, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton in the past. So, clearly very much a money-man with principal interest in resources. Erris is planning to re-launch itself under a new name- Zinnwald Lithium PLC.
Bacanora's (BCN) recent move to move their Zinnwald deposit (neighbour to Cinovec, but in Germany) to Erris in interesting. Erris apparently have competence in Zinc and Gold sub-terrainian mining. I take this as a positive for EMH. BCN was never interested in developing Zinnwald. Real activity at Zinnwald may add motivation to the German auto-makers and politicians to take the combined Cinovec/Zinnwald deposit very seriously indeed. GLA.
Chiron- As always, a brilliantly succinct presentation. But, please help me understand your prior made point about the C surface-protein being an important differentiator in determining "infectious" status. Hitherto, AS has only made reference to spike-proteins. Monkshood challenged me (quite rightly) about my reference to the C surface-protein and I am at a loss.
The reference by Sir John Bell to differentiating "infectious" people from "Covid in all its forms" (his words) seems important as, obviously, both epidemiologically and economically, identifying the "infectious" is paramount. If only identification of the spike protein is involved, how is this differentiation to be achieved? Thank you.
idontmessabout and others: Thanks so very much indeed. Very insightful to see that press commentary from April/May, 2015, from which it becomes obvious that Dow were already feeling the pinch.
I've just dug out my notes, which go back to 2011. It's interesting just to get a measure on the time-lines:
23 Jan, 2013- Dow Contract announced.
9 May, 2013- Edelman relocates to USA.
27 September, 2013- Dow Contract amended. Full production expected to begin H1, 2014 (!!!!!!)
24 September, 2014- Dow announces Cheonan Fab build. Production expected to begin H1, 2015 (!!!!!!)
16 December, 2014- LG to use Nano's QDs in its 4K Ultra-HD TV s to be unveiled at CES, Las Vegas, 6-9 Jan, 2015.
30 December, 2014- Revised Contract with Dow. Runcorn-made QDs to be supplied to Dow.
May, 2015- Nanoco moves from AIM to main LSE market.
31 March, 2016- New commercial strategy with Dow. ? Non-exclusive.
27 June, 2016- Samsung Electronics files "QLED" trademark in USA.
22 July, 2016- Wah Hong commercial agreement announced.
1 August, 2016- Merck commercial agreement announced.
28 November, 2016- Purchase of Kodak Patents.
During 2016- Samsung known to be importing its QD-enhanced LCD TVs into USA (and elsewhere).
ooooooOoooooo
Moving on: Kyungseok Lee's submission to the Court was emphatic in stating that, for more than 6 years to date, Samsung Display had not supplied any QDs in any LCD products to S. Electronics.
This still leaves the question of how Hansol fits in. Hansol is not a panel-maker and, hitherto, SE had always relied on SD for its panels.
I apologise for this being boring, but I am just trying to straighten a few things out in my own head. By coming back with its counterclaim that Nano's US 7,588,828 B2 Patent was improperly filed, is Samsung trying to escape any penetration of its internal relationships, including near-related Hansol?
Clear as mud ! But so many thanks to all you good guys for your thoughts, comments and updates from the Court.
Monkshood: superb elucidation of the chemistry, thank so much. I was burning to ask a question about the "C surface-protein", which is apparently important in the confirmation of "infectious" status, as differentiated from other Covid-19 statuses (alluded to by Sir John Bell).
I was very disappointed that I could not discern any reference to this C surface protein in AS' answers. I had imagined that one reason for delay may have been the realignment of Affimers to latch on to this protein, but apparently not.
With your great expertise, can you kindly help us out here, please?
Iaintittle: Thanks so very much for the two links. Particularly interesting to get Benchmark's take on the Tesla Battery Day.
1) How do you build the supply-chain for an expectation of 3 TeraWatts (3 Trillion Watts= 3,000,000,000,000) by 2030?
2) Musk talked a lot about vertical integration, but confused message about supply chain.
3) Some interesting quotes from the Benchmark Team; these are exact quotes:
a) "Everything is to do with Lithium as they stated."
b) "Lithium ion batteries are going to be THE core platform technology for EVs for the next ten years. The message was stuck to Li ion batteries." (Musk made no mention of solid-state batteries).
c) " Very engineering-heavy presentation. Surprised that not a single supply-chain manager or commercial manager or even someone from government relations on stage."
d) "It will force the other vehicle companies, the other battery companies, to also make changes themselves."
e) "Don't underestimate this company. But, it's less about the promises made by Tesla than the inherent limitations of physics when it comes to Lithium ion batteries, when it comes to mining, that will dictate what the future will hold."
In parallel discussions with other (non-Benchmark) commentators, there was a general sense of disbelief in Musk's claim that Tesla had discovered an easy way to extract pure Lithium from the clay deposits of Nevada, where, he claims, Tesla has made a 10,000 acre reconnaissance (Federal land). General consensus that Musk was oversimplifying the task of Lithium extraction with just washing through with table salt. These commentators and Benchmark were of the same mind that some aspects of Musk's presentation about Lithium extraction and processing was the most confusing part of the Tesla presentation.
One vital question posed (often repeated on this Board) is where is all the Lithium going to come from. From the present day 167 battery plants, worldwide, about 180 GigaWatts/year is produced. Huge question about how that can be expanded to 3 TeraWatts/year by 2030 from Tesla alone !! General view is that worldwide target of 2.7 TeraWatts/year by 2030 will be challenging.
So, some skepticism about Musk's ambition to become a completely vertically integrated company, particularly from the upstream mining point-of-view. Very comforting to know that Musk is absolutely committed to the Lithium ion battery, not solid-state. Musk made a point of wanting to shorten supply-chains. It will be absolutely fascinating to watch as Tesla's Berlin Giga-factory builds to production; to watch the movements of the large German motor manufacturers; to watch the EU high command's objectives in securing vital mineral resources. Good luck everybody!
Antelope: As always, most grateful to you and other stalwarts of this Board.
Your link article highlights the issue of a) Water husbandry in clay mining. b) US Regulatory hurdles. I understand that the water husbandry issue is very relevant to brine deposits as well. I have already mentioned that the Chilean Government is very concerned about its Atacama deposit and water husbandry.
Musk is very bright, but rather prone to over-promising and over-simplification. It is one thing to be a master of electronics, AI and specific battery technology evolution: quite another to be master of new mining technologies. Deep down, he will be acutely aware of the mineral shortage problem, despite his superficial bravado. All good for the very re-risked EMH !!
Kainos: Great to hear from you. I am not in the least perturbed by the apparent delays in AVCT getting its LFD technology out there. Indeed, quite to the contrary: AS is commercially very smart indeed and he knows better than anyone that how his Team rolls out AVCT's LFD test will have huge reputational implications regarding future collaborations on AVCT's various platforms.
From Chiron's insights, it is gratifying to hear that Porton Down Team and the Supervisory Group/Sir John Bell seem to be more in the driving-seat. There's nothing like a really serious, integrated Team such as Porton Down, compared with the rather hastily convened CONDOR, which, despite its Oxford connections, has appeared a little disorganised.
I will be writing a few emails tomorrow to some fairly serious folk in the liquid biopsy community to promote AVCT. Of course, AVCT already has a footprint in the cancer sphere, but science can be very hyper-specialised these days and cross-fertilisation of ideas can be very, very productive. The Affimer platform appears to have many ramifications which is why, for me, AVCT is a definite buy and hold.
Ophidian and Chiron: Very grateful, as always, for your insights regarding Integumen's new device. Both of you have hinted at a possible applicability to cancer detection, possibly using Affimers as some sort of binding agent.
I'm sure both of you will be aware that there are a number of projects aiming to detect the presence of cancer cell in a non-invasive way- so called "liquid biopsy" being one example. This is where a blood sample is examined for circulating-tumour DNA (ctDNA), cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and, in the case of Angle PLC's (AGL) innovative "Parsortix" system, whole, live circulating tumour cells (CTC). If successful, these techniques may obviate the need for intrusive tissue biopsy. The advantage of ctDNA-search is that it may have applications for other fluid-based biopsies (plasma, urine, ? saliva). The advantage of CTC-search is that whole, live cells are captured, which can then be cultured. The spectrum of cancers to which these technologies apply is very broad and include the common cancers (sadly with high mortality and morbidity) such as breast, colo-rectal, prostate, lung and melanoma.
Interestingly, work done so far in several centres in Europe and the USA has shown that:
1) The genetic profile of many solid tumours can vary greatly from one part of the same tumour to another part (heterogeneous).
2) In some advanced malignancies (eg:metastatic breast cancer), the way the disease advances is partly determined by clusters of the malignant cells. Such clustering seems to accelerate metastasis.
The potential use of a "tagging agent" such as an Affirmer, which can be : a) Readily tuned to a specific genetic profile. b) Readily identified by laser technology, sounds very exciting indeed for both ctDNA and CTC. Whether breath-carried tumour fragments can be captured and analysed in this way is another matter. Certainly, liquid samples such as plasma, whole blood, urine, possibly saliva could provide a very fruitful area of research. Fascinating and thank you both again for being, to me, the stars of this Board. Good luck and keep safe everybody.
travel-light: Sir John Bell was fairly explicit in wanting to identify infectious Covid from "Covid in all its forms" to use his exact words.
There's obviously going to be a tension between personal need and society's need. "The max benefit of the test is allowing people to know that they are infected" is true for the former, but, to address the latter: "The max benefit of the test is allowing people to know that they are infected and to identify those who are infectious."
AS is no fool and he would be orienting AVCT's test to make it compatible with government demands, not least because government will be paying for it ! I sense that the government will demand smart data collection for the tests it pays for.
So far, "Test and Trace" has been shambolic. If, as he protests, Johnson and his government is science-led, then it would be absurd not to create a joined-up strategy. The epidemiology determines the economics, and a great deal more besides.
Ophidian: Well, thank you ! Your precise and professional insights are absolutely crucial. Very, very few of us understand the intricacies of the device formulations/regulatory stipulations which are becoming more important by the day!
1stTimer: FOMO- "Fear Of Missing Out". Yup, can be a real sentiment trap. I've learnt to try and formulate an investment case on paper. Doing research is really important, but is tricky when the subject matter is, in scientific terms, very complicated. And then you have the very strict regulatory hurdles and the not always coherent government policy. My own view is (repeating myself) that Dr Smith has absolutely got the plot regarding the demand to tune AVCT's antigen test to discriminate folk who are infectious (virus is active and Affimers tuned to the C surface-protein) demanded by Prof. Sir John Bell of Oxford Uni) and to be able to discriminate between Covid-19 infection and any seasonal influenza. If it takes some extra time to "bullet-proof" the test, so be it. This is one of the huge benefits of Affimers- they are small molecules which can be readily tuned.
I suspect that one of the delays may well be owing to the need to create smart-data systems. The government will want to mazimise the usefulness of the testing from an epidemiological point-of-view: that is collecting as much information as possible on age/gender/ethnicity/location/other medical conditions(co-morbidities). If all this comes together, really high-quality antigen testing would truly be a game changer. My view is that Dr Smith is aiming for that and nothing less. GLA!
1stTimer- Good on yer ! The two posters on this Board whom I admire most are Ophidian and Chiron. They are professionals with deep knowledge and insight into the chemistry/procedural issues in what is in essence a very demanding biological sphere, complicated by regulatory demands and massive political issues. I hope that you can regard your outlay as a real investment and can look towards a long-term perspective.
PRICE- There should be support at 150 pence, which is prior resistance. There is massive support at 110 pence if sentiment gets very bearish. Several very serious Institutions, including one with a Warren Buffett type reputation, bought in at 120 pence at the cash-call. Their time-line will be very long-term.
PROSPECTS- AVCT is very far from a one-trick pony. They have full commercial rights to their AFFIMER bio-technology and there are very promising prospects for adapting Affimers to enhance anti-cancer (cytotoxic) medication in a target-specific way. This allows the dose to be reduced, thereby reducing side-effects (often very severe). There are other strings to AVCT's bow as well. The opportunity to use Affimers for user-friendly, rapid, lateral-flow-tests (pregnancy-style) for detecting whether people have got Covid-19 infection now (antigen test) has come at a very opportune moment and has allowed AVCT to raise over £40 Million in cash to support its various programmes. AVCT has developed a very promising relationship with Cytiva (used to be called General Electric Healthcare), which is a division of Danaher, a very large US bio-tech/pharmaceutical corporation regarding its Affimer-based antigen test. There is potential to develop Affimer-based medications to disable the spike-proteins on the SARS-Cov-2 virus. It is the spikes which aggressively puncture healthy human cells as the virus' method of invasion.
The boss, Dr Alastair Smith, is both a brilliant scientist and a very switched-on businessman, which is a rare combination. Yes, a great deal will depend on the next six months and there are risks for the share-price, but AVCT's technology is exceptional and the management Team is very responsible and capable. Good luck and sorry if any of the above is boring to some investors. It's just very nice to welcome a new investor ! GLA.
AS is very smart and he made an issue of the Specificity in the recent RNS. Surely, AS and his Team will be addressing the vitally important dual issues of:
1) INFECTIVITY- the need to tune the Affimers to the "C surface-protein" of the virus, not just the spike proteins.
2) INFLUENZA- the need to discriminate between Covid-19 and Influenza.
There will also be issues about joined-up data collection, regulatory approval for DIY (no professional present) testing and tooling for mass production. From every rational point-of-view, AS will want to "Do it once properly". He's a perfectionist and there are massive reputational and commercial issues for at stake AVCT. Very happy to be patient, here. The Q and A Webinar on Monday, 28th, will be revealing and supportive, I believe. In the meantime, I'm buying on weakness. GLA!
I have great respect for Elon Musk, but, as several posters have commented, he oversimplifies. Clay deposits do have problems. Clay mining is very energy intensive as it requires high temperatures. There are challenges regarding water husbandry, too and also clogging of the machinery. One of the largest clay deposits is at Senora, Mexico, a joint enterprise between Bacanora and Genfang, the Chinese Lithium major. Senora is, however, situated in real bandit (drug cartel) country and the Mexican government, while supportive, may want to apply taxes. One can understand why Musk's focus is on Nevada for what will be massive lithium requirements for his expanding US enterprise.
The smart money will press for local processing which the dual advantage of optimising vertical integration and minimising logistical supply-line costs. EMH's collaboration with SMS looks timely and smart.
It will be truly fascinating to watch the automobile space and we will see huge changes. The EU will be keen to protect the hitherto very strong German manufacturers and will be desperate to support Italian manufacturing. As we know, Italy's economy is fragile and there are fears of an Ital-Exit from the EU.
All good for EMH ! Good luck everybody.
TLWilliams and others: I think that the collaboration being currently explored is with STMicro. I gather that one of STMicro's major customers is Apple. I think it is interesting that Apple left the door open with Nanoco in not extracting any claw-back for the investment Apple made in Nano's plant. Cook, Apple's very smart CEO, has a leitmotif of "We always look to the long-term".
I would appreciate some help from better informed posters than I, but I think Apple's approach to Nano was regarding LIDAR- Infra-Red external guidance systems for autonomous EVs. It's interesting that Elon Musk, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has given LIDAR bad press, saying that it's very expensive. I believe that there is another dimension to Infra-Red for autonomous EVs and that is for driver-surveillance. The reality is that Tesla has suffered several fatal accidents, owing to drivers believing that their Tesla is Level-5 self-driving, when, in reality, they are at Level-2. The worst accidents were caused by Tesla drivers falling asleep. Musk has drastically over-promised on the time-scale for Level-5. It appears likely that safety-conscious countries, including the EU, would demand sensitive driver-surveillance systems. I would like to know more about how much these systems rely on Infra-Red.
The Merck story seems to be on hold. But, Merck are very smart people. I do sense that if Nano was to be successful in winning its IP-theft litigation, it would establish Nano's IP as being foundational in low-temperature manufacture of QDs. That could change a great deal as far as future collaborations are concerned. Some while ago, Merck were venturing some very exciting ideas about window and internal fabric panels with "smart" properties. If those were to include QDs, they would, without doubt, have to be Cadmium-free.
If I sense any major weakness in Nano's make-up, it is that it's too "geeky". Nigel Pickett is incredibly bright, but maybe his strength is more as an inventor than the production-engineering side of things. This is where, Charlie Hotz, Tech Director at Nanosys, may have an advantage. This is not to diminish Pickett's loyalty and commitment to Nano. He's hardly ever sold shares, still has a major holding in the Company and recently put in another £30,000 in the recent share-placement.
It seems a real UK tragedy that with ARM and Imagination Technologies bought out, high-tech on British soil is a bit thin. I remain hopeful that Nano can find its mark. Let's hope that Brian Tenner can be a well-grounded leader and focus the staff at HQ. Good luck everybody.
Thank you, LawrenceH. I'm ashamed with myself that I have taken far too long to adopt the Warren Buffett style of investing. I bore him in mind when I made my heavy purchases of EMH a few months ago. The planets began to align for EMH as its Cinovec project looked more and more re-risked. I am VERY grateful to the stalwarts of this BB who have been both encouraging and very informative. I would not have made that commitment without the brilliant posts and links, so thanks to all !
It's worth repeating from one of Fingers' excellent recent posted links a sum-up comment from Simon Moores, MD of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence regarding Tesla:
"There is no doubt now that regardless of how well Tesla's vehicles continue to sell, raw material availability will be the primary slowing factor on the company scaling."
We will hear much more on Tuesday on their Battery Day. I understand that Benchmark have their own streamed analysis on Wednesday, 23rd. I'm really rather excited by all this as I think we're on the cusp of a major industrial metamorphosis.
GLA and keep safe.
Courtier: Thanks so very much for pointing us to the very interesting work of Drs Oliver and Taylor at Cambridge. We may get distracted by the grubby shenanigans of Samsung and forget that work on optoelectronics and Gallium Nitride based LEDs is regarded as very serious science. It may be significant to note that the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for work done on heterostructures and quantum wells in the Infra-Red spectrum. In 2014, three Japanese scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing efficient blue LEDs using Gallium.
It may be blue-sky thinking on my part, but , IF Nanoco's patents are foundational in the low temperature manufacture of QDs, with high control of purity, size and shape, and QDs have an exciting future in the optoelectronic world, as Drs Oliver and Taylor's work indicates, Nanoco's IP may yet be celebrated. Professor Moonsub Shim in the USA is also doing pioneering work in the same sphere.
Apart from Samsung, the company that, I think, has made a major turn towards LEDs is Merck, hitherto one of the World's largest manufacturers of LCDs. Merck took some interest in Nanoco in the Summer of 2016 and, significantly, purchased a family of 700 patents to do with LEDs from Minolta in April, 2020. I don't think that story is over yet. If Nanoco were to win the IP theft suit against Samsung, it would confirm and consolidate Nanoco's foundational IP as far as QD manufacture is concerned. Thus, in my view, there is a huge amount at stake for Nanoco in terms of future collaborations. If this is anything close to the truth, it is not surprising that Samsung would defend its position as it has a great deal to lose.
It will not be lost on Judge Gilstrap that Samsung's culture is riven with corruption at the highest levels, proven in the South Korean Courts. Neither will he be oblivious to the fact that Samsung is fighting another alleged IP theft suit lodged by JOLED in the neighbouring district of West Texas. Clearly, as a senior and experienced Judge, he will display neither fear nor favour to any party. He would, however, be well tuned to any specious tactics that aim to distort or delay the search for the truth.
If I let my emotions in on the act, I am scandalised by the prior proven criminal behaviour of top Samsung executives. Furthermore, if Samsung are guilty of IP theft, the damage to Nanoco has been wilful, devious and profound. And I remind myself that Nanoco was founded with the specific and very ethical intention of inventing and producing toxin-free products using intellects of the highest scientific calibre.
GLA and keep safe.
ColinH100: I could not agree more. There is some resistance at 24/24.5 pence (prior 52 week high) and we seem to have bounced off that. With the near-term Tesla "Battery Day" this coming Tuesday, 22nd, we will doubtless get a very useful window into the EV world. Elon Musk has promised some surprises ! Listing on the Czech bourse will attract new investors, particularly with the heft of CEZ being in the top13 Czech equities.
Even rather intelligent people can be poor at anticipation- Musk is a notable exception. My take on things is that incredibly smart battery research, combined with heavy investment in the Lithium processing and building of the several Gigafactories
planned for Europe will proceed at great speed, but will be met with a supply crunch and a bit of an "oh sh*t!" moment. The environmental impact of Lithium mining is probably holding things back, with politicians tossing and turning wanting to do the right long-term sustainable thing. I think their hands will be forced as the EV motor manufacturers crank up their Lithium demand and the rhetoric, and probably the financial will, are forced to go with it.
A few ups and downs of the SP don't change the investment case for EMH for me one iota. I am delighted that UK-quoted AIM is at last in the spotlight, but some of the very frothy stocks out there will not, in my view, have a 20-year + future and some investors may get terribly burned. I'm sticking firmly to the plan and I'm not in a mood to sell nor to trade. EMH holds out too much promise ! GLA and keep safe.
Chiron: I just want to say how ABSOLUTELY MARVELLOUS your posts are. I had a question about Sir John Bell's recent comments about antigen tests which can discriminate infectious patients. Before I posed the question on this BB, I trawled through your posts and, sure enough, you had already answered it. Indeed, prior to Bell raising the issue!
Your confidence in AVCT's products, including ELISA, is clearly backed by professional knowledge of the highest order. Thank you very much indeed.