All good observations, thanks Alfa. To check if I understand your points, if we take the 16 odd weeks from Nov 18-Feb 19 (32M excess buys at 400k per day) plus the 36 weeks since at 1M per week, there could be +/- 5 more weeks of selling, at a rate of 1M per week, until we hit approx 75M (50%) of the placing?
cont...
I can only determine that there are still plenty of shares left from the March 2018 group, and we are more likely to need more than 52 weeks (approx 3M additional buys per week needed) before the MM involved is unble to consistently drop large volumes in. At that point, we may start to see the price rise as MMs move to a long position on BMN.
I’m also of the belief that the V price has very little to do with our current price, anyone who spends a mere 3-4hours researching the recent material on BMN will reach that conclusion. Which leads me back to the question of how much longer will we need to wait? This feels a bit like a long car journey as a kid, asking, "are we there yet?", with the constant answer being, only a few more weeks! would be interested to get others views on this, it may well be quite off the mark, and won’t change anything, but might help some other holders, who like me are learning that Aim is anything but straightforward, or transparent!
The interview posted this weekend was great, and as many have said there were a few knowing looks, smiles that know ing the way FM and Mn operate means there is plenty more going on in the background that can’t be talked about yet :)
The way this business sign posts and delivers on commitments suggests a very clear 3-5 year strategy is in place, and that it is being constantly tested and reviewed, which is excellent governance and a sign to me that there are strong corporate structures in place. They mention in the video that they test their assumptions regularly, but there is a lot more to it than that comment alludes to.
While BMN has been focused, rightly, on delivering on the plans I’ve spent a small amount of time trying to get a better understanding of how much longer the seemingly endless supply of shares can suppressing the price for.
The March 2018 RNS ( https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BMN/bushveld-minerals-ld-us222-million-equity-placing-q9wlqc1jgirvbel.html ) identifies
"BMN has raised approximately US$22.2 million (£15.7 million) (before expenses) by way of an oversubscribed placing of 152,749,172 new ordinary shares of 1 penny each (the "Placing Shares") at a price of 10.3 pence per share with leading institutional and mining investors…"
"The Placing Shares will represent approximately 14.4% of the Company's issued share capital on Admission (as defined below).”
"The Placing was led by a consortium of cornerstone investors, including the original founders of Mimosa Platinum and LionOre Mining International ("LionOre"), as well as the key investors in Mantra Resources at its inception. In 2007, LionOre was bought by Norilsk Nickel for US$6.3 billion. Mantra Resources was sold to Rosatom of Russia in 2010 for US$1.6 billion."
There is very little available online about the entities and people behind them, the only name I could find was Mr Gil Playford, who appears to be a very astute operator.
It seems the same consortium (almost identical wording to the BMN RNS) have invested in ’Salt Lake Potash’ in Jume 2019 https://stockhead.com.au/resources/lionore-founders-among-the-canny-investors-climbing-aboard-at-salt-lake-potash/
These ‘cornerstone’ investors hold / held approx 152M shares between them, so if all were in agreement and were to hand their shares to a MM, then surely notifications will follow once the supply has been exhausted.
If we assume that all 158M share are being sold down, and the selling started in Jan 2019, that is approx 40 weeks YTD. On average that needs an excess of 4M shares bought each and every week, over and above the ‘usual’ market dynamics. I don’t follow the trading activity very closely to have a handle on if we are anywhere near the vicinity of that excess of buys, but based on the flat response the the transformational news over the last 5 months (profit, acquisitions, new business models) I can only determine that there are still plenty of shares left from the
Hi SOTRR, I agree with your point, however I have neither the experience or expertise to explain why the many pieces of good news (not just vanchem) we’ve had this year are not priced in. I made the assumption that the positive announcements would be priced in (eg 2018 results), so have learnt to temper my expectations, hence my thoughts on a more muted response to the deal closing.
I have been wondering about this stagnant period as well, my thoughts, and some no doubt questionable maths below,
The large seller (I recall 110M shares being mentioned at one stage, not sure where it comes from) if there is one, should all but be done, as we are approx 130 trading days into the year, and often have 1M more buys than sells on a daily basis. Though the Vaneck buying 20M+ and then disposing of all but 4.6M of their holding will have extended this.
The TPEP short is also stagnant, so my thoughts are that the regular 30k and 50k sells are related to the ‘large seller’ i.e. Vaneck more recently, A N other unknown entity prior to that.
As for upcoming news, despite the enthusiasm, Im not sure that we will see an uplift. Why? Because the 2018 results, and Vanchem announcement should have sent us well north, towards SP Angels target. Instead we find ourselves pinned down with very little clarity as to why. For me, the 2018 results were the key announcement that I was waiting for, and would have thought the market response to be more positive. Is the vanadium price the driver? I suspect that our commercial agreements are neither at the top or bottom end of the ranges we have seen in the last 12 months.
So the Vanchem deal closing, and JSE listing announcement, while significant, are already known, and I don’t see how they will give us a bump.
H2 numbers on the other hand will again put in black and white the profit we are making, and should underscore the production improvements we believe are now part of business as usual process (Q2 numbers will confirm or disprove this), and I’m recalling a good post from Pdub a few weeks back about the market liking profit. An update on BE commercial agreements is the other piece of news I believe will have a positive impact.
https://bit.ly/309y1S8
I had a discussion with a friend on an early morning bike ride today, about our reliance on hydro carbon based energy (he works for a co that supports the oil industry) and he sent me the above story, which highlights the scales of the challenge that renewables face.
A couple of points that stand out for me
1. The opportunity BMN / Flow batteries have is vast.
2. The lack of awareness of Flow batteries is also significant, as I’m fairly certain the author (Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University) hasn’t heard of them in his research for this article.
Full article
Inconvenient Energy Realities
Mark P. Mills
JULY 1, 2019
ENERGY
The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”
A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”
He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.
Herein, then, is a summary of some of bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation and citations.)
Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80% of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than 2% of the global energy.
3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace 5% of global oil demand.
5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” 10-fold.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16% of world energy.
8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33%, the economy grew 80% and global energy use is up 40%.
9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70%, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50%.
10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.
11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50%, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.
12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.
13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
14. To make enough batteries to store two-day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).
15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.
16. Every $1 billion spent on datacenters leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on datatcenters is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.
Realities About Energy Economics
17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.
18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hour, the shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.
19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.
20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41% and 29% capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as 10 percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.
21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.
22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improving at about 0.7% per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to 50% increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.
23. Over 90% of America’s electricity, and 99% of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.
24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25%–30% of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.
25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70% of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20% since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.
Energy Physics… Inconvenient Realities
26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.
27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.
28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.
29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.
30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.
31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33% of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26%.
32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60% of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45%.
33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500% greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.
34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.
36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).
37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.
38. It takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.
39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.
40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70% coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.
41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.
Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University, and author of Work in the Age of Robots, published by Encounter Books.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70% of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16% of world energy.
8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33%, the economy grew 80% and global energy use is up 40%.
9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70%, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50%.
10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.
11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50%, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.
12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.
13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
https://bit.ly/309y1S8
I had a discussion with a friend on an early morning bike ride today, about our reliance on hydro carbon based energy (he works for a co that supports the oil industry) and he sent me the above link to this story, which highlights the scales of the challenge that renewables face.
A couple of points that stand out for me
1. The opportunity BMN / Flow batteries have is vast.
2. The lack of awareness of Flow batteries is also significant, as I’m fairly certain the author (Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University) didnt come across them in his research for this article.
Full article
Inconvenient Energy Realities
Mark P. Mills
JULY 1, 2019
ENERGY
The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”
A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”
He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.
Herein, then, is a summary of some of bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation and citations.)
Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80% of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than 2% of the global energy.
3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace 5% of global oil demand.
5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” 10-fold.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-
Is pretty straightforward,
Go to secure messages > New Message
Type: Please send me a letter of representation for Bushveld Minerals, account.
I was told that 5 days before the AGM AJ Bell will add the 'letter' to your account and you can choose which items to vote on, then submit via the platform.
Hi Icarus my broker also mentioned stamp duty, so I googled it and it appears that for AIM shares we are exempt.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/traders-and-brokers/private-investors/stampdutyexemption/stampdutyexemptiononeligibleaim.pdf
Hi Richken, Feel better soon, I hope your temperature finds some support at 38, possibly 37.6, as it’s been there a while (months / years) Sorry for the poor humour, I’m still learning from our resident chartist. GLA
IH that is nonsense re Ma5k post. It was taken down by LSE because they didn’t want a user promoting thier own site. Ma5k posted this after emailing admin, so please stick to the facts. This may be the issue w TBP links as well.