Member Info for HarChris

Fair response AB, can’t argue with that.

'HC really depends on where in the cycle you think we are.'

You're right but as there's no way of actually knowing where we are in the cycle certain factors need to take precedence. The most important metric is cash/cash equivs because first and foremost the absolute worst thing that can happen is running out of funding in this market - fortunately ATM offerings seem to be the thing across the North American miners and that has made the biggest difference (vis a vis the likes of Argo).

I think it's a toss up between going the big HODL/sacrificing growth during the bear market route or buying machines and sites/acquisitions when they are cheap and available but diluting heavily. The former will mean much higher cost of expansion when it occurs in the bull market but you'll also have a humongous asset value to either start directly funding with (selling BTC) or borrow against / raise with a share price 3, 4 , maybe 5+ the size. With the latter you are putting a ceiling on how high the share price will go in a bull run but equally there are obvious benefits to expanding now vs the inevitable bottlenecks in the supply chain that will happen in the next bull run. There are also cash cost benefits that I imagine the likes of CLSK must be seeing now having expanded so significantly over the past 12 months.

Basically each strategy has both positives and negatives and that's largely why you lot argue so much over which miner is the best, because it's impossible to know which will come out on top without knowing what's going to happen to bitcoin over the next 12 - 24 months!

Yeah Wärtsilä are the lithium battery provider in the Oxford Superhub.

With current projections for how much energy storage is going to be needed to electrify the world I don't think we need to think of lithium as a rival technology or even aim for vrfb's making up 10% of total global storage. The numbers are so big that even a few percent would reshape the vanadium market.

For example the US alone is expected to install 120GWh of energy storage by the end of 2025, in just three years.

Yeah agree with that, ever increasing dividends will always be well received by the market.

Well it's worth remembering that the gold price actually makes very little difference to the fundamentals, what matters is the average gold price over time. So for example the share price might 'add about 1p for every $1000 on the gold price' in the short term but in the medium term simply seeing gold stay where it is now for 12 months would add significantly more pence to the share price, as the cash and profits would be crystalised and confidence would grow in the long term direction of gold.

Traders want to see spikes so they can enter and exit without any risk, long term holders can wait for the higher prices and therefore cash to show through in the accounts.

Yeah my point really was about profitability which just isn't a useful metric whatsoever during this bear market. It might in the future with easy credit disappearing from the sector but what matters now is who raised the most finance during the 2021/22 hype cycle first and foremost and then who's able to build through the bear market and position themselves to thrive on the flip side.

'best thing eric can do with this extra free cash flow is start a buyback'

Isn't it a bit soon to start utilising the increased cash flow? Why not pay off some of the debt first and then if in a few months time gold is still where it is and it's still not shifting the share price then start to consider something like a buyback?

Daisan, your comments re fundamentals vs sentiment are certainly true to an extent but that all changes at the further extremes. Fundamentals absolutely matter when it comes to refinancing, either because you've run out of cash or like BMN, may need to restructure a specific debt instrument. If BMN did not have $300m+ of assets to enter renegotiation talks with then they wouldn't be in such a strong position, if they hadn't generated so much cash over the past 4 months or have such a large built up inventory then they'd be entering those talks in a weak position. It's the fundamentals that mean they can come out of such a period relatively unscathed, avoiding dilution and with the share price perfectly positioned to skyrocket the moment the right catalyst arrives.

Same goes for the other extreme, once you start generating enough cash that you can self fund operations, that you can stand on your own two feet then fundamentals absolutely do take precedence. The market virtually always responds to profit makers but if they don't management can actively stimulate the share price by numerous methods such as buying back their own shares.

Profitability is one of the least important metrics at this point in time. Cash, cash equivalent assets i.e bitcoin (especially important when bitcoin turns and the likes of Hut8 are sitting on a $B worth) and then cash costs if you're running low on the cash and need to mine within your means.

Something like efficiency might prove to be a deciding factor in the years ahead as well as management competence and trustworthiness but right now the above are more important.

Another reason the disconnect with Largo is even bigger is the difference in operational progress - whilst BMN set a record figure in 2022 and are almost certainly going to beat that again in 2023 Largo appears to be going backwards, with 2022 production far lower than their record production in 2020 and unlikely to reach that sort of level again this year after average Q2 results.

As the supply deficit grows in the coming years it's not looking like Largo are going to be able to fill much of the gap.

'I’m not clear on how much the Zar/usd impacts the additional costs on top of production.'

It's quite easy to work out Luke. The vast majority of costs are Rand denominated and guidance is set at a very conservative 16.6Rand to the dollar so at 18.2 costs would decline by 10% (AISC a little less so but close to $3/kgV)

As for your other point I still expect we're seeing a profit due to the weighting of sales to the US as well as the ability to focus sales to high value and higher prices markets and if the two tier market in Europe is forming (Russian linked V vs non Russian V) then we might also be getting a premium there. But I think it's also fair to say that V is coming close to the break even point currently after 4 months of strong profitability.

They sold 18 million shares at some point before the 24th April. It's neither good news nor bad news - it's non news.

Vametco is consistently producing at an annualised run rate of 2700mtV+ at a cash cost of ~$23.75/kgV ($21.5/kgV with Rand at 18.25) and with costs from H2 onwards being brought down further thanks to the mini grid.

And so all eyes should be on Vanchem and that's why there's reason now to be positive. It's clear that Kiln 3 refurbishment and optimisation has been a challenge, especially alongside worsening load shedding but it's hard to look at March and April's figures and see anything but a significant corner having been turned.

These monthly updates aren't offering much useful information now are they?

Is the $17m cash as of Dec 31st dwindling down close to zero or is the selling of the bitcoin keeping the balance healthy? I suppose we find that out either in the interims in August or the announcement of an equity raise, whatever comes first.

CCs last post is either him just swinging from the hip and going full blown troll now or he’s seriously under researched if he thinks anything he just wrote is accurate.

It’s worrying that it’s getting recommendations.

Nothing bizarre about it Stnz. He built up a huge reputation and following and it's nearly lost. If he simply gives in and turns bullish now no one will really care about him but if he continues to dig in and the markets take a terrible downturn he'll claim to have called it right all along.

In reality he won't have.

Literally everything, and I mean everything, about that statement was the wrong way round.

Not only did he confuse Vametco with Vanchem but he also claimed they have to postpone a 'planned' two week maintenance and move it to Q2. There was no planned two week maintenance, there was no planned maintenance in Q1 for either plant. An unplanned maintenance took place, that is the point I've been making... that issues arose and the company took the chance to shutdown and do maintenance at both plants and considering all that the production numbers look very good and increase the likelihood of very strong number for Q2 (plus the declared Vanchem April numbers).

Please do a bit of basic research if you're actually keen to debate on here.

Traders 'reading the charts' instead of sitting back and waiting for this to play out.

Production of 65000 ounces in 2022 to ~95000 ounces this year at such starkly improved margins should command *far* more than a 20% premium on last year's average trading price. I'll certainly be looking for >15p minimum with gold above $2K before I even think about slimming down my position.

This from the 2023 guidance in January:

'Annual scheduled maintenance to occur in Q2 2023 for Vametco and Q3 2023 for Vanchem.'

This from the Q1 update:

'Annual 30-day planned maintenance shutdown is now expected during Q3 2023, previously Q2 2023 due to increased confidence in the Kiln's current performance levels. '
______________________________

Despite your Mr Know It All act you really can't even be bothered to read the RNS's. So painfully ignorant.

It also pushes the full maintenance at Vametco back a quarter which has positive medium term implications.

Although we’re always ‘one quarter away from the catalyst’ this one feels the closest yet to having definitely turned a corner, especially after Fortune threw us a rare bone by giving the April month-to-date figures.

Would be particularly impactful if we start to see V prices back on the rise next week once the Chinese holiday is over.