Member Info for iWantThatOne

The drag on the SP is mostly due not to Bond but, ironically, to AFC’s success in developing the S series. Without that I’m convinced ABB, Acciona, Julich and others would all now be progressing happily with their L series models. That and the general sentiment turning against hydrogen and fuel cell companies for the last 9 months, and the long lead time for prospects to become sales. In fact it’s set up very nicely now for a storming 2022. So for now I’m giving AB a pass, and wishing all genuine LTHs a Happy Christmas and prosperous New Year.

Does anyone know anything about methanol vs ammonia - energy density, availability, cost etc? It’s zero carbon credentials? How is it cracked?

It’s not retirement at 50 or 55 that’s the issue with public sector pensions, as the benefits payable in those scenarios are reduced to be actuarially equivalent to the benefits due at normal retirement age. The problem is the size of the defined benefits in the first place coupled with the guarantees built into these pensions - investment and mortality guarantees that cost a fortune. That’s why there are so few of these DB scheme open nowadays. A move to defined contribution would certainly be less expensive but can you imagine the difficulty of trying to negotiate that with the public sector??

The report reads well to me with some genuinely new news. Investors new to AFC will be impressed, I’d say. Longer term investors will be encouraged that things are moving forward but excitement will be well-tempered by the shift to the S series from many of the partners from whom we were expecting imminent sales. A case of AFC ironically being held back in the short term by its own technology success. Longer term, things look great, especially the flexi-fuel optionality. Pleased to see we won’t need to wait 12m for S series sales as the HFC platform will be released in H1. Glass half full or empty? Definitely full for me.

Completely agree with Punter here, today’s RNS shows yet again how reactive the HUM management team is. These kind of operational issues should not be happening if the on-site Ops Manager knows what he is doing. HUM can’t be blamed for local unrest but it definitely can be blamed for an unacceptably louche approach to managing the mine. This is the problem for those who simply repeat how many mines and ounces HUM will have in three years’ time - yes but when they’re managed by this bunch of incompetents where’s the guarantee they’ll make any money on the gold they pour? Bail out or wait for the value to eventually emerge? Bail out or hope for a buy-out? What a choice.

Garonne, ITM’s mcap is different from AFC’s not because the former has made sales but because they are in completely different markets. Stop comparing them! ITM produces hydrogen; AFC generates power. Their market environments, dynamics, peers, competitors and prospects cannot be compared.

Joeman, thanks but isn’t that red area to the east actually part of Racecourse? Thought it was but maybe be mistaken. Is it right on the eastern edge of the license, as Colin alluded to in the interview?

I can’t see it taking two years to firm up a resource, simply because I don’t believe the objective is to firm anything up too precisely. It’s unlikely a DFS will be pursued, given the lack of real benefit vs cost. Having upside for the buyer on sale negotiations will certainly help grease the wheels, so I can imagine a spread of possible contained copper values might be where we’re heading. Could be entirely wrong of course. Also I’m not sure if the benefit of a DFS increases if the copper total looks more like 4 Mt than 2. Just my thoughts.

Good interview but there are some questions that spring to mind. He said hole 35 showed great mineralisation but 33 (or was it 32) - not so much. Is that meaningful? Also why are they now hinting at a third porphyry to the north and “as far east as we can go” - what has prompted drilling in that location? (Would be good to check where this location might be - presumably right at the edge of the license?). But all very positive.

That’s an easy one to answer. It takes 6m+ to convert sales opportunities into sales because we’re not dealing with widgets here but complex fuel cells. Look at ZeroCoaster - six months to get to this point. Some of those 50 enquiries will have been prioritised and will be going full-steam ahead but won’t be ready to announce yet. More and more announcements will start coming through in the near future. IMHO.

Dibs and Andrew - my 15p+ figure was for BR alone (not African assets), and 2mt alone (not 2.2). I also allowed for $7000 POC because I don’t believe any buyer would pay near current spot price for an asset that will be mined fir 29 years - they’d want to see a margin (just my opinion). So fine, we can all use our own assumptions. I’m probably being a little cautious but I don’t think overly so. As for CB saying he’d want at least 25p, well, maybe but that could well have been just a throwaway comment. Look, I want the high figures as much as anyone, I’m just putting forward what I think is a realistic view! The copper report certainly does have much higher valued companies than $50m, for sure, but I suspect they have significant other assets whilst those valued at $50m don’t. Happy to be corrected, I didn’t give it a very thorough read.

Andrew, theiceberg has already said that indicated and inferred resources would only attract half that 3% valuation, so that’s what I’m expecting. The alternative of doing a full DFS and upgrading the resource probably wouldn’t make financial sense, given the cost. Also I noted in andmillsy’s report that those copper explorers with 2mT were only valued around $50m on average (albeit with lots of caveats around those figures). I think 2mt here is still worth 15p+ but it would be much better (obvs) if the SE comes up trumps too.

Ok, so going by the RNS today what do we estimate to be the size of the open pit? 2km long? 300-400m wide, same depth? (Accepting it may still be extended to the SSW and in the SE).

Ravenink, I’d imagine it costs a lot less than 6x the cost of a 200kW unit to produce a 1.2MW one. There’ll be various fixed costs in there (BOP, container) for a start. When AFC first mentioned potential costs for an L-model it suggested £5k-£10k per kW depending on configuration (eg batteries), so £5-10m per MW. We don’t know if these costs were acceptable to the market, nor do we know the relative cost of the S-series. Also ABB’s £4m payment may cover some of the development costs.

Congrats AFC, impressive news today which also shows, btw, how long the lead time is for initial contacts to develop into genuine opportunities. Although other fuel cell companies have already published the odd communication about trialling their own solutions, it seems that AFC has leadership, at least for now, in the low-cost (ammonia) maritime decarb business. Multiply Norway by “x” and the market could be humongous. The S series had better work!

The usual annual update is late because AB wants some good news to land first. That’s the only logical explanation. Which suggests something is imminent.

£100m for HUM’s 2.0m ozs (including inferred) is clearly £50 or $67 per Oz. Seems high compared to current TSX valuations, which are more like $30 for measured and indicated resources (Source:Munknee.com). Plenty of room for debate though.

What’s your calculation there please, Bonker?

It doesn’t really surprise me that the share price is where it is. We have had a relatively small number of holes drilled, and even fewer assays. We have no updated Mineral Resource Estimate. We have had excited and positive comms from CB but, with the greatest respect, he hasn’t always been accurate before. And many of us, perhaps most, are very reliant on a small number of people here to put their interpretation on the real detail - and whilst they seem to be knowledgeable, we don’t actually know them and they are working off high level detail only. (Don’t get me wrong, I think almost everyone here speaks in good faith and I hugely value their input but you get my point). So there are plenty of reasons why potential investors may not be jumping in with both feet.

So for me, a little perspective is needed. An updated model and continuing good assays will help to bolster confidence. However I’m personally not expecting many fireworks before the updated MRE - or something similar based on solid evidence that can be verified that essentially confirms the tonnage. Stronger confirmation of another porphyry system might also do it.

So if AFC are closing in on an AEM fuel cell that can compete with PEM fuel cells (plus cheaper to run) - can they also (in theory at least) think about an AEM electrolyser that similarly competes well with PEM electrolysers?