Member Info for LionelGreen

Congrats Milkman, and a question: on what date, exactly, will BMN hit £1?

Thank you, Alfa. I had not appreciated the background deliberations of the Vanitec discussions. I am also generally in favour of the approach that quality and substance should win out over "hot-air", although I also know that while there is a time and place for keeping a low personal profile, this does not always guarantee success or recognition - the case of VHS winning out over Betamax has also been referred to here. In summary, I would do what I can to support a "local" champion, if one should ever decide to step forward.

Interesting responses: I am aware of Robert Friedland (of course), and I had also thought of Mikhail Nikomarov. It is not perhaps useful to spell out the reasons I opted for Fortune, because this presumably just comes down to how each individual perceives any potential character's strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps we have here three excellent potential champions, each with rather different persona. I would be delighted if any of them stepped up and found some limelight outside of our immediate empire. I'll still go for Fortune, but if either Mikhail or Fortune ever read this, I'm sure there are many here who would applaud their further efforts.

A couple of months back, there were discussions on this board about how VRFBs would benefit from a "champion", along the lines that Elon Musk (whatever you might think of him) successfully cultivated for Li-ion batteries. I think there were no suggestions or candidates as to who this might be. The question has been at the back of my mind since then.

There is perhaps the tendency to think that such a VRFB champion should have a Musk-like profile: maybe a wealthy, entrepreneurial, risk taker/showman, someone already in the public eye. But champions of major causes come in very many forms, think only of Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, and many others.

It occurred to me then, and still does so now, that Fortune Mojapelo could be this champion. His vision - for vanadium, for energy storage, for VRFBs, for Africa in general, and for the local communities in particular - suggests that he has earned this mantle. At the same time, his interviews and presentations display not only a command of his subject, but also the kind of belief, gravitas and dignity that this role would require.

If others here hold similar views, it could be that by expressing this idea through this BB, forcefully, it might give Fortune some additional confidence to take this role on. Whether he would want to or not, I have no idea. Whether our own thoughts would carry any weight in this regard, I have no idea. How he would develop this, I also have no idea. But we could send him such a message, and assure him at least of our support. I do think it would help to have someone championing the important VRFB message. I do like the idea of Fortune as a counterpart to Elon.

Thanks again, both. That gives a range of scenarios that now make more sense (to me).

Sprites: yes, agreed about MM1 and their relation with the warrant holder, this much is clear. I struggled more with the relationship between MM2 and MM1. Could the answer instead be that there is no unique MM2 who has a long-term agreement with MM1, but that MM2, MM3, MM4 (and any others) are also happy to take the shares off MM1 according to their daily appetite and book balance? If so, this may require only that the MMs always tend to work together to shift shares between them at or close to cost, as and when the need arises.

Thank you, Daisydog and Alfa. More and more, I come to see that trying to understand the market demands both a logical problem-solving approach, but also a healthy serving of suspicion and duplicitous thinking.

Codially
Lionel

Alfa: you have made many references to the issue of duplicate trades in the context of warrant disposal, and in my opinion you have made a convincing case: my understanding (in summary) is that the warrant holder pre-sell shares to MM1, and MM1 passes them onto MM2 for orderly disposal. Perhaps I have just missed this point in your discussions, or simply not understood the following: I can imagine the existence of some MM1 who has forged some appropriate arrangement with the warrant holder. But (a) why does MM1 not dispose of the shares, and (b) does this arrangement not rely on MM2 also establishing some similar long-term agreement with MM1?

Along with many other read-only posters, I continue to thank you and numerous others on this BB for the deep insight which gives many of us the courage to hold long-term.

Nice spot, loudspeaker. Here are some links (first from July 2017):
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/german-utility-plans-a-flow-battery-big-enough-to-power-berlin#gs.3T7UH3c

https://stockhead.com.au/special-report/hot-pursuit-germany-is-planning-to-build-a-huge-vanadium-battery-to-power-berlin/

@Alfa: I continue to be impressed with your analysis and insights. However, so much about market operations remains opaque to me that I cannot reach a clear conclusion as to whether this is manipulation. But three points:

(1) if we consider that there is evidence of manipulation, let us make a formal complaint. Principles are very much at stake, even if we remain cynical that nothing in practice will be achieved. I find it deeply troublesome that we collectively protest and baulk at the corruption so evidently affecting businesses in certain other jurisdictions, while at the same time sensing that markets here are not behaving with complete integrity or transparency. We should not - I believe - simply sit back and accept it. We should, perhaps, follow Ramaphosa's example, which we admire so much.

(2) if there is some route to formalising a complaint, is it appropriate to include the various other questionable aspects that have been discussed on this board on various occasions. Three such come to mind: (a) the ability of the market to list an execution price and only a loosely-related bid-offer, such that buys can appear as sells and vice versa... it should not be beyond users demands, and the technology, that a buy is listed as a buy when it is a buy, and vice versa. (b) the completely absurd practice of tolerating late-reported trades (buys and sells). (c) the practice identified many times on this board of the bid price being marked down, and yet prospective purchasers here then finding that the MM have no shares available for purchase at that advertised price - an EMS should mean that those shares are always available if the bid is advertised as such.

(3) coming at this from the other side, if we do consider that the SP is being artificially forced down, this does represent excellent buying opportunities for informed and confident PIs. The problem is that, given the nature of (1) and (2) above, this false suppression of the SP can continue for an excessively long period of time - weeks or months, and this is certainly not good. But with the level of insight that we/you have here, could one even use DMA access ourselves to take on any such behaviour?

Thank you taufor. I have posted this (as I requested).

With the agreement of this poster over at THR (I thought some could find it useful here), taufor has prepared a "home made app" (applicable to any share) at
luku.org/taunine/
which illustrates ask/trade/bid behaviour ... it plots recent trades, up to a week old, with ask and bid lines. It gives quick access to the kind of (more detailed) trading analysis provided by Alfacomp for BMN from time to time.

As stated by taufor (at THR) on 25August:
"When a market is behaving well there should be two bands of trades discernibly snaking between the ask and bid lines, and the distance between the two bands may give an idea of the actual spread, as opposed to the nominal spread which is the distance between the ask and the bid.
This (new) version includes an indication of relative volumes, scaled so that the bottom of the diagram means zero and the largest volume reaches nearly the top. And it has a 'zoom' button where one can choose a date-time range and zoom in on any trades in that range, adjusting the x-y size of the diagram as desired."

As stated by taufor (at THR) on 31August:
"In the new version there is an additional diagram: the arrow at top right of the window leads to a second diagram where trades are ordered by value size rather than by date; it shows more clearly the distribution of trade sizes; here the prices normally form a horizontal misty band, and any unevenness would suggest a correlation between trade size and price."

Any questions or comments should be addressed to taufor.

@taufor: nice and useful little app. Any objection to me posting a reference to it at BMN?

Can I ask where you are getting your bid-ask values? Simply from the LSE share trade page?

Thanks

@knuttie: yes, indeed. A few more details are given at:
https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Here are a couple of extracts from the U308 talk flagged by Paludina.

1m40s: after stressing the use of 90percent of Vanadium in the steel industry, he states "...the most exciting component of the vanadium space is the vanadium redox battery"
3m00s: "...for industrial scale [batteries], this is the way to go"
5m50s: as well as the grid (and micro grid) he refers to the "HUGE" potential for the electrification of the shipping industry... where he states that "the 15 biggest container ships in the world produce as much pollution as the 760 million cars in the world"

This brings home the fact that the potential impact for the shipping industry, where use of VFRBs are feasible (straightforward), dwarfs that of domestic cars, where VFRBs seem (currently) less plausible.

@Bmnfan: I am also perplexed. Alfacomp makes a solid point about the general absence of research undertaken (my regular broker states that they will not undertake research on "small" companies!). However, isn't it more puzzling giving Michael Kirkwood's appointment on 1 April.... I might have thought that he would be using his connections to emphasize the potential value, and that IIs would at least be taking more note.

@Nickderby: a very useful summary of expected figures, thank you for posting.

@YTSS: the video link is https://www.share-talk.com/share-news/share-talk-bulletin-board-heroes18th-may-2018/

@Capablanca64... Jos� Ra�l was not merely a chess master, but one of the greatest players. I had assumed that the 64 in your avatar was there to underline the chess connection...

5. Supply outlook: - there has been a global supply decrease over the past four years, overall a 10% reduction between 2014-2017 [36] - unused capacity is again dominated by China, but costs involved (input and operating) are high, with strong environmental constraints (pollution) - for this co-production capacity to come back on line would require (e.g.) higher iron ore prices, and higher steel prices; both unlikely [details in 38] - in summary: to bring the unused co-production back online will require much more than just an increase in V price - supply closure [41-43] appears to demand greenfield production, however even these costs are high - e.g. Mokopane (at 1.75% grade) will require a 300M$ capex, for which debt financing is not easy - how much of the possible greenfield production will come to realisation - if both co-product and primary sources are delivered, supply could grow by maximum 7% over 2017-2027 - conclusion: pure-play vanadium producers are best suited to deliver the significant new supply that is needed [48] 6. Market Balance outlook assessed using 4 scenarios, - e.g. assuming Roskill supply and demand forecast, in Scenario 2: - supply and demand grow by 3.5% CAGR and 5.6% CAGR respectively (compound annual growth rate) - many details are omitted in this summary - substitution threat from Niobium: this is present as a risk, but perhaps not too significant and risk considered manageable [57] - summary of Demand and Supply [58] 7. BMN and its position in the Vanadium market - high-quality product, vertically integrated - strong SP performance since March 2018, with an increasing number of key institutional investors [62] - describes current investment proposition [63] - Vametco [67]: is a co-located mining and processing facility, 3% of market share to grow to more than 5%, 3-phase capacity expansion underway - Brits Vanadium project [68] is next door - Mokopane [69]: looking at a greenfield development, or exporting to China, or other nearby processing facilities - Growth Strategy targeting horizontal (organic + greenfield) + vertical development [70-71] - opportunities for BE include opportunity to drive the adoption of VRFBs throughout the African continent (security of supply, stability of V cost) - summary objectives [73] include expected (imminent) "New Order Mining Right" for Mokopane, delivery of first VRFB with Eskom in @2018Q2 8. Q&A (not many were covered in the first part of Q&A, and only in rather vague terms): - MN described present thinking on leasing the VRFB electrolyte - what fraction of BMN vanadium production will go into VRFB: perhaps 1/5 of Vametco's production in 2019 - no discount is being considered for Vanadium for VRFBs At the end of the webinar, some other points (questions?) were discussed: - visits to China: biggest insight for FM has been their restricted supply and associated pressures - Mokopane: may accelerate production and reduce