The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Muldoon: The MF article, written from the perspective of a non-holder, is saying that EUA is a hot potato—too speculative for the author's taste but perhaps suitable for short-term traders.
My own perspective is that I bought the shares because I liked the business and, foolishly or otherwise, trusted the management to do a fair job in obtaining value for the shareholders. I continue as a holder for the same reason, and await whatever deal the directors can land. It's fun to watch the movements of the share price, but I think that trading is best left to the professionals, who can buy at the bid and sell at the offer.
IG should be considered as an alternative to Interactive Investor. Fee is £96 per annum, against which commissions of £8 per deal can be rebated.
Saudi Arabia introduces new mining laws:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-mining/saudi-arabia-aims-to-boost-investment-with-new-mining-law-idUSKBN23G2H7?_hsmi=89261256&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8LwZtLEOFaeer-PUU43IZjynAnV8BFvTurZrP0jAF-3Hs6xhQXN75KuMVKr8N6ANBDMwkBgdL-YExRFouHCgW4wvgFiw
A quote from the RNS report that I like is “ [The board and senior management] have, in aggregate, invested more into Company shares since KEFI took control of the [Tulu Kapi] project in 2014 than they have, in aggregate, received as cash remuneration”.
No. But we did see a sale of 315 shares at £3.51 apiece, at 10:25:40 today—if the record is to be believed.
Yes, Daniel. Simplywallstreet churns out endless material to help fill the pages of (otherwise pretty good) Yahoo Finance, for example.
DanielC43R: Simplywallstreet generates “analysis” and “reports” by computer. Its output is uncontaminated by any involvement of a human mind.
No idea why the share price fell, but I took it as a great opportunity to top up.
Based on its excellent achievement of taking the company all the way from explorer to producer, on schedule and within budget, the company deserves a higher rating. What knocked the reputation were (IMHO), loss of production from events following extreme rainfall, unwise speculation in an unrelated mining prospect that turned out to be fraudulent, and concerns about security in its locality. Arguably, these events can be treated as history, with lessons learned, and the market should eventually get around to appreciating this. Fundamentally, the company is operating on a fat margin, especially so at the present gold price.
Alfacomp: FAR has already raised £5.2m, which it has earmarked for investment to expand production in its presently producing small-scale vanadium facility, with the intention of gradually funding its big project substantially from cash flow. Of course, such pious hopes often do not work out in practice, and shareholders may expect plenty of dilution ahead.
It's probably been posted here before, but in case not, Ferro-alloy Resources Group (FAR) started trading on the main market in London on 28 March. See
http://www.ferro-alloy.com/en/news/FAR%20First%20Day%20of%20Dealings%2028.03.19.pdf
FAR asserts that it will be able to produce vanadium at "around 40% of the operating costs of typical primary vanadium producers". It claims to have the resource to eventually produce 55,000 tonnes of V2O5 per annum, but for the foreseeable future intends to develop on a much more modest scale:
" . . . to avoid oversupply to the market, engineering risks, and to reduce shareholder dilution, FAR plans to develop more slowly, in steps that are more in tune with both the natural expansion of the vanadium market that is expected to grow by up to 8 % per annum and at a pace which allows the later stages to be substantially financed from earnings of the earlier stages. This relatively slow development plan can be revised if there is a significant increase in demand, for example, for vanadium flow batteries for energy storage."
FAR has too many worrying issues for me to invest in it now, but I will be keeping an eye on it.
@Ophidian: There would be similarities between salt-roast treatments of Evraz's "shaking-ladle" slag , with 24% V2O5, and Vametco's magnetite bearing about 7–8% of that amount. However, the quite different composition of the non-vanadium fraction, together with the ca. 14-fold greater scale per unit of vanadium throughput at Vametco, imply that the Vametco salt-roast plant would have little in common with that of Evraz.
Thanks for the link, gambitxjs. The capital-intensive Evraz Highveld process uses electricity to produce steel, with a vanadium-rich slag as a byproduct. To extract vanadium from the slag would require a lot of further special processing. There is little commonality or synergy with Bushveld's salt-roast process, which is altogether more economic, particularly in South Africa, with its expensive, inadequate, and unreliable supply of grid electricity.
The superior in-magnetite grade at Vametco outweighs the higher magnetite content at Brits. This is because crushing the ore and (magnetically) separating the magnetite are cheap low-temperature processes, while salt-roasting to liberate the vanadium bound within the magnetite is a thermally inefficient high-temperature process. The latter is the main reason that vanadium is not a cheap metal. Salt-roasting also entails further extraction processes, plus the need to get rid of highly polluting chlorine/chloride emissions—or the consumption of higher-cost soda ash. Relining kilns after the refractories are attacked by molten-salt mixtures isn't cheap either.
Thanks for the link, Headancer. A quote from CellCube's website: "We put 15 years of research and development into CellCube to provide you with a top-notch energy storage system". Rather than having to spend a similar amount of time to come up with a rival design, dodging around CellCube's patents on the way, wouldn't it make more sense for Bushveld Energy to go into partnership with CellCube (or a similar company). Bushveld's massive high-quality mineral assets would probably outclass any upstream resource that CellCube could secure otherwise.
What is the overall annual average energy efficiency (average AC joules delivered by the installation divided by its AC grid input joules) of your battery installation under expected working conditions?
It's good to see a respite, at least temporarily, in the torrent of postings about the share price. Two reasons why shareholders might be keen to see a higher share price for a company in the present position of Bushveld are:
• They wish the company to go on an expansionistic spending spree, facilitated by the issue of fresh equity
• They want to sell the shares or stake their holding as collateral for a loan.
I cherish neither of these aims. Rather, I would be happy for the shares to revert (without good reason) back down to the price I paid for them, and would gladly increase my holding at that level. What I do wish for the company is that it prospers and pays a dividend. The share price can look after itself, as it always will, rationally or otherwise. If the company's success entails a higher share price, then so be it.
Perhaps there are other reasons why people might hope for a higher share price. I welcome any insights that would improve my understanding.
Typically, big VRFBs have electrolyte reserve for 4 hours of supply. For example, Rongke is rated at 200 MW and will store 800 MWh.
Potential investors in a company are among those with the most active interest in it. It is reasonable for them to read the bulletin board, and pose challenging questions on it, before deciding whether to buy the shares.
We can also expect uneasy existing shareholders seeking a favourable exit to be involved here. It is in their interest to be supportive up to their point of selling out.
In my view, we should ignore the supposed position and motives of posters and focus on the content of posts.
I am a hypocrite, because I want to see posts about BMN and not have to scroll and sift through off-topics and meta-topics like this (and occasionally get caught up in them)—Sorry!
@Squirtyflower : If what you say is true—that LSE admin will delete an entire thread when just one post on it is unacceptable—then it's an invitation for trolls to sabotage the whole of this (or any other) share chat, just by posting a few foul words on every thread. I hope that wiser thoughts prevail. In the meantime, perhaps it is better just to filter and ignore malevolent posts than to draw admin's attention to them.