Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
I have to say that I see absolutely no reason why the issue of the additional shares in January is likely to boost the share price.
Neither do I think PR will have much impact on anything. THS for example are big on PR but with seemingly minimal impact.
In the aftermath of financing we face a long road of construction ahead. This is historically not a great period for share price growth. But successfully doing the hard yards in construction and development is the key to long term success IMO. Note the emphasis on ‘successful’.
There are no guarantees that this will go well. If development is poorly managed we could see further destructive dilution ahead.
What we need is solid project and financial management and a fair wind. HZM is a long term hold for me, but much patience will be required.
All,
This is a great Board on the whole. I’m a newcomer and value the opinions expressed by the vast majority. It’s generally informative, there are some truly insightful and knowledgeable contributors, and it’s (generally) welcoming of different views.
In other words, it’s a good space and a credit to the majority (whatever their views). All I will say is that I find spamming (my interpretation and I’m not implying intent) on a board such as this to be out of place and a little jarring after a time.
GLA - let’s hope we can back to the placing price over the next few weeks to start 2022 in a more positive space.
I’m sure nobody wants to create an echo chamber, and from that perspective I welcome contarían views.
We must acknowledge that some of the claims made for HZM are a little over optimistic. In a market HZM’s value is what the market says it is, and whilst fundamentals are also important, market imperfections and irrationality may exercise an indefinite hold over market price.
But the claims made for HZM that I particularly take issue with are that it is a ‘climate protection’ stock and therefore should, by some mysterious mechanism, do well.
There are literally 1,000s of companies busily greenwashing themselves. In technological transformations some companies will do exceedingly well, but many will fail. Whatever ‘climate protection’ is supposed to mean, it means literally nothing in itself.
HZM will stand or fall based on numerous factors, including of course nickel demand. But pretending it’s intrinsically virtuous is not one of those factors.
That said, I remain a LTH.
Hi Pardariff,
I agree with you about inflation and gold price. Studies seem to show that there is no guaranteed relationship.
Not at all Pardariff - it’s a bit niche.
In 1992 a hugely influential book was published by Francis Fukuyama called ‘The end of history and the last man’.
In this work, Fukuyama argued that western liberal democracy had triumphed over everything, and that this social, political and economic system was the end point of humanity’s struggles to find ways of governance. It was the end point - a universal system to which all states in the world would eventually move.
Western elites gleefully embraced this concept and developed foreign and domestic policy based on this assumed universal triumph.
Of course 30 years later it’s all gone horribly wrong. The 2008 economic crash was a devastating blow to the presumed infallibility of western economic capitalism. Meanwhile neither China nor Russia have embraced western political and social systems and values, and increasingly offer alternative systems of ‘managed democracies’. The West appears to be in retreat relative to Asian states, and the risk of major inter state warfare appears to be rising.
Which is why I alluded to this in relation to the statement suggesting that if gold hadn’t risen in 2022 then it will probably fall in 2023.
Because none of us can predict the future, and there’s nothing to suggest to me that gold has somehow had its chance this year and thereafter the door is closed.
@Ade1234
I’d be interested to understand your reasoning. Do you think that high debt, rising inflation, and systemic shocks can not occur / exacerbate after this year?
Sounds a little like the gold equivalent of a sort of ‘end of history’ argument. We all know how the macro version of that argument played out.
Don’t think anyone can really predict with any degree of certainty.
Personally I think that the combination of high sovereign debt, rising inflation, un-affordable net zero obsessions, and continuing Covid disruption will continue to de-base currencies and debt instruments as a store of value over the long term. That must make gold relatively more attractive.
But I’m no expert on this.
Are you disputing what I said about Crimea? Or anything I said?
Or does the truth hurt?
Gavster - it should be noted that factually speaking, hardly anyone died in Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which formally followed a referendum. The Ukrainian army stationed there did not fight. They were given the option to return to Ukraine or join the Russian army. About half of them joined the Russian army as they were local to Crimea, and like most of its residents welcomed the Russian annexation.
The deaths in 2014 were mostly in Kiev and Odessa during and following the western backed armed coup against the democratically elected pro Russian former President Yanukovych.
These rather inconvenient truths get hidden by the Russophobic propaganda spewed out by western governments and media.
Russia’s concern is with US attempts to turn Ukraine into a virtual unsinkable aircraft carrier for US weapons. Gas is not the main issue. Geo-politics is.
In reality none of this will impact POLY’s operations. The West will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. If mis-calculations happen, the resulting conflict will be one sided, brutal and short.
The clarification of market price on the offtake agreement is a key piece of news for me. Reflecting, it’s clear that HZM Management have credibility. Notwithstanding the inevitable dilution that was necessary for achieving $600+ financing, it has been done with top quality third parties whilst retaining independence and ownership.This really should tell us quite a lot. I don’t always agree when some of you guys wax lyrical about EVs etc, but I do share sentiment that this is a top quality investment case, albeit one which requires patience.I’ve added today on the offtake news.
I’m a LTH and believe this is a big achievement.
But this BB has been dominated by people with wildly unrealistic ideas. From those who believe that HZM is some messianic saver of the planet and therefore a great virtue signalling investment no matter what, to those who felt that PIs would be rewarded for risk taking through to financing which would lead automatically to a rapid re-rate.
I dismiss both of those justifications as for naive dreamers. Instead I invest based on solid but dull financing reasons. So where does this deal leave us on those grounds?
Well, the truth is we don’t know. We don’t know the offtake terms but as others have said we must assume a collar which removes some or all of the alleged nickel upside. We don’t know how the massive build project is going to go. Typically they almost always take longer and at greater cost than expected.
Finally, we’re not ‘de-risked’. That is a ludicrous assertion. Mine construction is complicated, full of risk, extremely uncertain.
My view is that HZM will get there but it will take years. De-risking will happen slowly through time. FCF is a long way ahead. On balance I continue to hold, but I want to see the offtake terms.
Sometimes when I read this board I think HZM’s reason for being must be EV batteries. If I had a £ for every article about EV batteries ……..
Strangely, I saw no mention of Johnson Matthey’s humiliating exit from the battery materials market. Less strangely, this has has no discernible impact on the HZM SP, any more than the countless bullish stories about batteries had any discernible positive impact.
The reason for this, I surmise, is that nickel is not only or even primarily a battery metal. Consequently I discount many of the links posted here to EVs as basically the largely irrelevant musings of fanatics and boosters. But equally of course it means that news such as JM’s can also be ignored for the same reason.
The case for HZM well made by some posters, but seems to be poorly understood by others. I hold. DYOR.
This is another company which faces a very significant geo-political risk, largely thanks to the ahistorical anti Russian approach of the current Kiev regime. Ukraine is in significant danger of making the same mistake Georgia made in 2008 (aided and abetted by its false friends in the West) and inviting significant consequences.
Personally I think FXPO is a decent investment prospect, but not until geo-political risks decline or the SP falls further. DYOR.
Yes, great point Miss_Dollar. I suspect the answer is a mixture of both plus political interference.
The BoE appears to have woefully under-estimated inflation as ‘transitory’ and is now caught in a bind of its own making. Meanwhile it’s drift under Carney into politics (recall his anti Brexit exhortations and climate obsessions) began disrupting its focus.
Bailey appears too weak a character to re-assert true independence and focus on inflation. I expect therefore to see inadequate and belated small rate rises until the Bank’s hand is forced (which itself could be through political pressure).
Great observation Spindler. Poly suffers from operating in Russia, the heavy Russian ownership, and the perceived geo-political risk associated with Russia - all of which are baked into the price.
Personally I see this as an opportunity to take advantage of the West’s myopia because ironically, whilst it is western states which are crumbling around them into a morass of self hate and decline, the markets are too busy virtue signalling to notice that Russia is a fundamentally stronger state with low debt, political stability and a mining friendly environment.
Hence the 7% yield which appears stable if not likely to increase. Normally such returns would be worryingly anomalous. In Poly’s case they seem to reflect anti Russian prejudice which is sadly ingrained and legitimised in the UK.
One of the problems with viewing HZM as a ‘climate protection stock’ or a ‘battery metals’ producer is that you’re pigeon holing your perception of the company.
Yet the reality is that nickel has multiple uses and steady both within and without the ‘green’ revolution.
In other words, HZM is much better viewed as a future nickel producer. Forget trying to hitch its fortunes to EV batteries or you’ll be perpetually in a state of varying euphoria and depression based on the uncertain future of this technology.
I believe that the case for HZM stands squarely as a nickel producer where the case for nickel still stands irrespective of EVs.
Thanks Tony and YoYo - that’s helpful.
IMO a move to close down UK operations and perhaps de-list may be appropriate from a value creation perspective. It may be that the UK becomes a completely inhospitable place for companies like I3e.
Much of course depends on whether things calm down after COP26. My concern is that the green lobby will simply be emboldened and their embedded interests within the establishment will not relent on the anti fossil fuel agenda.
I’ve been watching this company for some time but remain un-invested to date and would appreciate some views.
My principal reservation is the North Sea assets. The UK government is the most anti fossil fuel regime in the world IMO, and my concern is that they will refuse to licence production on purely ideological grounds.
This is undoubtedly self harming, but the London regime appears to me to have an almost religious ‘green’ fervour where rationality has no place.
Are my fears mis-placed? Thanks.
Picked peck,
Interminably repeating that i’m ‘wrong’ without ever approaching what it is that you disagree with so vehemently is an intellectually lazy approach from someone like yourself.
What is it that I’m wrong about?
That China is prioritising energy security?
That China is reviewing its transition timetable with the possibility of slowing down its transition (as per the Guardian article I linked)?
That China will continue to build coal stations in China?
That there the thread headline, taken out of context, is mis-leading?
It may be that we actually broadly agree. China is transitioning away from fossil to ‘green’ energy. But that transition may be slower than people anticipate and it may never be fully complete.
I’d note the same about numerous other countries, including the UK for that matter IMO.
The bottom line for me is that any state which fails to provide reliable and affordable power supplies is going to be subject to rapid social instability and decline. China is very acutely aware of this and is not going to make the mistakes of first movers like the UK. That’s going to cause much angst.
So yes, China may aggressively pursue green energy if you like, but it’s even more aggressively going to pursue energy security and the sourcing of electricity from coal as much as it needs to. It’s also going to increase consumption of Russian gas.
Context matters.
Thanks PP - just what I was asking for.
However, and this is why I urged caution in interpretation, the headline is slightly mis-leading based on what Xi actually said which was limited to certain initiatives.
At the same time we also had other CCP officials giving rather different messages. As the Guardian has picked this up today I hope that the moral opprobrium poured down yesterday will abate.
As I said yesterday China is very much not abandoning fossil fuels any time soon, and most likely will slow down its green transition because of the intractable problems of intermittency of renewables impacting supply stability.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/12/china-coal-fired-plants-uk-cop26-climate-summit-global-phase-out?__twitter_impression=true