Member Info for observer842

It's also why you want to off-take with a large resource which can be easily ramped up. :-))))

Maybe he won't see if I paste some encouraging iron ore prices, noting the premium is continuing to rise. ;-)

http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jsp
===[
Date Seaborne index 62% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe fines Seaborne index 65% Fe pellets premium
2021-03-18 165.80 192.00 53.50
2021-03-17 165.70 191.70 52.05
2021-03-16 166.20 192.20 52.05
2021-03-15 163.70 189.50 52.05
2021-03-12 165.80 191.40 52.05
2021-03-11 171.20 196.40 52.05
2021-03-10 164.70 188.90 51.00
]===

"It’s impossible for kdnc to fck up now.". Somebody hold @Bannor down! ;-)

Wow @EV_Bull - I tried to decipher that one and failed! That was bugging me, so thanks a bunch! It's feeling close...

I'm saying any potential off-taker who hasn't had a sample of what EMH has got, and processed it into their batteries and demonstrated likely performance and stability is taking a gamble. BCN produced samples for years, literally years for off-takers from their pilot plant (which Tesla got their hands on and no doubt worked out how to process it cheaply and effectively IMHO!) But it's now gotten to the point where the off-takers are going to HAVE to take that gamble, or risk having no supply at all. Those early to the party saw this day coming. It's partly the reason they haven't wanted to go with unproven and at scale sources (clay and zinnwaldite) hoping others would prove them first. EMH is very well placed IMHO.

@antelope: "So I disagree with Dumbpunter when (s)he claims that our LiOH will have to be tested in a battery for 8 years."

For the avoidance of doubt so do I! A couple of years tops IMHO.

Might have been this, but I've heard it spelt out differently by others: you have to test for some period the supply of lithium in your particular cathode/battery making process process - not all lithium products are the same, even those of the same quoted percentage purity.

http://midasletter.com/2017/02/podcast-global-lithiums-joe-lowry-opines-lithium-americas-corp-tesla-inc-volkswagen-albemarle-corp-orocobre-ltd/
===[
Joe Lowry: Well, let’s define terms. You know, I use the term battery quality, because there really isn’t – first of all, you don’t need what truly is high purity lithium carbonate or lithium hydroxide, to make a battery. You do need a certain set of criteria to be met, but it’s really the juniors that have probably done the biggest disservice by talking about oh, we’re going to do 99.9 carbonate – it doesn’t matter. There is a certain spec, let’s just call it 99.5, but actually, the most important thing is the stability of the impurities, not whether it’s 99.5 or 99.4 or 99.6.
]===

@antelope. I'm trying to be helpful, not patronising, it can be a fine line! When it comes to what goes into batteries, it isn't a matter of the percentage purity, it's about how much, and what type of elements the non-lithium is that causes the problems, instability etc. I'll try to find a link, but I have a feeling I heard it described to me in a podcast. I didn't say 8 years, but it certainly needs testing for a period of time. This is partly why lithium isn't a commodity, and why off-takes are crucial :-)

Indeed @nookie. As has been pointed out by others, we appear to be quiet undervalued now by any sensible measure. I suspect some decent news drawing new eyes looking over our prospects could take us to new highs. Of course 20/27% Amapa news and we could be talking multi-bags, potentially even over a pound in this market... ;-)))

@antelope, I know you mean well, but my understanding is that it's the impurity that matters more than the purity, if you get my drift, and that is a function of its source and extraction method.

Future dates are only estimates subject to change - which they frequently do. I'd hope the port would get past dates right though! ;-)

LoL @Barksy, nothing is ever solid! For what it's worth my source now has the docking date as the first - arrival still the 30th.

Thanks @EV_Bull. Saved me some effort :-) @tomcat "(the 4 isn’t a typo ob)". I'm 100% certain I'm uncertain. Just seems a bit odd to me. Also, I'm a bit surprised and a little disappointed we weren't informed about "(Recuperanda informs that on 10.03.2021 the procedure for moving iron ore to CDSA Port was initiated". @Kiran!! LoL. Oh, what's that, you're busy signing documents? ;-)

Court update. Unless they've made a mistake my source is incorrect - "the first shipment of iron ore is scheduled for 30.04.2021" - I'll paste the full quote later unless I'm beaten to it. I suppose the 4 could be a typo, and they meant 3. @Kiran!?

Indeed. Consistent with my sources... :-)

Still the 30th where I'm looking, but tbn...

Now that would be interesting @tomcat, if Ganfeng were keen to start up another 20ktpa operation, growing to 50ktpa with a 30% JV owner to the South - working Northwards! :-))))

@MLQ. Agreed. In terms of the paperwork I'd say it's likely we now have the permits for the port. In terms of the courts: they have given permission for DEV to ship up to $10m net of ore. In terms of the courts and our 20% - they are waiting on the finalised document to be presented to them - as you know, the ore can ship before we get our 20%.

If DEV are to meet the end of the month/beginning of next first shipment then I would have thought we'd hear something this week or next, unless of course we are so close to finalisation that DEV have agreed not to start movement of ore until that occurs.

Just mulling too ;-)

Ob.

If I'm reading correctly then cargo is not effected from the lock down:

https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/2021/03/17/academias-e-restaurantes-fechados-toque-de-recolher-as-21h-e-lei-seca-veja-o-que-abre-e-fecha-durante-restricao-maxima-no-ap.ghtml

In fact without passenger ships getting in the way it might even be improved?

Thanks for your thoughts @tomcat.

13.1 states "Except as otherwise provided in these Articles, the Bacanora Shares and the Ganfeng Shares shall rank pari passu in all respects bust shall constitute separate classes of shares."

I've not been able to see any exceptions (though I've not read in detail!), so perhaps they are doing as the title suggests: tee'ing it up for a big one... ;-) Or some other such agreement, a consequence of which the shares are treated differently, e.g. dividends, returns on capital, or any other manner of things which may result from how the different companies interact with the JV, in particular, as you are hinting at, how much funding they are able or willing to contribute towards the expansion plans - which SHOULD lead to our lithium being needed sooner and in greater quantities ;-)

Just speculation. :-)))

Ob