Member Info for observer842

Volume massively increasing.

Starting to see some buying volume...

Progress has been slow. But it's happening!

Indeed @dougal. No doubt they will have all fingers crossed that the share price doesn't go above 0.1p today! ;-)

If 2020 turns out to be our year - people will look back on today and question wtf didn't they take a punt at 0.05p! Lol.

Will we close above 0.093p is the question (no is the answer IMO! lol)

:-)

My summary from last RNS:

26 Apr 2019: Facilities moved from Sheffield to Poland in collaboration with a European engineering group. Collaboration with a UK based University on new applications. New composite materials awaiting classification. Cost savings. Can start off grid. Peak electrical output doubled to @6.4kWe, same @15kWt [unknown steady state system efficiencies] during a running cycle of 2,000 hours. Height reduced to 80cm. Schematics for new applications: Inspirit Marine - currently in discussion with a large car/marine engine manufacturer to develop a unit for the shipping industry with current output of 11.68kw; Inspirit Solar; Inspirit Cooler; Inspirit Motor/ Generator

Update:

13 Nov 2019: Partner is Polish. Marine manufacturer is Swedish. Demonstrating a 3D model of the redesigned engine and application during January 2020. Paul confirms > 6kWe. Passed PD 5500/2018! In 2020 expect to produce first unit. If successful, batch production will follow. CLN conversion imminent as all resolutions passed.

You realise this is true progress? Claiming you have passed PD 5500/2018 without actually passing it? I don't think so! :-)

In fact I think Paul's quote deserves a post of its own:

===[
"Inspirit Energy is at a pivotal point in its direction as an R&D company. The development of the Charger with an output of over 6 kW has been a long journey but has been well worth the effort. In the development of the charger, the Inspirit team identified a large range of applications and industry's where our core technology could transpose into and this makes the next phase of Inspirit's development very exciting to be a part off.

The journey with Inspirit has not been as straight forward as we would have liked, but we have learned so much and developed a technology which has many diverse applications. Its core attributes are that it can run on many different fuel types and be incorporated into a variety of applications and industries"
]===

No word from John this time, which is fair enough I suppose as he is a CLN owner and to say anything might be deemed a conflict of interest.

I'd laugh so hard if AIM does its thing today on the back of this and they are forced to convert at more than 0.07p. I doubt it though, mainly because so many, me included, will be de-risking before we get to above the required 0.093p! But I suppose if someone with lots of wad wants in...? :-)

Ob.

If you have been following this company you'll realise just how important: "This has passed PD 5500/2018 and as a result, has provided a favourable outcome at reduced cost and greater efficiencies." is.

In my opinion the company has (reluctantly!) divulged sufficient inside information to the market to allow the CLN holders to convert their shares at 0.07p (I doubt the market will close higher than 0.09p today - but AIM is weird, you never know!) before the big up lift within the next year before those all important warrants at the conversion price expire.

As they say, it's been a long journey - but with Paul confirming over 6kWe I feel much more confident in my investment here! :-)

Ob.

Now that is very interesting! ;-)

If Tony Seba's (who has a new talk out by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ud-fPKnj3Q) estimate of EV vs Hydrogen system efficiencies is not enough, then how about Volkswagen's:

"Hydrogen or battery? A clear case, until further notice" (2019-11-07)
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html
===[
Efficiency rates in comparison using eco-friendly energy
E-car: Overall efficiency rate: 76%
Hydrogen car: Overall efficiency rate: 30%
...
And what does the consumer gain from this? What is clear is that hydrogen-powered e-cars will increasingly become more expensive to drive than battery-powered vehicles, not only in terms of purchase, but above also in terms of operation. The double primary energy requirement of hydrogen-powered vehicles compared to battery-powered vehicles will be reflected in consumer prices. Drivers are already paying around nine to twelve euros per 100 kilometers for hydrogen-powered cars, but only two to seven euros per 100 kilometers (depending on the electricity prices in the individual countries) for battery-powered e-cars, depending on varying individual mobility habits.

This should make it clear what the majority of consumers will be buying in the future ....
]===

Any time hydrogen is mentioned as a long term solution for vehicles I smile and think of the system efficiencies:

"Hydrogen vs Electric Vehicle redlight" (January 14, 2015)
https://tonyseba.com/toyota-vs-tesla-can-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compete-with-electric-vehicles/hydrogen-vs-ev-redlight/

As the cost of batteries/fuel cells per mile (the CapEx of the vehicles) reduces, as it will, it'll become increasingly more about the running costs per mile (the OpEx of the vehicles). Even if the CapEx's of the vehicles were similar, long term I can't see a hydrogen powered vehicle's OpEx out-competing a battery powered vehicle's OpEx, both in terms of maintenance and system efficiencies. It's a physics thing.

However, a *lot* of people don't get this, including industry leaders, they look too much to the past and at the present and not enough to the future IMHO. For more on this google Tony Seba.

Ob

I meant to add that these things are negotiable. For instance, we better be arguing that a discount rate of 6.8% is wholly inappropriate for calculating our share of the NPV. We should be using something more like 12% to take account of all the risks that are involved for us. What's that you say? 12% is surely too high? Oh all right then, 10% and you have a deal. LoL. Seriously though, I wonder just how free our hands are, or are they well and truly tied behind our backs with handkerchiefs in our mouths?

Ob.

If we have a certain % of the NPV attributable to us then we might be expected to contribute that same % of the CapEx. With a CapEx of A$512m and an NPV6.8% of A$549m we are likely looking at slightly more than a 100% return of whatever we are obliged to contribute (less tax). e.g. if we are asked (and able) to contribute say A$20m up front then we might be expected to see revenues of pre-tax around A$40m over the period our JV area is mined (currently 2026-2033). To be clear: the total of the amounts received in later years would be expected to be greater than A$40m, it's their summed discounted present value that is valued around A$40m in this hypothetical scenario. Note, I have yet to calculate the % of the NPV likely attributable to us in the updated mining plan.

And with this reasoning in mind, it might be viewed as beneficial to us that Yanibana North has yet to be fully included into the mine plan in later years as we'd be liable for a greater % of the CapEx today if it were. Of course the risk is that it may never get fully included - HAS favouring more of their 100% areas instead.

It seems an attractive return to me, no wonder @Kiran is up beat, especially as it could be that prices of Rare Earth Minerals are significantly higher when our tenements are mined as the energy revolution should be in full swing by then.

It feels to me that we are approaching the Yangibana end game, this being the first time HAS have spelt out our obligations - page 18. Will we hold, fold, sell or up the ante?

Ob.

See RNS dated 01 December 2011

Seems to confirm what I suspected last week - what they plan to mine from the JV has gone down from 2.074Mt@0.43% NdPr as declared at the end of January this year (table 14) to 1.86Mt@0.37% NdPr today (table 14 divided by 0.7). It also looks like it's getting pushed back further in the mining schedule. Not great. Worth a read of page 18 where we are mentioned. Looking on the bright side, even if the value to us of the project were as low as 5%, that's still 5% of an NPV of A$549m = £15m. Of course it might be lower than 5%... perhaps I'll get my calculator out unless @tomcat beats me to it! :-)

That's total dilution over their current claim of the Sonora Lithium Project...

My updated summary on how much dilution existing BCN holders might see (which could still be "wrong" in multiple ways!) is now:
===[
GFL exercise their right (scenarios 1&3). 103% dilution @25p; 55% dilution @65.6p
GFL does not exercise (scenarios 2&4). 230% dilution @25p; 55% dilution @106.5p
]===

50% to 100% seems reasonable and likely from here. It's not *that* much considering...