Member Info for observer842

@Bannor. In the summer of 2016 we were sat around 0.45p (from memory) with talk about raising funds. Then from what appeared to be from nowhere the share price rose into the 0.7p (from memory) and shortly afterwards we issued convertible notes at 0.65p which was a 5% premium to the previous day's close. Clearly all sorts of insider shenanigans could have been at play to move the share up from 0.45p on what appeared to be no news at the time, but there are also above board scenarios that can lead to a share price rise prior to good news or placings which create value. For example, those involved in the good news or placings with inside information are not allowed to trade until it is released. Therefore without potential selling or shorting pressure from these a share price can start to move up and then accelerate as those cotton on to what is (potentially) coming. We discussed a fair amount of this in relation to shorters a few weeks back. All IMHO.

Ob.

It certainly makes for some interesting head scratching @taufour. Why even have the capability to drawdown before full funding if they didn't intend to do exactly that if funding didn't come on attempt one? Personally I think there has always been multiple funding routes on the table. My opinion is that the BoD attempted to go with the one which would have resulting in the least dilution first: see if others were willing to fund near the prevailing share price - but that didn't pan out. Which leaves other scenarios - each one successively becoming less good for existing shareholders (IMHO). But ultimately (IMHO) there is a plan to get the project to production, be it through (part) sale or through backing of cornerstone shareholders, I don't know: but that drawdown of the loan ($25m) speaks volumes to me!

Perhaps the equity element of the full funding package will be at 40p? Perhaps it will be at 60p, 80p? This month, next month, next year? Who knows. I certainly don't! ;-)

Ob.

@Bannor I thought we'd gone over this? Why do you think I changed my opinion to Hold when BCN share price fell? A placing to raise funds for the new ventures becomes more likely IMHO, rather than a (part) sell off of BCN which I feel the BoD were banking on to raise funds for the new ventures. And as we know on AIM talk of a placing, even meta-talk of a placing can cause a confidence collapse in the SP. Fortunately I'm not talking or even meta-talking of a placing - and perhaps the SP has already had its confidence collapse, and it's onwards and upwards from here?

I'd love to counter your slur on me with one of my own: you are possibly the most knowledgeable negative shareholder I've come across, and would make a great (possibly covert) shorter - but you'd probably take it as a compliment! ;-)

And finally - still not talking about a placing: I still think it's possible that if we do place it will be at a premium to these lows. Look to the last time we raised funds.

page 77 it looks like they were once planning on placing a tailings storage facility on our tenement. Interesting.

@Bannor. OK - you got me with the @Chucky post! Sometimes I lose patience with (apparent) derampers ;-) But I stand by the @tomcat and @Dallas posts. Those conclusions come from following the REM/BCN story for several years through various web pages, posts, tweets, announcements, and the "facts" of the scoping/PFS/DFS. Are there any particular points you disagree with? In particular what about them leads you to conclude "I do believe that for many you could be the most misleading of posters here...." or "you post as if you know things us mere PI's can't...."?

@Bannor. I need examples - how can I defend otherwise? Give me an example of this "you post as if you know things us mere PI's can't...."

I found a draft from 2015:

https://noah.dk/sites/default/files/2017-03/EIA%20Kvanefjeld%20Draft%20October%20%202015_0.pdf

Gis us an example govner @Bannor "I do believe that for many you could be the most misleading of posters here...."

Their EIA was lodged with the Greenland government today. Anyone got a link to it?

@Bannor. ;-) At every opportunity a little dig at KDNC. I LoL in the face of your negativity! ;-) @Kiran has had a fair bit of experience in the lithium sector, in particular scoping, preliminary, definitive studies developing EMH and BCN, and soon to be San Luis too, and the others have financing/deal-making experience. The share price is particularly poor at present because of poor performance from EMH and BCN, which, although our BoD can't be held fully responsible for, they (collectively) were the ones who decided to invest in these companies so need to shoulder at least some of the responsibility (yes I know some of the blame, which will hopefully one day turn to thanks lies with DL). I've faith they'll be able to turn it around from here - though I'd have more faith if BCN and EMH got off their collective backsides and the San Luis permits were issued! Oh, and they struck a good funding deal if we decide on that route for PREM + others ;-)

So in summary, @Kiran is special. You can have that one for free. ;-)

Ob.

@Kiran will be here. Care of @earache on EMH:

"LME Focus Session: Electric Vehicles" (Thu, 11 Oct 2018, 10:30 BST)
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lme-focus-session-electric-vehicles-tickets-43936116106
===[
Programme:

10.30 - Registration and coffee

11.00 - Welcome

11.05 - LME update: risk management for electric vehicle battery (EVB) materials

11.15 - Lithium market update and outlook, Robert Baylis, Roskill

11.30 - Cobalt market update and outlook

11.40 - Panel: The evolution of the electric vehicles industry and its impact on metals markets
Panellists:
Jessica Fung, Pala Investments
Kiran Morzaria, Cadence
Maximilien Deudon, Transamine

More to be confirmed

12.20 - Q&A

12.30 - Close
]===

@Chuckypowers. You realise part of the loan (millions!) has been drawn and being spent forwarding the project. It is happening. We could have final funding news within days. You know this? Surely!?

@Ivybush. Worth reading @earache's posts on the EMH board re LME over the past week. Especially Fri 17:18.

@degsie. That list is dated, double counts and is actually wrong (inconsistent % holdings for same number of shares). Take a look at the company presentations or:

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/investor-relations/restricted-aim-rule-26/

for the latest that we know.

@mrcautious. If it is 9% it is a very lucky guess! We don't know - no-one can. There could be a fair few groups of investors (not PI's) holding below the 3% threshold. I believe the best we can know is how many have declared above the 3% threshold and combine that with declared director holdings:

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/investor-relations/restricted-aim-rule-26/

EV uptake will likely follow an S curve (increasing exponential growth, constant exponential growth, then decreasing exponential growth), however it's instructive to see what a constant exponential growth from an estimated 2m EV's sold by the end of 2018 looks like. The following (constant) exponential growth factors of 42%, 60% and 80% result in the following yearly sales. e.g. year on year growth of 42% for 2019 over 2018, will result in 2.84m EV's being sold from the estimated baseline of 2m EV's sold in 2018.

42% 60% 80%
2018: 2m 2m 2m
2019: 2.84m 3.2m 3.6m
2020: 4.03m 5.12m 6.48m
2021: 5.73m 8.19m 11.7m
2022: 8.13m 13.1m 21.0m
2023: 11.5m 21.0m 37.8m
2024: 16.4m 33.6m 68.0m
2025: 23.3m 53.7m >100m
2026: 33.1m 85.9m
2027: 46.9m >100m
2028: 66.7m
2029: 94.7m
2030: >100m

I think in practice it'll look more like this for fully EV by 2025:

2018: N/A 2m
2019: 60% 3.2m
2020: 80% 5.76m
2021: 100% 11.5m
2022: 120% 25.3m
2023: 100% 48.2m
2024: 80% 77m
2025: 40% 100m

and this for fully EV by 2030:

2018: N/A 2m
2019: 60% 3.2m
2020: 60% 5.12m
2021: 70% 8.7m
2022: 70% 14.8m
2023: 50% 22.2m
2024: 40% 31.1m
2025: 40% 43.5m
2026: 30% 56.6m
2027: 20% 67.9m
2028: 20% 81.4m
2029: 10% 89.6m
2030: 10% 98.5m

IMHO by 2021 (at the latest!) it'll be extremely obvious which way this is heading, and just how much lithium the market is going to need to supply. Pronto! ;-)

Ob.

It's happening! Fingers crossed we can ride it to the high heights of our last boom and beyond! One question. Is 62% > 42%? Anyone? ;-)

"EV Company News For The Month Of August 2018" (Sep. 2, 2018)
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4203609-ev-company-news-month-august-2018
===[
Global electric car sales - US electric car market share hits a record 2.2% in July. Q2, 2018 EV sales up 77% YoY. Tesla moves to be number 1 globally.
...
Global electric car sales finished July 2018 with 145,000 sales for the month, up 62% on July 2017, and the fourth best month ever. Year to date sales are up 68% on last year, with 2018 year to date sales at 906,000, and market share at 1.7%. It is starting to look like 2018 will exceed 2m sales and 2% market share.
]===

@TigerByTheTail. Because some believe the share price has already discounted past the future equity raise price...

By the way, the Hanwa holding is stated at 9.2%, but I don't think we ever got consensus in which percentage bracket they might lie in practice. I believe I concluded 9-10% - as I deduced they were originally one share short of 10%, but others concluded they hold above 10%, and are therefore in the 10-11% range. The 9.2% is what BCN concludes from previous notifications and subsequent dilution. Similarly KDNC is @8% as that was what was declared (as part of the redomicile I think), but they may have anywhere between 5-10% in practice due to trades since that date.

@KLUCK. Morning Star has double accounted the Hanwa holding. Hanwa currently hold around 9.2% but have "Stated intention to conditionally invest a further $25m upon completion of full project funding". Page 9 of the September corporate presentation:

http://www.bacanoralithium.com/investor-relations/restricted-company-presentations/