Member Info for observer842

The problem with the sit back and do nothing approach @Bannor is the JV's would have been worth[ ]less to us if BCN had relocated unopposed... Hopefully one day soon we'll see whether the BoD's actions to protect the JV's were worth the necessary pain inflicted on our short term share price. On another note, those suggesting that the BoD might attempt to reach their targets via a share consolidation might want to think twice about suggesting it to them face to face! It's an outrageous attack on their integrity. It won't happen. And if it did, I'll be the one leading the call for their resignations - it's that unlikely! ;-) To be clear: if we consolidated, which we have no reason to do, then the BoD's targets would change appropriately. Ob.

Oh yes, I forgot you weren't on board with the San Luis plan @Bannor! ;-) I admit, it's not playing out exactly as I'd hoped, but there is still time to turn it around once those pesky permits are issued. At least we are in the same boat as everyone else in the region! ;-) We've taken the gamble to start working on the project and from memory I believe @Kiran said we will remain around a month behind schedule until around the end of June (or was it July?), and then it's a day extra delay for each passing day that the permits have not been permitted... What an annoyance! Ob.

;-) @Bannor. re San Luis, I wonder if it's not too late to renegotiate the timeline of the 100% option? It should never have been based on a fixed date (end of this year), but relative to the issue of the permits (e.g. 12 months from the date of their issue) since the issue of permits is out of our control. Isn't hindsight great!? ;-) In some sense the ball is in our court as we can pull out now without spending another penny if the vendors don't agree to the change of terms... I wonder if it's crossed our BoD's mind? Surely it's a fair and reasonable request to make? A win win even. @Kiran? Thoughts? Ob.

And I believe you are wrong @maddog with no credible evidence to back up your claims. End of. ;-)

It's here: http://www.cadenceminerals.com/projects/greenland-rare-earth/ We have kept one licence. The good one adjacent to GGG's ;-)

It's a bit of a hassle to read, but worth it as both EMH and BCN are discussed in the context of Zinnwald and Cinovec "Lithium aus Sachsen - Im Erzgebirge k�nnte es ab 2021 wieder unter Tage gehen." (28 Feb 2018) (according to google translate: Lithium from Saxony In the Erzgebirge it could go underground from 2021 again.) https://www.pressreader.com/germany/neues-deutschland/20180228/281492161809673 === (google translate) The ore is to be ground on the spot and separated from the dead stone, which, says M�ller, is not a big challenge: because the tin forestite also contains iron, it can be separated with magnets. The lithium-bearing rock is then transported by silo truck to Schwarzheide, where the chemical company BASF operates a major plant on the motorway from Dresden to Berlin. There, the chemical treatment should take place. The burden on the residents in Altenberg, says M�ller, will be limited: He expects one truck per hour, which rolls from the mouth of the pit to the nearby highway. However, the impact of the mine on the local economy will also be rather limited: in Zinnwald and Altenberg, 150 jobs could be created, in Schwarzheide another 100. For a quarter of a century, for example, stocks could last. Then it's probably only in the visitor mine in the depth. === Did we know about the BASF connection with BCN prior to the date of this article?

The paper which was presented by Nick Stevenson (our Marketing Director) at the CIBSE technical symposium in April can be found in the session 4 folder here: http://www.cibse.org/papers2018 There are few nice slides reminding us why we are here - nothing particularly new if you have been following the sector the past few years, but it's certainly worth a read and noting the following at the end of the paper that the research project between us and the CIBSE is likely ongoing: === Acknowledgment CIBSE has invested in a research project to produce technical knowledge in m-CHP systems, by looking into the aspects of this new technology's commercial and technological viability. The authors acknowledge the support of CIBSE and Inspirit Energy technical input and for funding research related to this paper. === Additionally I'd not seen the seasonal UK Annual Gas and Power Demand presented in that form before. Nice! Also, although this may be the case today: === The price of 1kWe fuel cell m-CHP in the UK and other markets is estimated to be about �15,000. === I believe prices are continuing to drop. We need to get a move on! ;-) Ob

@Bannor - you know as well as anyone that we, the shareholders, control the share price. We decided REM was worth GBP66M at one point. It was based on hope and hype related to our JV's, that hope may one day return, it was not based on the holding in our listed companies - far from it in fact. Now we are only valued on the shares we hold in our listed companies. This is why the BoD (at this time) rightly points to the growth in that. Remember, we are trying to attract new investors today by giving these presentations, so I am very happy they are pointing to our successes, and not dwelling on what could have gone better... ;-) We don't know what the total in our listed companies is worth today because we know we have traded those we don't have to report. However, I make the ones you have listed to be worth: BCN: 12,285,058 @90p = �11m EMH: 28,928,457 @0.21p = �6.1m MMS: 30,000,000 @0.03p = �0.9m AOU: 6,500,000 @0.05p = �0.3m If we haven't sold HAS that's another �0.5m, and NMX etc, rounds to about �19m - which is a return of 73% from the quoted �11m investment. As you point out, clearly we've had to take educated gambles (the CLN's!), which have cost us, related to our non-listed ventures (the JV's), and I certainly hope they will come good in time: I think we are on the same page that Sonora won't be mining at rate of 35ktpa LCE for all of the 20's! ;-) Ob.

;-) @tomcat. I'm pretty sure if it was greater than 120% at the end of April then we'd be using that date! ;-)

@Bannor - it comes from page 15 of the April corporate presentation. My understanding is that at the end of December 2017 we had invested �11m in public listed companies and at the end of December 2017 that �11m was worth �25m according to the various share prices of each = a return of 119%. http://www.cadenceminerals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Corporate-Presentation-KDNC-April-2018.pdf Clearly it is in our interest to choose valuation dates which shine a good light on our growth story. Obviously it's not 120% today, it's high double digits.

"Inspirit Energy: On the cusp of cogeneration commercialisation & trading at a fraction of replacement IP cost" (13th June 2016) http://www.alignresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Inspirit-Energy-Align-Research-13th-June-2016-Final.pdf === Comparison to Flowgroup Then there is the comparison to AIM listed Flowgroup. While Flowgroup is at a more advanced commercial stage than Inspirit and has substantial financial backing, its Flow boiler produces a maximum 14.1kW of thermal output and only 1kW of electricity � 3 times less than the Inspirit Charger 3.0 and half that of the 2.0. And the business also has a loss making (but growing) retail energy business attached to it. As such, Inspirit�s valuation, which is less than a tenth of Flowgroup�s �44 million, looks to have significant potential room for upward movement in our opinion. === If we can believe what has recently been reported on the Flow LSE board, the electricity generation figures reported by the company and repeated above were extremely bloated! The 1kW of electricity used in the above comparison was apparently actually only 400W GROSS after the required FLOW boiler redesign: the boiler needed 250W to run itself, meaning the NET generation was a paltry 150W. See the post today @16:14 by @Sticklebrickhead for the details. Of course this revelation could be completely made up - but there certainly feels a ring of truth about it given all that has transpired over there... Even if we ourselves are being misleading and our 3.2kWe is GROSS (which I don't believe it is), our NET would still be around 3kWe. In hindsight they never really were our peers were they? ;-) This is absolutely shameful news if true as investors interested in an mCHP would have been mislead to invest there, when in fact they would have been more likely to invest in INSP given our economics could clearly be seen to be significantly more attractive in comparison! Of course whether it would have played out better for them investing here for the long term is to be seen! ;-) Ob.

It's magical @tomcat. lol. I think I'll conclude with my original link advertising a new presentation which might have got lost in our "noise", although I see not too lost as an additional 10 people have viewed since I posted. ;-) "Share Talk Cadence Minerals" (3 May 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYUqBKlv7g === Kiran Morzaria of Cadence Minerals talks about the impending lithium compound shortages and how Cadence Minerals is taking advantage of the mispricing of lithium exploration and mining assets and investing in undervalued assets which as at the end of 2017 have delivered returns in excess of 120%. ===

I don't have any numbers @tomcat. I'm guessing you are referring to your 8,4,2 calculations? In terms of the $142m I presume you are referring to table 22.1.2 on page 206. I presume they dropped a zero as the post-tax equivalent is reported as $1,049m (i.e. 1,420m pre-tax sounds about right, but it could be something else in this ball park of course) On the topic of sale price of beneficiated material - take a read of this from last year "Lithium: Galaxy 2017 H1 output hits 7,000t LCE" https://roskill.com/news/lithium-galaxy-2017-h1-output-hits-7000t-lce/ === Roskill view: Galaxy reported Q2 spodumene concentrate output at 32,998t (~4,700t LCE assuming 5.75% Li2O content), increasing 41% on Q1 2017. Sales rose by 28% Q-on-Q to 30,135t (~4,300t LCE). The average price per dry metric tonne sold in Q2 was US$724/t before royalties and marketing fees, equivalent to US$5,400/t LCE (before conversion or US$9,200/t using average Chinese conversion costs). Excluding royalties and marketing fees, Galaxy�s production costs fell to US$334/t in June against the Q2 average of US$393/t, as production exceeded target output rates. Spodumene shipments for H2 2017 will now continue at US$830-905/t for 5.5-6.0% Li2O concentrate, after all sales under 2016 contracts were completed; prepayments from off-takers have now been fulfilled. === Obviously prices have moved on, but does that tally with your 8,4,2 calculations? What's the going rate for spodumene at the moment? Ob.

Actually it's more like 11 to 19 isn't?

Although it's impossible to say at this stage whether it will be relevant to us, my interest on the tax question has been piqued... This is worth a read: "Transfer pricing in Mexico: overview" (Law stated as at 01-Feb-2017) https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-006-4727?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 === Transfer pricing provisions in Mexico are based on the arm's length principle. === So one obvious question is what is the going rate for lithium in the beneficiated material that the subsidiary will be selling to the parent company? It's a difficult question to answer since we are unique in this aspect, but I wonder if it can be compared to the going rate for contained lithium in spodumene concentrate for these purposes? @tomcat re the NPV calculations: we don't need to do the calculation, an NPV8 of around $90m mined in the second half is intuitively about right compared to $150m if it were mined uniformly - well it is to me at least, I'm happy to trust @Kiran on this one! In terms of inflation and the other aspects you mention, they are irrelevant - it's the NPV8 all else being equal, that's the point of it, to enable comparisons. If you want to put other assumptions in then this resultant figure will change, obviously... ;-) By the way, you know it's year 9 to 19 in the FS? (ignoring the minuscule amount mined in year 3) Ob.

If you like. But it's more likely that it's to do with when the JV is scheduled to be mined and then discounting the yearly cash flow from it appropriately. One day you'll believe the magic ;-) "Present Value And Discounting By Investopedia" https://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/corporate-finance/3/time-value-money/present-value-discounting.aspx Ob.

Let's hope so!

That's a taxing point @tomcat! Here, take a read of this: "Transfer Pricing in the Mining Sector" (August 2016) https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/documents/nrgi_primer_transfer-pricing.pdf I doubt we can easily deduce what the operating contract will look like, so we have to put our faith in @Kiran when he says he is working "to put in place safety measures and ensuring that it protects our economic interest." Ob

Indeed I did - I'm always a little reluctant to attempt to transcribe @Kiran as he talks too fast for me to keep up! He's even hard going at half speed on YouTube! But since I thought it was important and no doubt I'd want to refer back to that answer I thought I'd give it a go. Turns out there is this thing called pause ;-)

From the BCN feasibility study - each 10% increase in the lithium price increase the NPV8 by around $210m post-tax NPV8 (page 207). Therefore a 809% increase from $11,000/t to $100,000/t LCE would increase the post tax NPV8 from $802m to $802m + (809% / 10%) * $210m = $17,791m i.e. around 22 ($17,791m / $802m) times that @$11,000/t LCE. So our circa �15m (post-tax @11,000/t ) would increase to around �330m. It's worth listening to this: "Mike Beck: Lithium - The Perfect Storm with an Unprecedented Demand Profile" (5 Nov 2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-en8jlYaDwA He is very bullish on Lithium prices increasing in the short term over the coming months and next few years ;-) Ob.