Member Info for observer842

Indeed @jimb. It's outrageous to BCN shareholders, and to us too if they pull a fast one with our JV's, that they promised the engineering package for so long and never delivered, but decided to make an offer instead. I can't imagine it's bad! And of course they have plans to expand - it's been said enough times: the market was waiting for official confirmation before re-rating IMHO, as is the AIM way...

"Bacanora Lithium | China Mining Club | EN" (21 Oct 2020)
https://youtu.be/FNjRt-HKa2s?t=928
===[
We can scale it up, we've looked at production profiles from 17,500 to 35,000 to 50,000 tonnes a year of lithium [carbonate] equivalent, and each construction phase is about 18 months. So we could go from, starting work to being a 50,000 tonne a year lithium producer within 4 years. And that is the plan. I mean obviously we're looking at the markets and how quickly they're growing, but, yes, Ganfeng has invested in us because they see us being one of the largest producers in the world within the next 5 years supplying a high grade product that will go straight to the Asian market.
]===

"China Mining Club - Bacanora Lithium" (19 Feb 2021)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnuOIfuEmOQ&t=930
===[
So we are going to start at a 20ktpa equivalent basis but we could easily expand to 50, or larger thousand tonnes a year.
]===

It's as clear as day they are planning to start at LEAST at 20ktpa, but all official calculations, including KDNC's are based on the historical 17.5ktpa to 35ktpa in four years and running for 19 years plan, which takes only a small fraction from our JV area. Of course can anyone really blame Ganfeng for this strategy as it makes perfect business sense from their perspective! But the BCN BoD don't appear to have exactly shot it down, in public at least, have they...? Maybe their hands are tied and it's practically the best they can do given the circumstances? We stood, and indeed still stand to gain more from expansion plans than BCN shareholders did/do IMHO - so perhaps it's in their greater interests to keep them under wraps to take our JV for a song? Completion of Amapa should give us a stronger hand.

Ob.

Indeed @jimb, I've previously estimated that increasing the mining rate to 50ktpa, as they appear to be planning, likely trebles the NPV associated with our 30% JV, and should they later expand to 100ktpa likely trebles it again. This is a consequence of pretty much all of the expansion coming from our JV area. :-)))) See observer842@12 Jun 2021 12:14 for the details. I trust @Kiran has produced similar analysis! @Kiran?

Indeed @jimb. In January 2020 the author was forecasting "In 2025, I expect lithium carbonate to reach a price of $13,000 per tonne while hydroxide should be priced at around $16,500 per tonne." When according to LME it's already at $16,250 per tonne on Thursday :-)))

https://www.lme.com/Metals/Minor-metals/Lithium-prices
===[
FASTMARKETS MB LITHIUM HYDROXIDE MONOHYDRATE: MIN 56.5% LIOH2O BATTERY GRADE, SPOT PRICES CIF CHINA, JAPAN & KOREA, $/KG)
(MIDPOINT)

DATE PRICE (US$ PER KILOGRAM)
19 August 2021 16.25
12 August 2021 15.75
05 August 2021 15.75
29 July 2021 15.75
]===

Fingers crossed the timing of that RNS was to clear the decks for the big one tomorrow morning! :-)

Also, if you're looking in here on the back of the RNS - a reminder that after around 38 private court movements this month yesterday we had a "Conclusions for Decision", which are normally public and often contain juicy information.

I see the share price is picking up on that RNS. For the benefit of those looking in on the back of it I'll repeat what I said this morning:

If YWDD079 is indicative of all of Yangibana North-West, which it probably is, then it looks to me from table 3 that our 30% area (in Yangibana North) had one of the best uplifts, if not the best uplift (on a waste mass, TREO recovery basis), of all samples.

Well if @EV is declaring himself not @Kiran then I shall declare that I can neither confirm nor deny that I may be @Kiran. Does that mean I still have a good chance of being him? LoLoL.

LoL @Bannor! I thought I was Kiran? I've been usurped! ;-)

Thanks @Kiran! (Take a look at the updated mining schedule in figure 8 of the July 27 HAS news release)

@Bannor, one scenario we cater for by having the option to take the 49% or letting someone of our choosing take it, is that whatever funds we have realised or would realise to take us to 49% might be better used to progress other projects at that time. Ideally we'd fund everything that is forecast to be profitable, but in practice you can't do that, and choose the best. This is a reasonable scenario which the BoD appear to have catered for in the cautious way they have structured the approach to taking ownership of Amapa. We should be applauding them, not constantly casting doubt and suspicion in their direction. Though I must admit I'm a fine one to talk! I do believe investors should be sceptical, but perhaps not as overtly as we sometimes are on public forums! LoL. Keep it civil. We know they read these boards, and it's great they do IMHO.

Lol @Bannor - I guess so. One day it will be spelt out. Well it better be. Assuming we ever take up the 20% one way or another! ;-)

@Bannor. It'll certainly be interesting when it comes to progressing from 27% to 49% (hopefully!). On the rights issue, and keeping it cordial of course, you'll have to believe what you believe, apparently based solely on RNS, but combining that information with what is in the haul and what @Kiran said in the interview, I believe it more likely on balance that it is KDNC and its partners/investors who have the first right of refusal, meaning we can stick at 27% and a third party of our choosing take the 22%. If neither us or our investors/partners want to take up this offer or are able to then ... Indo Sino will have a twelve-month option to buy the shares in JV Co held by Cadence for 1.5 (1 ½) times the price paid by Cadence for such shares.

It's just my opinion, and what I happen to believe today. Tomorrow I may believe something else. LoL. ;-)

Ob.

So it does @tomcat! In writing. In RNS would be better! But either way :-)))))

@Kiran, make sure to spell out the deal around the 49% very clearly in the RNS announcing our 20%!

LoL @EV. Can we have that in writing? ;-) I tend to think this is the case too, but I also tend to believe writing more than words...

And that's why there is confusion. It's written as one thing, but said as another...

LoL @EV. Keep it cordial, he's got a point...

I think you are missing the point @Bannor. This is AIM and it thinks there is a placing coming to raise what is required the SP will get hammered. It seems to me that, as @Kiran says, we have options. We can keep the 27% and let a third party take up the 22%. And if AIM believes that, it might not hammer the SP (so much)... Additionally we can sell an asset to realise (part of) the funds to take us to 49% if we so desire. WE HAVE OPTIONS. LoL. Good on @Kiran if he's learnt his AIM lesson - keep us guessing! ;-)

Indeed, if the 49% is for that amount, as most (all?) evidence appears to point then it is as you say astonishingly good news and the market should react accordingly when it is spelt out/after we take our 20%, which is immin... ;-)

Indeed @EV. I remember picking up on that at the time. Perhaps the true situation is that we are responsible for finding the funding related to the 49%, and if we can't find it, either ourselves or a third party, then we risk losing the 27%? Who knows! Not I! LoL.