Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. Watch the video here.
Kuentai - Various parties on here don't seem to think BluNalu will IPO any time soon. Not sure why they think that. I for one think they will list ASAP for the simple reason that they can get rich now. Why delay for 5-10 years and risk missing out because regulation or something else changes which drives a hole through your speculative business model. However, I don't think their share price will be quite as stratospheric as people think. Various posters on here have compared BluNalu to Oatly, but you have to remember Oatly took literally decades to get to the point where they are now and so they are simply not comparable companies. BluNalu will do well enough to make their own staff rich, but not sure about it making a meaningful difference to ANIC share price for many, many years.
Hi - I'm posting on the SMT page as this may be vaguely related. I've been having a look at the Breakthrough Energy website (this is the collection of investors led by Bill Gates with the aim of driving to net zero emissions) and there are several interesting speculative technologies showcased on this site. I'm invested in SMT and there appears to be some overlap with the types of speculative tech Breakthrough Energy are funding, and I'm also invested in Agronomics (ANIC) for exposure to cultured meat. However, I am curious if anyone has any ideas to gain exposure preferably via an investment trust rather than individual companies to some of the other technologies of the future as a complimentary holding to SMT and ANIC. I'm particularly interested in the prospect of room temperature superconductors and High Voltage DC technology. I don't think there is any exposure to this via SMT. Any thoughts? Like I said, it would be better for me to gain exposure via an IT as I am not brave or rich enough to sink a lot of money into an individual stock which has a very high chance of failure.
Hi - I don't think I did miss that. The key phrase in your quote is that Cell-Ag is the best for all "meat" production. Veg isn't meat. Figure 1 in the report shows 2 bars for Cell-Ag. One with sustainable energy and one with conventional energy. Meatless and tofu are also shown - both lower than the sustainable energy Cell-Ag score.
Review makes reference to a Life Cycle Analysis Report which includes the following statement:
"Compared to all meat products, both cultivated and conventional, the environmental single score and the carbon footprint of vegetable protein products is low. With a carbon footprint which is 2.5 to 4 times lower, and an environmental single score of over 3 and 7 times lower, cultivated meat is unlikely to be able to compete with vegetable protein products on these two indicators."
I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed with that. It is fair to work on the assumption that the "meat-likeness" of veg based alternatives will improve at least as quickly as Cell-ag meat and so if they are both comparable in price by say 2030 and the overriding societal concern remains climate change then this implies veg based proteins have a significant trump card. Why would you buy cultured meat if a similar tasting, similar looking, similarly priced but lower environmental impact product was available? Answers on a postcard!
Does anyone else have a more or less permanently raised eyebrow that there is no RNS advising that an investor or investors have crossed a reportable threshold following the recent fundraise? I know this has been discussed before, but I'm kind of getting to think that the passage of time does imply that no-one has reached the threshold. Does this mean there are lots of investors who decided to dip their toe in the water but they are not sufficiently convinced by the investment case to make a bold commitment with a larger holding?
Interesting read but no-one is commenting on the sheer inconsistency in expectations.
In this interview, Mellon reckons 50% of meat will be plant based or cell-ag within a decade. The AT Kearney report which gets referenced on Agronomics own website puts that at 28% (with cell-ag being 10%, plant based 18% by 2030) and the McKinsey report someone linked a week or 2 ago indicated that cell-ag might get 0.5% market share in their high growth forecast by 2030.
Such enormous discrepancy in predictions should of course be expected because it is all more or less fairy-tales. Anyone that tells you they can predict cell-ag market share in 10 years time is lying to you. They can't. No-one can. Not even Jim Mellon.
Still worth a punt though as it has plausible potential, but I would put lots of eggs in lots of different plausibly exciting prospects. I don't believe for an instant that this technology is a certainty and the fact that so called experts presented with the same data come up with radically different predictions kind of suggests that no-one really knows what they are talking about.
On that note, enjoy the weekend!!
Thanks. It's more out of curiosity but I do also think that in spite of II's not being hugely popular, having them as major shareholders on board probably gives the whole sector more credibility and is therefore probably a good thing. I wasn't invested in this when there was talk of ANIC going private, but I also wonder of having II's on board also makes this less likely (I know there was a commitment to stay listed for at least 3 years, but I don't have a high degree of trust in the scruples of most AIM stocks management).
I think this was asked before but I don't recall seeing a response. Does anyone know off the top of their head what the rules are for the timescale allowed before notifications of significant shareholdings must be announced? I would have thought with recent placings, someone or other would have crossed a relevant threshold but I haven't seen anything about who that would be.
Re. mockery of eating insects, it looks like it forms part of the diet of about 2 billion people (according to the UN in 2013):
http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
Turns out it's not that weird after all. I'm not saying this will become mainstream in the ever so squeamish and sensitive west, but if you can process some peas to death and add some fake blood and hey presto, this becomes a burger, it would be foolish to rule out a similar possibility for mealworm etc. (acknowledging that I have no idea if that's an insect).
HectorB - I did take note of the presentation of the projected market share by 2040. Then I laughed, comfortable in the knowledge that this was a made up number and you could equally have picked 1% or 99%. No matter who the expert(s) was who arrived at this number, given this is a prediction of market share 20 years in the future for a novel technology whose market share is currently more or less zero, you can safely assume it's just a speculative guess. No actual math was used to arrive at that number.
Comparing BluNalu market valuation to Oatly is not credible as I have previously highlighted. Oatly are a 25 year old company who sell products in 20 countries from 90000 outlets. BluNalu currently sell nothing in no countries, from no outlets. That's actual numbers, using actual math. Now I am not saying BluNalu couldn't get to that point. They could, but incredibly unlikely in the time frame you clearly have in mind.
....and another thing! It's absolutely not guaranteed that CellAg will go mainstream. There were posts last week which flagged up that one of the central claims that CellAg will reduce greenhouse gas emissions is up for debate. No matter the other advantages of CellAg, climate change is the single biggest reason people are talking about this. Take that away and your coat is on a very shoogily peg as we say in this neck of the woods. So what about the argument that CellAg can feed the growing population? See article below (this may have been posted previously). There are loads of other competing products or solutions, any one of which may usurp CellAg (but I hope not!!!):
http://fafdl.org/blog/2019/08/01/why-cultured-meat-will-not-feed-the-world-but-mycoprotein-just-might/
Something else that no-one mentions much is the possibility of insect based protein. It's cheap and plentiful and I don't think many tears would be shed by the culling of insects. Why would insect protein be more objectionable than "frankenstein food"? You can't argue that "it just will". That's blind faith. Given the timescales we are talking about for this to come good, there can be absolutely no certainties.
I've gone into this with my eyes open. It's speculative and absolutely not guaranteed to succeed. It's not just about stock selection. The whole concept may fall flat on its face.
RyeSloan - now having us agree about something is just not cricket! So here's a couple of observations. I don't think BluNalu will add much value in the timescale you think. There is wide speculation that they will IPO n the next 12 months or so, and it is readily available information that ANIC have about a 5% holding in BluNalu, so on the basis that ANIC would be the easiest way of gaining pre-IPO exposure to BluNalu, I think the approximate BluNalu IPO valuation must already be accounted for in the ANIC share price and one would assume that BluNalu will be priced on the basis of speculative future profits. So all in, that makes me think that what you currently see in the ANIC price is all there is for the next few years until we establish if there is indeed any proof in the pudding.
I think it is nigh on impossible to apply any sensible valuation metrics to this stock. The best you can do is say that there is a small but not negligible chance that this stock will do spectacularly well and that ultimately this could become a multi-billion pound investment trust (though as previous poster noted, price will all depend on number of shares in issue). However, on the flip side, about 70% of startups fail within 10 years and that doesn't differentiate between sectors - I think the failure rate of biotech companies (if this is what these are?) is higher. The whole concept of cultured meat may simply not take off. But you've got to be in it to win it and as long as you accept that this is highly speculative, you can wait about 10 years for any meaningful returns and you can stomach the possibility of losing the lot , then it's worth taking a punt.
So it looks like Oatly are just like any other large corporation using their new found power and fame to kick the little guy in the proverbials:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57425162
I had hoped that a better corporate image would go hand in hand with the environmental image they and others like them are trying to portray. We want these brands to be different and better.
Pask - thanks for posting. I think you have actually demonstrated that my appeal to authority actually is important! It's way too easy to dismiss a Wichita cattleman, but having a researcher from one of the worlds most prestigious universities conclude that "The scale of cattle production required for the very high levels of beef consumption modeled here would result in significant global warming, but it is not yet clear whether cultured meat production would provide a more climatically sustainable alternative" should at least raise an eyebrow for anyone invested in this. I appreciate that CellAg has more going for it than the simple environmental aspect and I do accept there is animal welfare issues etc. However, I think the overriding cultural message at present relates to climate change. If CellAg is not unequivocally better for climate change then the whole product story becomes more reliant on aspects that like it or lump it, the world cares less about. Then it will just be a drive to the bottom based on cost and I don't know which side would win. I think this all changes dramatically if the grid is completely (or almost completely) decarbonised.
Idg69 - lets not start criticizing each others ethical stances. That would be a slippery slope (e.g. do you take an equally tough stance on the arms industry or abortion etc.- please don't answer, like I said it's a slippery slope). We live in the luxurious west where we can afford to take choices based on an ethical. That is not the reality for most of the worlds population - they need to eat what is available to them and what they can afford. Also, I daresay you can debate with a cattleman, but are you qualified to debate the Oxford Uni PhD researcher who has concluded that CellAg emissions may outweight those of conventional farming. Don't just pick the easy target. I was very clear in my posts that the credibility of the claims was based on the Oxford uni research
The Oxford Uni PhD physics researcher who wrote the paper on which the article is based is called John Michael Lynch. You can contact him via the following link. So if you want to you can directly verify the claims made in the article.
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/506860/overview
I don't hold a physics PhD. I'm guessing most posters on here don't either. Why are you not willing to accept that someone perhaps has scientific knowledge that you are I don't have and can therefore provide additional insight?