Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
Yep, a miner in charge of mining and frees FM to go with Acacia and Mustang.
Moving back to the real business rather than the playground.....
The joint goals of Mustang and Acacia as stated on the Mustang website are:
* To invest together in manufacturing assets involved in the energy transition process with a relative focus on the energy storage/battery value chain; and
* To invest in the development of renewable energy projects where there is scope to include stationary energy storage.
I struggle to see how a RTO of BMN fits in with this. Yes, Belco and BE fit, but not Vametco and Vanchem. I also struggle to see why Acacia would want to see FM (who has been behind BMNs energy focus) replaced with CC (who is a miner by trade) if the idea is to RTO BMN into Must..... assuming Acacia got a major say in FMs removal.
If Acacia are going to do some power-broking behind the scenes - and the comments in the MUST RNS yesterday indicate MUST still want to wrestle VRBH from BMN control - then I would have thought MUST paying BMN something in the order of $20-25m+ for BE, VRBH, and Belco would seem very attractive all round. MUST get what they really want and BMN get a major cash injection to ease any Orion worries and invest in Vametco and Vanchem and progressing Mokopane development sufficiently to keep any licensing issues at bay. I can see Craig taking that.
In his only 2 posts on here in 2023, Alfacomp said he had 14 million shares which was the most he's ever had. You can believe this or not, but on the basis it was true at the time he posted it then your allegation doesn't stand up.
Yesterday's RNS was the inevitable consequence of the Garnett 10% purchase RNS on 28 July and the failure of Mustang to relist by the end of July. These consequences were well known. Indeed, it was commented upon on this BB that 350-400m shares might be issued. Therefore it will not have been a surprise to Orion. They had probably been told in advance of 28 July - or worked it out for themselves, after all everyone else with even half a brain could see Mustang would fail to relist on time.
Last week Craig reiterated that the published Orion deal was going ahead. Why would Orion use yesterday's RNS to trigger a renegotiation of terms when they already knew by 28 July what was happening? If they were going to do it, they'd have done it earlier not carry on closing the agreed deal out as Craig stated was happening.
Here's my take for folks to throw stones at. Based on the recent purchase by Garnett of 10% of Mustang for $3.25m then in theory Mustang/Enerox is worth $32.5m. BMNs 72.6% of VRBH's 40% of this is worth $9.44m. However:
1) BMN has invested more than this. Today's hit was nearly $8m and previously we've put in more. In total, I believe the total investment has been nearer $20m including today's dilution, although some of this is offset by the cash we got from Garnet's recent purchase of 10%.
2) A listed Enerox may well be worth more than $32.5m. Clearly Garnet and Mustang think so otherwise they wouldn't be so determined to take the stances they have.
In the end, how much we get - and in what form - will be down to Craig's negotiating skills. Personally I'd want to see the large majority, if not all, in cash rather than Mustang shares.
Skibba - yes - see the MUST RNS issued today. They say VRBH wholly owned by BMN and Acacia. However, interestingly, at the bottom of their RNS it says they've commenced discussions with BMN and Acacia with a view to buying out these holdings and proceeding with their readmission.
Worth noting that both Garnet and Acacia agreed to subscribe to $500,000 each of the CLNs. I suspect this will bring Acacia's holding back up to approx what they had before their sale in May (in absolute number of shares terms, obviously the percentage will drop given the total new shares in issue). Stories of their selling down may be premature!
I doubt Garnet will hold their new shares for long and I suspect other CLN holders will also sell down so think we will struggle to see much share price growth for a while.
The previous agreement did need exchange control approval.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BMN/exchange-control-approval-for-orion-transaction-hped7rtnyzugdw3.html
Additionally the previous agreement was announced on 30th September 2022 but not finally signed off until 30th November 2022. The current deal is taking longer, but it was always going to take time.
Colt45 full posting history is linked below. If this poster really is our new CEO I'd be pretty worried as it looks like he got a lot wrong on what may happen as well as making a lot of share purchases that can only have lost money.
https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/colt45/
One follow up thought to my previous comment.
If iron-ore flow batteries are going to become a big thing as one poster has suggested here on a couple of occasions (alongside or instead of VRFBs) then maybe we need to look at using our own ore and making our electrolyte plant dual product.
On Lemur, my expectation is that we'll get a nominal net sale amount, my hope (based in no evidence whatsoever, just pure hope) is that we get $5m, and my fear is that we'll need to pay someone to take it off our hands.
In time (sometime in 2024, it's not urgent over the next 6 months) the other resource I would like the new CEO to develop a proper plan for are the large iron ore and phosphate deposits we have. These have almost totally disappeared from the business radar, yet they are substantial and surely there has to be a way of getting more value from them than the big fat zero have over the last 10 years.
kirkwood and al**** were re-elected at this week's agm. they got about 97m votes for and under 2m against. the fact the other directors didn't need to stand for re-election suggests your statement about them needing annual re-election isn't correct.
we've had a new chairman in the last year. we've now got a new ceo. things are changing and seemingly for the better so kirkwood and coltman need time to do the rest of the things they're trying to do to improve governance, the core businesses and shareholder value.
The RNS doesn't say what the terms of the wage increases are ( it just says 'provides for' which is vague) so you're just guessing it contains no linkage to productivity increases....probably because it suits your agenda the FM was clueless and CWC is a genius.
Personally a 5 year deal seems excessive and a 2-3 year deal more appropriate, but this is easy to say from my armchair in the UK. You'd be the first to criticise if FM had done no deal when it was clear to everyone a year or more ago that inflationary pressures on wages were a worldwide issue and we'd had strikes and walkouts to clobber production even more. Also lots of training is pretty pointless if there is a revolving door of staff leaving for higher wages elsewhere.
Lots of claims Coltman is going to sort the issues out and is making a difference already. However we don't know this. In football parlance, he may turn out to be a Mikel Arteta or an Erik Ten Hag who is able to stop the rot in his club or he may turn out to be yet another Spurs manager who talks well, starts ok, and achieves nothing. Time will tell.
Nice to see the ask turn blue for the day and a couple of blue trades go through. Notable that it didn't take a lot of buying pressure over the last hour to get there. I get the feeling that last Friday and this morning will have taken out most of those who have had enough here and we'll see some price recovery over the coming days as others buy in or top up.
Pb940 - I don't have the RNS to hand, but I pretty sure it is doing the improvements to get to this nameplate capacity that was put on the back burner. Of course, achieving nameplate capacity is not easy as we've seen in getting nowhere near the currently stated 5k nameplate capacity.
It was a production report not a financial statement. If you were expecting statements on cash or P&L then it is your misunderstanding not the company's fault. They could have added a statement on prices realised so far this year, although they did so in the recent results RNS ($37.99/kg) so it would just be a repeat of this. I think most people were pleased to see sales from inventory so don't understand your quibble here.
Moneyman - the company has already stated that 8k production is many years off at best. They said this a couple of years ago if I recall correctly. Getting to a consistent 5k each and every year for several years is what the target is. Only then and only as finances incrementally allow will an increase to 8k be considered. This is the clearly stated company position and has been for some time now.
Benbutton - why should he do as you say? What is wrong in what he posted? Drop in Vametco production was the biggest disappointment, Vanchem was also disappointing, 335mtv is the second largest Q production since BMN too over and his statement on Vanchem costs is correct ( and not something anyone has commented on here today).
It may not be what you want to hear, but all of what was said is perfectly valid comment backed up by facts in several cases.
I really wish we'd sold 1.68 billion tonnes of Vanadium this quarter....at an average of $38/kg!
May e the cub scouts could release a range of "playground bully" badges for cappa and his associates to wear. They could get bronze, silver, or gold level badges depending on whether 5, 8, or more than 10 of them give Pdub a kicking on a single day.