Member Info for taufour

Using google, searching for the bushveld minerals website leads to a thoroughly out of date version where the most recent entry under media>blog begins:

"Message from the CEO: As 2018 draws to a close, the team at Bushveld Minerals Limited and I would like to express our heartfelt appreciation to everyone who has been part of our story."

Can someone please get google to update itself to point at the correct version of the website, thanks.

Hi Alfacomp. "BMN MC 184M production >4000 tonnes of Vanadium (from Vametco ore) FAR MC 123M production = 133 tonnes of Vanadium (not from their ore)"

Elevated market cap of FAR is presumably due to sentiment. Their cornerstone investor (Vision Blue) is paying 9p per share (less than a third of current share price).

Many interesting comments about leasing, but I don't think anyone nailed the reason why leasing could be so transformative in the VRFB space - rather than being just another financing option as it is for aeroplanes or cars

(Apologies if someone already said the following)

I think the reason is that the vanadium in the battery is 100% recoverable at planned end of battery life say 20 yrs.

This means that anyone purchasing a quantity of electrolyte at a time when the price of vanadium is historically high needs to be very concerned about the possible price of vanadium 20 years in the future

There is a real risk that new storage technologies will be invented in the intervening 20 years, and vanadium could go back to being mainly an ingredient of quality steel - which is fine for low cost quartile vanadium producers, but not fine for existing battery owners.

Someone buying a VRFB now should not have to think about that risk, unless they want to also make the corresponding bet that the price of vanadium 20 years in the future could equally well be higher than present highs.

The vanadium producer is in a much better position cast bets about the long term future price of vanadium and to price their leasing options accordingly.

Interesting bit of back story to the merger between RedT and Avalon which became Invinity ...

https://invinity.com/podcast-matt-harper-suncast/

-25m30s (the time counter counts up through negative numbers to zero)

Apparently it was Bushveld which put them together

And scan that URL carefully, no sense in being needlessly alarmed.

It is not "Riot times online.com", it is "RIO times online.com"

Hello viper. "Opened a position today" i.e. before 09:45 ... "Am out of this share now without a loss." i.e. before 14:00

Are you sure?

Hi Pdub, "I am not aware that anyone has said all round numbered trades are sells."

Not *all* of course ... but it is an opinion I am veering towards ... that largish trades of exact round-numbers of shares are noticeably more likely to be sells than buys.

Nice to see that a "round numbered trade" (ref my previous ramblings on this subject) doesn't have to be a sell ... it can be a buy! (10:08am, 100k shares at 15.30)

I simply can't understand why any posters put effort into arguing that grid-scale lithium batteries are not really all that dangerous provided they are correctly installed etc etc

I mean I guess one could make them safe enough if one employed a crew of watchmen to keep watch over them

Maybe the secret agenda of those posters is to tackle the unemployment problem in that way, problem solved eh?

Seriously, can anyone summarize any technical advantages at all which lithium batteries would have over flow batteries for grid scale storage?

If not, then that would leave just the economic issues (stability of supply and price) ... which it would be good to talk about.

As is well known, the published bid/ask quotes are often skewed and misleading. There are two opposite ways in which this can happen:

(1) Bid/ask skewed low, making most actual trades look like buys even if they are not.

Example (as is the case at the time of writing this post): bid/ask = 15.00/15.50, actual spread is 15.40/15.50 => everything looks like a buy

(2) Bid/ask skewed high, making most actual trades look like sells even if they are not.

Example: bid/ask = 15.00/15.50, actual spread is 15.00/15.10 => everything looks like a sell

If these skews represent misleading narratives that the MMs are trying to promulgate, can anyone cast light on what they are trying to do in case (1), as opposed to what they are trying to do in case (2)?

Hello Pdub. "LSE is showing a huge imbalance in favour of sells but it is simply wrong. You will probably find a very much closer match between buys and sells today."

Today's trades look slightly odd at times in my view, almost as though there are two market makers not well co-ordinated with each other - snapshot at http://luku.org/xi/BMN/5h96vwag/ - but reasonably well balanced overall, a rough and ready estimation would be sold/bought = £180k/£201k

Sorry wrong company!

Gulp. At that link it says "Bushveld Minerals December 2020 $65,000,000 Royalty and Convertible Loan". What was that about "coming across it unexpectedly"!

Hi. "I remember him making similar comments in a Mines and Money seminar, where he actually made reference to HZM"

He also referred specifically to HZM in the link in this thread. I didn't mention it yesterday cos I thought people might enjoy coming across it unexpectedly. It is at 35m10s and is very positive.

Interesting snippet from Philip Clegg (Orion) on a panel last November at

https://stratum-international.com/video-mining-due-diligence-panel-discussion-hosted-by-will-coetzer/

(approx 14m in)

"One point I would make in this area, that was in the last couple of deals that our investment committee approved, is the concept of a follow-on deal. So we might do an introductory transaction, a relatively small one, say 25 million or something like that ... if you do that, then you might have a period of a year or two thereafter where you're first in line to put more money to work for the purposes of building an asset or for a follow-on transaction of some description ... if you do that, you actually work hand-in-hand with the company for a period of one to two years ... if that's the case, by the time you put more money to work, it's a known quantity ... you know exactly what you're dealing with, you understand the company much better and you understand how it works."

While we're having this conversation, it would be super if anyone could shed a bit of light on MM operations, for a share like BMN. How much is on autopilot? When you say "The MM's can't seem to settle on a price at the moment!", is it actual people being undecided, or is it an algorithm getting in a twizzle?

Note that it is lunchtime. Is one MM always on duty (for each participating firm), or do they leave the desk unattended sometimes?

HL are quoting fine for 10k sell, likewise for 100k sell. Could you try again perhaps?

Hello Harchris, "Looking at the past fifteen years it appears that where we are now - ~US $30k - is the average price of V over that time ... do analysts think that if/once the V price rises to $45k and beyond that it could be sustainable long term beyond the commodity supercycle?"

I suggest that a central plank of the investment case for BMN is the belief that because of the incipient revolution (concerning world energy policies) Vanadium is due a re-rate, and whereas was the old normal was $30k, the new normal will be ... well you name it.

Yes this is of course "only a belief". It couldn't be anything else at this stage! And we have at least one poster who refuses to invest because it is only a belief. Which is fine.

I remember a time when it was only a belief that people would be willing to buy books online through a flakey dial-up telephone internet connection.

Calamari "my indicator for buying BMN is not the share price, it's the Vanadium price. Last year BMN fell as low as 8p, I didn't buy it then and I wouldn't buy it now at 8p. I'll think about buying when FeV is over $40/kg."

You can't be serious. Isn't FeV currently about $35? Are you saying that a mere 15% increase in the FeV price would allow you to think about buying a BMN which you wouldn't buy now at 8p?

That seems very timid.

Last I heard, the official position of BMN is that the job of management is to steadily progress a good strategy, and the share price will take care of itself. If anyone is interested I will try to find the exact quote, I think it was in a crux interview, and it definitely contained a phrase very like "share price ... take care of itself".

More recently, FM has been saying things like yes the market is not valuing BMN correctly and one has to believe that this cannot be permanent.

That seems to be about as far as he will go. "Believe" it "cannot" be "permanent".

Well all this might change in the next crux interview, which could be very interesting, but until then I would assert that the BMN strategy is not to bother with all that.

Sure if enough PIs send them emails they will say "I hear you", how could they not.

They seem to be more interested in proclaiming the increased priority given to housekeeping initiatives following the appointment in January of a new operations director.

It sounds like (given that they have recently restored stable production rate) if they went all out they could probably keep to the mid or even high end of production guidance but they prefer to do things properly.

Many companies would just go all out in such circumstances and hope the housekeeping would catch up later. BMN is different.