Member Info for taufour

Sasa, Lasata is correct it is the real thing, just didn't get listed here but you can see it listed at https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/ATM/afritin-mining-limited/company-page

2021-08-19 17:08:18.253 (GBX) 5.3 950,000 50,350.0 Off-Book XOFF P ECHO N

That short by GSA looks like it might have been partially closed at 09:18 this morning (reported after hours)

2021-08-18 09:18:04.047 (GBX) 12.5 2,000,000 250,000.0 Off-Book AIMX P+LRGS

Just going by what look like matching trades, it appears that they had short-sold these 2m shares last wednesday at 13.05p for £261,000 thus netting a profit of £11,000.

It could be pure coincidence but it's funny that a one-post troll popped up first thing this morning trying to de-stabilize the share price and failed to have any effect.

If the above is correct then GSA still have a short position of 3.9m shares - it's not clear what their entry price was, but a large part of it may have been at 12.86p.

Could you explain that? I'm not sure what you mean by a flipper and how one would detect the presence of such a being. Thanks.

Hi, by the way (first post in this forum).

There is a numerical coincidence about yesterday's large share transactions. It might be just chance; I'm noting it as a possibly interesting curiosity. The transactions were:2021-08-11 16:37:33.010 (GBX) 12.8607 3,382,532 435,017.29 Off-Book AIMX P N2021-08-11 16:03:56.257 (GBX) 13.05 2,000,000 261,000.0 Off-Book AIMX PNow, according to https://shorteurope.com/history_player.php?player=GSA%20CAPITAL%20PARTNERS%20LLP&land=united_kingdom#Bushveld%20Minerals%20Limitedon Aug 6th Gsa Capital declared a short position of 5,957,800 shares.Exploring the idea that yesterday's large transactions could have been part of the process of booking this short, and subtracting them from the short position we get:5,957,800 minus 3,382,532 minus 2,000,000 equals 575,268.Here's the coincidence: there was a transaction for 268 shares yesterday:2021-08-11 12:28:48.643 (GBX) 13.116 268 35.15 Off-Book AIMX POf course, that would still leave 575,000 shares unbooked ... no further comment about that for the time being, just that the coincidence so far as it goes seems curious.By the way, as a related thought: shorteurope.com reports the entry value of the short as being 13.20p, but that seems dubious. It seems unlikely that anyone could actually have short-sold 5M shares at 13.20p any time in the last several days.I wonder if shorteurope simply plugs in the headline sp on the day as being the entry value of the reported position. Which would be fake information. The prices reported for yesterday's large transactions (12.86p and 13.05p) could be a more realistic indicator of what Gsa got for their short.

In Crux interviews, Matt tends to come across like a grammar school headmaster interviewing a potential recruit to his teaching staff.

In this one, Matt doesn't succeed in projecting that image. The roles are more equal, and he comes across like an analyst genuinely interested in the business of the person he is interviewing, and wanting to find out more.

"... do you mind if I tweeted ..." would be delighted! (not being on twitter myself)

A good parliamentary question would be short, and not contain words (like redox or vanadium) which haven't yet entered the mainstream. How about:

"Why are energy authorities up and down the country installing lithium-based batteries when they could be installing water-based batteries which cannot catch fire?"

The Age (oz newspaper based in Melbourne) has a fair amount of detail about the lithium fire near Geelong, including a map of the area initially declared at risk of toxic fumes, stretching half way to the sea.

Looking to see if more local coverage might reveal any unexpected angles I thought the Geelong Advertiser would be a good place to start, to be followed up by the Geelong Independent if the Advertiser failed to come up with anything.

However I got diverted immediately in the Geelong Advertiser reading about the royal family (which I always skip when reading British newspapers) so cannot give further info in that direction.

Can anyone spot what is wrong with the following sentence:

"A grid-scale battery consists of rows of domestic or vehicle lithium-ion batteries installed together"

which was published as recently as May this year on the website of AEMO ("At AEMO, we manage electricity and gas systems and markets across Australia, helping to ensure Australians have access to affordable, secure and reliable energy.")

https://aemo.com.au/en/learn/energy-explained/energy-101/energy-explained-big-batteries

The establishment mindset needs to change so that the above sentence would be impossible to write.

Ah ... understanding beginning to glimmer I think ...

Next question: "fortune alluded to this as a reason for not expanding to a greater amount of electrolyte because he still has to supply the steel market."

why does he have to still supply the steel market? ... why not just allocate vanadium where it is most profitable?

(To some extent, of course. Presumably closing down sales to the steel market altogether would be recklessly disruptive)

Hi Mogwhy: "BMN have been consistently saying that they expect their 200 MWh electrolyte plant to consume approx 1,100 tonnes pa." ... is that "pa" a typo?

Maybe there's too much harmony at telegram and people who relish a bit of an argument are coming back here.

"its a quiet day on the telegram group so far .. in the past 18 hrs or so only 149 posts .... many days are 300+ ... Not gonna summarise that I am afraid"

Actually, faramog, that's already a great summary and for most days is all that one could reasonably ask for.

Note that signing up for telegram needs a smartfone. (One can sign *in* to telegram from a laptop, but to sign *up* for it in the first place needs a smartfone.)

Some of us do not have smartfones and therefore will be staying here.

I hope that one or more kind souls will occasionally post here a summary of what is going on at telegram.

People who like to go into these things in amazing amounts of detail might be interested to note the discrepancy between (as reported by LSE)

21-Jul-21 08:16:19 12.80 58 Buy 12.30 12.50 7.42 O

and (as reported by londonstockexchange.com)

21.07.21 08:16:19 12.80 GBX 59 7.50 Off-Book Off-Book P ECEU SINT

which are actually the same trade, reported by LSE as being for 58 shares with value £7.42 and reported by the stock exchange as being for 59 shares with value £7.50.

The reason for the discrepancy is suggested by the underlying data stream from the stock exchange, which reports it as being for a *fractional* number of shares: 58.6 shares with value £7.5008

I've been noticing these fractional share trades for a couple of months, they seem to be something to do with a new venue id (ECEU) and market identifier code (SINT)

People in various discussion forums are making wild guesses about what is going on, for example rounding errors creeping in when trades are mirrored from a hypothetical Europe-facing part of the stock exchange or perhaps they are trying to satisfy both London and European rules in their reporting of some trades

I don't know anything about that, but I note an interesting and rather zen-like consequence that when a trade is for a fractional number of shares less than 1, the stock exchange reports it as being volume 1 and LSE reports it as being volume 0.

Hi Alfa and Lionel, thanks for your replies.

"...in a paper objectively criticising one technology, some caution is requiring in appearing to advocate another"

Lionel I think you are being remarkably forgiving! I've looked at some more of Allison's papers and find them to be scandalously misleading in several ways. (Scandalous given that he is an Oxford Prof.)

For example, arguing that "a big battery cannot stabilise an electricity grid supplied by wind and solar alone", he says:

"Most enthusiasts for wind and solar would love a technology that offered an electrical mega battery capable of storing renewable energy for a week, or even just a day. To a potential investor in the energy business a battery is a seductive idea – just put your surplus energy in and take it out when needed. This could then bridge between the times when energy is available from solar and wind and those when it is not. In this way the principal fault of these renewables could be overcome. There are two problems, the capacity of the battery and the ease with which you can get the energy out again. If you can store a large quantity of energy and get it out easily, then a battery is explosive."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349216778_Big_batteries_-an_explosive_issue

Apart from its omission of flow batteries, this is misleading because (a) it mentions only electrical batteries, ignoring the important role (at grid scale) of reversible hydro for example

(perhaps, not content with not knowing about flow batteries, he doesn't know about pumped hydro either)

and (b) it mentions only centralized whole-grid-scale storage, ignoring the important role of de-centralized farm-scale batteries (where flow batteries would excel).

It's a good thing that the general public becomes increasingly aware of the very serious safety issues around using lithium ion batteries for medium and large scale storage.

But forum members might be interested in knowing more about some of the complex and conflicting lines of argument in this area.

For example, why doesn't that report by Prof Wade Allison (Oxford) mention flow batteries as a good solution?

The reason is that he is strongly, committedly, one might almost say rabidly, pro nuclear, and is an active campaigner against the development of renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.

"As the world discusses sources of energy it is spooked by an eighty-year-old fear of ionising radiation and all forms of nuclear energy. But evidence from simple observation shows that this fear is simply misplaced and that everybody should be confident in making a future with nuclear power."

~Wade Allison

Treat any press releases issued by this person with extreme caution! He is trying to make the public scared of battery storage.

Hi Richard. "Ha, sorry all,..." I don't yet accept your apology. Your words were,

"John Meyer offers his most recent thoughts on mining and Bushveld gets a mention at the end as the best mining stock to buy now."

Well, the interview runs from 0m14s to 5m55s, and from 2m51s to the end he is talking specifically about BMN and the reasons for being confident in it (one of which is Davis's investment in FAR).

So of the 341 seconds of interview, 184 seconds ... easily more than half ... are about BMN.

This is absolutely not congruent with your claim that "Bushveld gets a mention at the end". You are a miserabilist.

Regarding that link to the interview with John Meyer ... very naughty of you to set it to the very second where he starts talking about FAR:

"We recently saw sir mick davis who is the former ceo of xstrata investing in another vanadium business in kazakhstan called ferro-alloys and that gives me a great deal of confidence because he knows the vanadium business really well"

Ah well I guess this means that FAR is now an officially allowed topic of discussion on this board. Looking forward to it.

I dislike the idea, popular in the AIM community of investors, that directors should buy shares in their own companies.

To think that as well as devoting their working lives to the company, the poor things should reach into their pockets in their private lives and love the company even more, it's just too much.

However, that said, it is still a little embarrassing to hear FM giving a quite implausible and unconvincing explanation of why BMN directors are not renowned for buying BMN shares.