Member Info for Tornadotony

oops their instead of there. I need another coffee.

Fulmar

ChinaS is back because SP has been poking people again on the Pensana Board which serves zero benefit to anybody. Quite a few people have similar investments on Rainbow as in Pensana and that is there choice to spread risk with a UK/Angola producer with a South African one as geopolitical factors is part of the reasoning why they do it.

The gypsum material after processing can be sold as house building material on the global market and would be completely safe for that use for example as plaster and would meet all the appropriate standards for such use for both workers who handle it and those who live in the dwellings for which it can be used. I have forgotten how much it would be per metric tonne, but it has a useful market value.

SP
Then what on earth is the purpose of your earlier commentary?

SP I sense you are concerned that Longonjo will get funded in the near future and therefore you have come back here to be disruptive as if somehow that will benefit other rare earth providers that you are currently invested in. Chinese banking sources were more than happy to award Pensana with a $200-$250M loan back in 2020 to build Longonjo mine without any kind of BFS. They knew it was a 20 year mine complex just using the weathered rock depth ore and with COOLA licence area as back up for more REOs that could be trucked in for processing. So the idea that the Angola mine is not economic and would not pay its way back is wrong. The company have published its reserves for the mine in 2021. The company has access to patent technology that resolves any thorium or uranium radioactive mineral content which has been discussed many times before.

M&G

Hogsnipe lets see what happens in 2 days time.

Averaged down yesterday with a 24.71 buy. A huge gap in the chart today on a breakaway move.

Reetech

A pilot plant will come into operation first. I recall the amount of acid utilised in the process is a small fraction used in rare earth mining and the acid is recycled for further use. All of the issues that you raised are being worked through in the pilot plant. The South African gypsum stacks have enough rare earth materials for the process to be economic. However, the output of REO supply is half of some of the larger mining operations and it may only address around 2.0% of global market needs. The gypsum stacks could be utilised by the building trade after processing as a clean product and is an additional source of income. The future supply shortage is huge and there is plenty of room for the likes of rainbow and other new entrants. Tony

What everyone needs to bear in mind is that communications in the past from the company had visibility of Samsung, a Texas judge with considerable influence, competitor companies and the like. Such a wider audience does mean that a pitch needs to realise that comments need to be taken in that context.

Everything is now about the future. If this was a chess game between two grand masters, Nanoco sacrificed a piece to get a position going in the game. What we await to find out is whether that sacrifice ends with a checkmate win.

The problem is that Liberium gave no gold price with the forecast. I suspect it is in the range of $1800-1850 gold price with AISC between $1300-1350. I also believe they have production around 86,000 for 2023 to deliver 17p share price. The company should be debt free as the end of 2023 arrives with a forward look of $20M cash enterprise growth after usual Capex spend plus an additional $5M on development over recent years.

30p a share needs gold to be higher and Ramula heading into production by 2026.

Dare we hope for tomorrow with good news.

I wonder what Peter Pham is up to with RBW these days. Hopefully keeping RBW in the loop.

https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/nanotechnology-in-agriculture-market-2023-growth-trends-with-the-rise-in-ict-industry-2029-2023-02-27

Havealot and other readers;

We do not know if other companies are seeking licence arrangements with Nanoco at this time. If other companies behave like Samsung after court validation of patents in Texas than damages would be greater as the misuse is completely intentional and proven in law.

We do not know the recessionary impacts across the entire equity space if central banks keep hiking rates. Small companies with guaranteed income outside of the energy sector are a safe port in a storm as they will exist after this recession.

We do not know if more companies want to engage with product research with Nanoco now that the distraction of a major court case is out of the way and that their product development with the company has greater exclusivity value and the company will defend its IP and has future resource to do so. The ability to do so is an advantage.

We do not know if the additional resources provide greater flexibility in Runcorn operations in that other companies that can make quick decisions, allow Nanoco to engage through meetings with those prospective customers and generate more use of that resource.

We do not know if the company may employ another business development manager that can generate a lot of new opportunities and income stream for the company in the contacts they can deliver on arrival at the company.

We do not know if having the guaranteed licence resource over many years removes the concern of a continuity risk that may have prevented prospective partner customers engaging with the company.

All of the above should become knowns in say 3 to 4 months.

Rely on China to turn parts of the world into the biggest environmental sewer. They have managed to create chunks of it in their own country and have the stupidity of encouraging other Asian countries to do the same. They give mining a bad name.

Nano
My original model for the Samsung deal was only wrong on the solicitors costs which I thought pre jury trial would be a quarter of the total award. I am now trying to put together models of high, medium and low for production and new licensing. £8M plus licensing income is my middle priced model where I get back to the 35p figure. If the target is lower it does raise the issue of the board renumeration status as it becomes just them and nothing for anyone else that has taken risks. All the best Tony

Nano
If they are able to achieve 30% usage of Runcorn for manufacturing, could it generate say £15M Revenue (£8M profit) per annum for a sizeable market. The Edison figure of £100M Revenue per annum for full use is somewhat meaningless as partly it is a moon shot figure on capacity. A company earning £8M from production and the £2M licence income as profit would take us back to 34-35p share price target. If we got another £2M in licences a year it would give some more R&D headroom. Tony

Pull back on tiny volume. I am not sure where they are taking it but the pull back was already looking overdone. We must be heading for an almighty recession for copper miners to be pulling back when a shortage of supply already exists.

Troublesome and other readers,

What I like about the second half payment is that it will be paid at a time when central bankers will will be desperately trying to get out of a global recession with the end of tightening conditions and encouragement of growth and new product development. The funds will arrive as a tailwind when the company requires it the most. They do have some time on their side at the moment and they need it to make all the right decisions. Nanoco is listed amongst the top 5 global companies in this area in USA market intelligence reports. Tony

With Hamoodi buying back in, there is the possibility of follow through actions with other companies using Nanoco technology without a licence arrangement. Comments in previous presentations by Tenner (not verbatim);

1. Any settlement with Samsung was not setting a rate with any outstanding companies using Nanoco patents without a licence as Samsung had the argument of having no prior testing through the experts and testing in court procedures. With a Samsung agreement in place any use of Nanoco patent technology does not have the Samsung defence as the company has now validated its patents through the legal process.

2. It was clearly emphasised that only one judge in the Texas Courts deals with IP Patent disputes. The judge also commented on the workload of many cases at hand. It was quite possible that with no agreement that legal processes could have extended to 2026 with earliest resolution being in 2024. Nanoco had indicated that the judge was highly influential on his advisory comments for the final settlement decision and this was indicated in the October 2022 presentation.