Member Info for ukmoe

I'm with you re the minerals manlord!

Have ben in for over a year now, and never sold any, in spite of being tempted on several occasions...

I've been investing in ultimately useless AIM exploration companies for many decades...and Empire is finally THE one!

It ain't over til it's over....

This is surely just a bit of nervousness around what is seen as a key price level. It has little to do with the company's prospects.

Penny shares in particular do this consolidation constantly.

Buying opportunity (for those interested in the company).

Does anyone else find it amazing that investors typically use long-term price support/resistance for guidance....yet looking at the present version of EEE, the prospect at Pitfield only came into existence from April 2022. The last peaks reflected sentiment in completely different operations (2010 in Austria when company wasn't even listed, 2020 - Eclipse Gold, Western Australia). How on earth can these levels be a guidance for today?

Although I may regret it, I am holding out for a larger prize, and assuming these level consolidations are only temporary noise in EEE's progress, caused by reliance on spurious systems.

Although I may regret it, I got in with the intention of staying in 'til whatever end. So I am expecting us to leave this level behind, then behave similarly around 9p. The investor coverage on EEE is amazingly small, which is great because we are not seeing the usual pump n dump. I believe therefore any pull-backs will be seen as buying opportunities for what must be a sizeble number of watchers.....

Some great stuff in there. Good info on the substituton of Niobium for Vanadium at times of high Vanadium price - implying the threat is not as clear as it is oft painted, because of the extra work and other impacts as a result of using substitutes. (However, they have their own specialist areas of advantage, which is a different matter). Also, Fortune expounds more on the leasing model, which is useful.
Fortune very clearly has the respect of his peers, and puts over his points well - something that some pundits here who try and drag down his efficacy should perhaps understand.

This man sems to 'call a spade a spade' which is needed in this current atmosphere, where folk seem happy to equate time-honoured scientific investigation with personal theories based on the pontifications of 'the bloke down the pub' (or social media pundits).
It's also interesting what he says about second-life batteries - that area seems to be embraced with no awareness of future problems, not least lack of regulation.
Sure, let's not throw the baby out wth the bathwater: after all, folk have been used to sharing space alongside incredibly volatile liquids (i.e. sitting in a car with a massive petrol tank close-by).
It's about enforcing appropriate safety protocols, rather than just banning say lithium ion systems.
But whatever, it serves to tip the balance further towards alternative (longer-term) storage solutions such as VRFBs, and BMN, which is good news.

A lot of folk claimed they would get in under 10p...but now we're there it is 'easier said than done' no doubt.
I grabbed more, 'at best', and as far as I'm concerned, it's just a question of waiting for the story to unfold.
As for some guys here constantly putting down those that have been enthusiastic about their share ownership...
nothing better to do with your time, guys?

It feels like there is a degree of 'hush-hush' surrounding issues of safety (over-heating etc) with Lithium ion battery storage installations.
The biggest in the world (yes...the biggest) currently is partly shut down since Sept 4th while the authorities figure out what caused the over-heating.
And of course, classic promotional gubbins that has not ONE sentence on safety...:
https://www.burnsmcd.com/insightsnews/in-the-news/2021/08/largest-battery-storage-facility-in-world
And...did semeone say 'LG batteries' (the ones that have a recent history of recalls because of safety concerns...)....yes, they did....
This article can be viewed if you look at it via a VPN (I use Opera browser for this stuff):
https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/the-world-s-largest-battery-facility-has-gone-dormant-in-moss-landing-with-no-timetable/article_3c30ab46-1657-11ec-b44b-5ffbeeab437d.html
Ok so no-one has sustained any injury etc...but a chunk of storage is now out of operation for God-knows how long!
That's not good is it.
I mean..yes let's go for this lithium ion installation...knowing there's a chance that either it will explode and cause problems, or just overheat and cause us to shut it down for an indefinate amount of time.....and pay fire services to be on standby for the duration, That sounds like a great idea.
Meanwhile, other entities claim to have 'solved' these issues...sure they have.
It's all a fog of blarney, obfuscation and vested interests.....
I think someone is missing the point here...sure, the problem is primarily one of safety, but because we are in a commercial world, an equal and pressing problem is reliability...not to mention the expense of possible shut-downs.

Clearly it is not a question of there being a good future for BMN, it is a question of how good....and as time goes on, with greater general recognition of the benefits of VRFB versus alternatives, the picture is surely getting ever-rosier.
Another thing to consider is looking from the other direction: more wind/solar installations will be seen as viable now because of the availability of longterm storage provided by VRFB.
Note after the continuing rocket-like move from EUA, this morning we have 90% rise of FOG!
It's just too risky to stay OUT of BMN!

What's the synergy here? - I can't see anything...maybe I missed it.
And we've got so much potential already on the back-burner...

Interesting to see how other mining shares that have followed BMN's trajectory can show us what may happen...
E.g. I noticed that EUA has followed a similar path to BMN for the past year. And it shows how 'out of no-where' you can get a 60% rise within 24 hours! I'm looking at the retraces...and imaging all those clever traders pulling out with their 10/20% and missing the big stuff.
That is what I am expecting for BMN. Maybe not today...but it will happen, and I'm happy to stay in and wait.

A good talker can make anyone feel either positive or negative about virtually anything.
But is that we we really want?
Every sentence uttered to be countered by something opposite that we can conjure up?
That will lead to a stalemate.
An argument, well--presented, should always be respected. However, these forums just get stuffed with BS that has no support whatsoever.
Some call that 'an opinion', and imply it is somehow valid.
I call it the same sort of guff you find in comments in online perv-machines such as the Daily Mail online....kind of gut-reactions fuelled by some other agenda, or which may even be pure malice, or else playing some sort of one-upmanship game. Some people just have developed a bad habit of being negative by default.....
Anyway, in my opinion (!) this is all about price.
If the price was rising no-one would give a toss about the comments.
It's bitterness, plus some people saying something like 'hey you bigged-up the company...but the price has been dropping, so you are just a deluded ramper'.
I for one do not devalue BMN because the price has been falling, because I'm playing a long game.
Unless we hear news indicating the collapse of the company...I'm staying in.
Meanwhile...absolutely happy to her anything +ve/-ve that anyone has to say about any aspect of the company, as long as they make their point rather than spew out 'this is going to the moon' or 'the bod are rubbish' or whatever....

I have seen a number of cost-comparisons between various competing battery technologies. Sure, most are a couple of years old, but not all...but VRFB typically does not feature strongly.
However, I'm not seeing anything that takes into account the recyclability of the vanadium/electrolyte of VRFBs.
(Yes, it is mentioned, but not really reflected in the cost comparisons)
It looks obvious to me that if this were taken into account, VRFBs position would be radically different from the typical consensus.
Have I missed something?
Or is it really the case that this has been generally overlooked?
Perhaps only 'up front' costs are looked at...when a more hollistic view might favour VRFBs....

I see this is on tomorrow morning. Might be interesting. (Need to fill in email/name to register)
https://www.pathto100.org/event/batteries-and-beyond-the-future-of-energy-storage/

Reading opinion here on why the BMN price has been falling has shown one thing...no-one has an answer, but a number of opinions jump in and out of fashion!
Well...here's another one:
I've suddenly noticed that a lot of my smaller speculative holdings in the battery/energy sector dropped off in price after achieving highs around December 2020-January 2021, and have been falling since (e.g. CWR, LECN, ENR follow very similar price trajectory to BMN). Other companies in new technologies have done similar (e.g. PRSM), as have a number of precious metals and miners.
So things were getting frothy by the end of 2020, particularly in the alternative energy sector, and there has been a sell-off.
Now, it is true that BMN seemingly has no value currently ascribed to its energy arm. However, it is THAT that has been speculated upon, I believe....'an investment in the future' as it were.
People have not paid much attention to fundamentals, and instead have been seduced by all the lolly apparently flowing into the secor.
But like all investment in new things, there is often froth followed by a sell-off before reliable growth.
I'm happy to stay put, and unlike our new 'friend', have no interest in risking this once-in-a lfetime opportunity for an even riskier get-out/back-in and crossing my fingers for an 'expected' measley 10-20% gain.....(What...even taking account of spread and charges? Good luck with that...)

Looking at the recent Australian (Tesla) battery fire:
Since manufacturers of Lithium ion battery fire suppresents are all over the internet showing off, how is that the battery fire of Tesla actually existed??
Surely it would have had the best of what's available in that area?
E.g. Guy from Siemens here, talking about using nitrogen, says
'...in this way you can be 100% sure of protecting your energy storage assets'. (7:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_cEw-oSqT4
Well....something is not adding up here!

I looked at the spec..
It says:
'In the case of fire inside the container, the cabinet will contain the fire and prevent its spread outside the container.'
That is quite a statement!
If true, it surely would show that fire supression is not an issue, and everyone would want their system.....

This sort of thing probably illustrates the current state of play re sprinkler systems. Some good info here on larger-scale lithium battery fire tests with sprinkler systems.
https://www.nfpa.org//-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Suppression/RFESSSprinklerProtection.pdf

This lack of safety oversight is glaring if one tries to get a handle on the subject...
I mean, at this time you apparently have acceptance of a (water) sprinkler system being seen as an adequate fire protection, whilst clearly recent news has shown as that those attending fires (i.e. the guys that know whats's going on...the professionals) seem to have a 'wait for it to burn-out' policy (whilst crossing your fingers...).

Imagine if one of those had a problem like in Australia.....
(Having said that, I admit I am making a superficial comment here...for all I know they have some sort of 'state-of-the-art' safety system implemented)

Interesting to read the plans...
This presumably was proposed in 2017, and one can see zero mention of fires-safety consideratons! I wonder whether the project will go ahead without substantial modfications, because it seems authorities worldwide are starting to take note of the fire/poison fume aspect of these installations, and since all communities seem to have 'concerned citizens' amongst them...there will be plenty of locals scrutinising applications I'm sure.
(The word 'fire' is not even to be seen in the 18-page plannng statement. I can not believe that current proposals do not have fire-safety considerations. On the other hand....lots of things go by as a result of councillor grand-standing/making wonga...whatever))