Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
I notice that no-one is providing a value-argument against Bushveld...which I see as a +ve.
I mean...no-one even addresses the obvious (e.g. will Vanadium be the element of choice in future VRFBs).
Instead, it's all about 'the big seller'/mm manipulation, and 'strikes' (see how that latter has by now been amplified by some commentators even though they know no more than anyone else about it......), and other noise not really connected ro the future of the company.
This remains a bargain...even at 5p below 20p, or 13.5p above 1.5p....or whatever your mark of preference.
Sentiment can change, but intrinsic value...that would be less easy to diminish.
Bushveld is not the only company currently under-valued, and other companies even in less risky sectors have recently moved price far more strongly, through sentiment as a result of issues surrounding Covid, say.
That's pretty cynical!
I mentioned topping-up because one or two people were looking for a bit of support. (And I did top-up...because I believe the company is hugely under-appreciated currently.)
After all, no-one likes a paper loss, never mind a real one.
We are tryng to maintain the positon that the company is undervalued.
If you disagree...what is it that has been said that is untrue about value?
Thanks, I've seen some of these.
However, there seems to be a plethora of comparative assessments that neglect the recycling aspect, and merely hammer-home the relatively high cost of Vanadium. Sure, everyone is more short-termist, which might account for a lot of that.
It does however seem an odd thing to overlook, so I assume it is not sufficiently 'out there' yet, in spite of being seemingly visible.
One can however see that VRFBs are in the news more and more...so it's all good.
I've been looking at articles that deal with comparative costs of energy storage solutions, and have yet to find a single one that takes into account the recyclability of vanadium in the electrolyte, which is surely at least a small elephant in the room in terms of costing, if looking beyond the initial outlay.
Am I wrong to see this as a huge ommision...since the number one 'issue' with VRFBs seems to be it's apparent high cost compared to competitive systems?
Re painting the company green: that will surely help. There are just so many new investment funds springing up in that area. I often look at their portfolio holdings where possible...and clearly they do look for green credentials. But also where the direction is towards green.
For example, Drax, which is due to be divesting itself of coal-powered stations this year and next, is a big holding in some green energy funds. I feel sure that some these fund managers have got more than an eye on Bushveld Minerals.
Having read a few more articles on the application of different battery chemistries, I see the big hurdle is cost. Too often, if VFRB is mentioned at all, it is seemingly dismissed because of cost of raw materials ('vanadium').
But wait a minute.....surely ths is absolutely blown away if one considers the ability to recycle the raw material?
To me that makes no sense: why isn't that huge cost advantage being taken note of?
(US Vanadium claims 97% recyclable: https://usvanadium.com/u-s-vanadium-successfully-recycles-electrolyte-from-vanadium-redox-flow-batteries-at-a-97-recovery-rate/)
I know it is mentioned here as part of the package, but still...the amount of articles on the subject that does not consider this aspect is seemingly unbelieable.
Btw...this is an interesting talk by an MIT professor, going over a lot of ground on comparison of different battery chemistries in particular in relation to cost of domestic energy, plus typical life-cycles etc.
From about 40:20 for the battery storage stuff, til about 54:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76q-9q7ZDg
Yes he's not 'big' on VRFB...but gives a good overview of the area, and things to consider.
The guy supported his system by saying he'd done well over the past 9 months....I expect there are an unprecedented number of investors who did well over the last 9 months!
It strikes me that these systems only work sometimes, if backed by disciplined 'money management'. Your comment about the Grand Old Duke Of York pretty much sums them all up!
At least it is bigging-up Bushveld Minerals, so hopefully it will attract more eyeballs to the cause, and people will then look at the fundamental undervaluing of the company.
Everything is in place, and one can sense a momentum. The investors will come in.
Just be thankfull that the shares can be purchased at a bargain price.
There are plenty of other companies that are fully-valued, and one is always welcome to invest there, if that is what is desired!
No..I'd personally prefer to see steady progress rather than spikes up/down. That will also entice longer-term investors rather than short-term traders. I think the company will look a lot more investable if the major shareholders were not just bundled nominee accounts.
The news is good, and the price is rising...that'll do for now.
'It certainly deserved a place in every green energy investor's portfolio'
That's surely viable by now...
Having looked at VRFB for a while, it is clear as crystal that its profile is emerging publicly...and this is just the start.
I think a lot of folk were just not seeing that eg Lithium ion was to now the only viable solution simply because it had been heavily invested in because of use in small devices and more recently in electric vehicles. We are now entering a new age of renewable energy storage, where competitors such as VRFB will not only catch up, but surpass Lithium ion solutions, because of their unique advantages.
This is not that big....the budget had very little to say about longterm energy storage
The only thing was a £68m grant for uk-wide energy storage implementations, including longer term storage.
The reason Lithium Ion etc is not included is because the competition is not open to solutions that are currently deployed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/longer-duration-energy-storage-demonstration/proposal-for-the-longer-duration-energy-storage-demonstration-innovation-competition.
I think we aren't doing so badly today....the whole 'new energy' sector has taken quite a hit. All my little stocks in that area have dropped, as well as the funds, anda big fall for Rio Tinto and other raw materials miners.
Perhaps it is cheaper, less messy and more 'certain' to look after future prices by using financial instruments? Maybe investors in companies won't all think that tieing up huge capital in purchasing years' supplies of raw materials is a great idea..
Do companes really want to add this extra gamble into their strategies?
People who hoarded toilet rolls at the start of covid looked even more stupid when the shelves were re-stocked a week later!
Sure...but if you live in a place where you only get a short period of real cold, it's worth comparing cost of say electric/gas heating support with the extra expense and pullaver of installing ground-source! I lived in an old place once and was quoted over 70k for ground-source system including bore holes (couldn't access space for the alternative system)
This indeed sounds like a very interesting sideline. The notion of making use of by-products is of course not new, but somehow it all sounds very good in the context of the new energy revolution.
I know a famly in central Ireland with an air-source heat pump. It is hardly on at all, yet gives them all the heat they need in a large house (new-build).
Perhaps folk are insecure about trusting judgement ('fundamentals research') versus 'following the flow'?
I'm sure many here are following a few companies that they deem currently to be under-valued within the area of energy transfer. I sure am. It has to be a given that there is a seismic shift in Global energy going on and into the future. There may well be a bubble in investment there at some point...but no-one really knows if or when that will pop. Meanwhile the magnitude of growth is an unknown, but it will happen. The raw materials element alone should be enough to turn heads as far as BMN.
It is as they say a no-brainer.
An alternative of dipping in-out of BMN based on moving averages and what-not would be too nerve-wracking in my view.
Sure...why not use a rear-view mirror to assess that strategy (!)
But each to their own.....
I wonder how things will change once the regulators catch up with the growth in storage battery installations. Seems to be an amount of consultation on the matter going on recently...Also clearly insurers are going to be more heavily involved, and one would think these two factors will make a flow battery solution that much more viable, because it will come down to $$.