Member Info for Valii

Https://www.itia.info/

Toneman

Have any sodium -ion batteries caught fire?

FS Thanks for your interesting post.

I am wondering whether 1 Vanadium flow battery will be more cost effective for long duration storage than 2 or 3 sodium ion batteries that might be used one after the other to provide 2 or three lots of 4 hour coverage i.e totalling 8 or 12 hours. Do you have any figures for the all in costs of the competitors?

Hi Prop - please would you paste in?

Re final paragraph of last RNS.. 10% bonus shares free.

10% of the equity is likely to be worth $110m+ on an NPV basis, using last weeks tungsten prices. (Higher again this week)

So what do the other existing shareholders receive in return? The 3 parties that have been lined up to provide the bridging finance have agreed to convert their loan notes (to the extent that the 30% resulting shareholding is breached) into shares buying them at 3p a share,. Is that not enough of an incentive to convert ? Why does the company need to offer 10% free shares as well? Interesting that the 3 parties seem to be represented on the board.

It seems to me shareholders other than the "3" should vote this down at the EGM

Mumble2021 "In a primary issue no value is transferred from existing shareholders to institutions ................"

If it is a discounted placing, value is transferred. Let me give you an example

A company has 100 shares each valued by the market at £1. So a shareholder with 50 shares has £50 of value

It decides to issue another 200 shares to an institution at a discounted price of 80p per share. The company receives £160 and is then worth the £100 before plus the £160, so a total of £260.

The shareholder with 50 shares now has 50/300 x 260 of value, i.e. £43.33. . Value of £6.67 has been transferred to the institution.

The argument for discounted placings, is that it is quick and easy to raise the money and may take place when existing shareholders are unwilling to invest more in their company. If a high return can be gained on the new money all may benefit - especially the institution.

The law protects small shareholders from being diluted in this way. The law gives existing shareholders pre-emption rights. i.e. the right to be first in the queue to provide new money so that they get the benefit of a discount.

Companies often seek to get around this protection of shareholders by passing a resolution at an AGM to disapply pre-emption rights.

NorfolkRhapsody Thanks for posting.

Not only is investment demand increasing, but demand for industrial purposes is rising too. Data centres and battery cathodes are new sources of demand the latter potentially being large. Having seen the explosion in the price of tungsten investors are now very much aware of how a proce inelastic commodity in short supply can move.

"The whole business of discounted share issues that needs much tighter control, and the absence of that control does the reputation of the LSE no good at all. "

Quite right. But to some extent the control is in the hands of shareholders already. We can vote against the resolution to disapply pre- emptions rights if we wish. If we don't or we invest in companies that have dis-applied those rights we have ourselves to blame.

Hi 2phevs

Any chance you could copy and paste the article here please?

Daltry

There was a 1 for 10 consolidation There was little change today.

Suggest we move to the new Board under TIN CUSN is going

Institutional buying? And at the right spot on the Lasonde curve....................

And at 8p mkt Cap £100m

There are 125,450,089 ordinary shares so at £1/share £125m+ mkt cap

NPV as below at current tin prices just for the South Crofty project £312m (That excludes all other assets)

See

https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1766050551/leaf-prod/212/documents/Cornish_Metals_-_Corp_PPT_-_December_2025_hfz1di.pdf

The tin price is now some 25% above that used in the NPV calculation. Substituting the current tin price in would leave the NPV of the project at £312m.

If M&G sold in the market, they should buy back in the market like everyone else. To be given a grubby discount deal not offered to retail investors is diluting us and not acting in our best interests.

The board should be forced to justify their actions. Moral is NEVER sign away Pre emption rights in votes at AGMs. Time and time again it results in value belonging to retail investors being quietly transfered to institutions. Another example of which is currently going on at TUN.

Take a look at the TUN board posts. With the price of tungsten rising rapidly and APT having risen through $1000/mtu in Europe, TUN's Hemerdon project down the road from Redmoor is rising shrply in vlaue. This is great news for us, because TUN needs more ore to process. Our ore is the obvious answer. And our ore appears to be 4-5 times the grade of the Hemerdon ore.

$110m is not bad for agreeing to convert around £6m of CLNs (into ordinary shares at 3p) rather than having them repaid, and providing a bridging loan of £4m paying 15% - which other parties would be willing to do - if they had been offered the opportunity.

Who are the parties receiving the bonus shares potentially worth $110m? Lansdowne, Henry Maxey and Drakewood. - Look who is on the board or who has board representation. Lansdowne is represented by Mr Bourgourd, and the Drakewood/Maxey concert party is likely represented by Mr Maxey on the BoD.

Who is paying for this? All the other shareholders.

The recent RNS states "Additional B-Shares

The Company has agreed to issue additional B-Shares representing 10% of the total number of Ordinary Shares that are due on full conversion ("Additional B-Shares") to each of Lansdowne, Henry Maxey and Drakewood, ....................."

It appears this bonus issue - assuming it is 10% only once, not three times, is therefore worth around $110m Over generous?

Using linear interpolation on the figures on the company's latest investor presentation page 16, suggests the project NPV at current prices is over $1.1bn.