Storage of Electricity – #Batteries & BIG imageThis discussion provides the current and future of of Li, G, NAM; H2O and more…
After Fukushima REBECCA JOHNSON 24 March 2011 https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rebecca-johnson/after-fukushima
LONG TSX-V: GGG $0.25 OTCQB: $GPHBF $0.19, July 28, 2016 Graphene 3D Lab Introduces New Type of Single Layer Graphene Material:
http://www.graphene3dlab.com/s/news.asp?ReportID=757543&_Type=News&_Title=Graphene-3D-Lab-Introduces-New-Type-of-Single-Layer-Graphene-Material
$GLFN – http://galenfeha.com/ and #Gummune
…
Author: arch1 Comment: http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2016/03/microblog-club-house-for-the-discussion-of-religion-politics-and-other-unmentionables-volume-5/comment-page-17/#comment-4886050 New development for battery research to make electric vehicles practical and cost competitive…
Best2You ~ Benjamin @H0U3
This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
VC deal money into the battery boom….lost the post but someone just posted a link to an article that recapped venture money into battery startups. The money in 2017 was $ 1.5 billion.
What is interesting is to look at the average money by deal. A lot of them are in the $30 to 60 million dollar range for a start-up.
Compare this to SPNRF at a $10 million cap, and by inference roughly a $60 million cap value for Pu Neng. This is clearly a mismatch and a gross distortion.
Pu Neng has a proven technology and installations, an inside track in China, and immediate prospects for dramatic business. They are taking orders, they are operational, and they are connected. How can Pu Neng possibly not be worth many times the initial capital put into an average start-up ?
Ashton reported that Friedland has already put about $100 million getting Pu Neng
operational. This is another indication that the cap value of Pu Neng could already
be several hundred million. Even at just $ 100 million, the attributable cap value of Sparton’s 15% would be 50% over the current stock price.
Note – I based my $100 million on the $90 million cited at the link, combined with a few other tidbits I gathered regarding investment expenditures that had to have occurred subsequent to that 25 May 2017 press release. I am very confident that $100 million is a conservative number.
http://www.punengenergy.com/en/news_con.aspx?id=276&type=65
Ashton…I agree totally. I took your $90 million (at face value) and made some reasonable assumptions that the expenses were ongoing and higher than published. Conclusion being that Friedland has put in over $ 100 million into Pu Neng.
This therefore puts a figure on 18% of the investment alone that far exceeds $SRI market cap. And that is from May 2017, eight months ago.
Long $SRI $SPNRF
Ashton…the hundred million Friedland has sunk into Pu Neng was one of the very gross parameters I looked at in taking a guess about what Pu Neng might be worth someday.
Basically I just don’t think RF would put $100 million into something that he didn’t think has at least $1 billion in cap potential. It is not worth his time and attention for less than that.
I agree entirely, and it is the prime reason that Sparton remains on my close watch list despite my other concerns (something I have never done where my concerns are largely liquidity related).
If I see nothing from Barker by end February concerning the teaser he left me with, I will be calling him.
$MGXMF – MGX Minerals Increases Ownership Stake in Cleantech Engineering Partner PurLucid Treatment Solutions to 51%
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA / January 25, 2018 / MGX Minerals Inc. (“MGX” or the “Company”) (CSE: XMG / OTCQB: MGXMF / FKT: 1MG) is pleased to report the Company is exercising its option to acquire an additional 5% ownership interest in engineering partner PurLucid Treatment Solutions (“PurLucid”) from existing shareholders in exchange for 1 million MGX shares. The Phase IV investment agreement share option exercise increases MGX’s ownership in PurLucid to 51%. The Company maintains the right to acquire 100% through successive future investments.
Since announcing an acquisition and engineering partnership agreement in September 2016, MGX and PurLucid have invented new technology and filed patent applications related to brine treatment and selective lithium recovery. PurLucid’s licensed nanoflotation technology, which purifies wastewater brine, has since been integrated with a newly developed lithium recovery process. MGX holds the global rights to the jointly developed lithium extraction technology. MGX and Purlucid are now commissioning the first 750 barrel per day system, with flow testing expected to be completed shortly.
About PurLucid
PurLucid’s exclusively licensed and patented nanoflotation technology was designed specifically for oilfield environments. The technology separates impurities from oil and gas wastewater and produces clean water as a final product. This allows for the recycling or controlled release of oilfield wastewater and reduces or eliminates downhole and associated transportation costs. Water handling costs are one of the largest operating costs in the oilfield and oilsands operations today. Learn more at http://www.purlucid.com.
About MGX Minerals
MGX Minerals is a diversified Canadian resource company with interests in advanced material and energy assets throughout North America. Learn more at http://www.mgxminerals.com.
Contact Information
Jared Lazerson
President & CEO
Telephone: 1.604.681.7735
Web: http://www.mgxminerals.com
Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking information or forward-looking statements (collectively “forward-looking information”) within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information is typically identified by words such as: “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “estimate”, “postulate” and similar expressions, or are those, which, by their nature, refer to future events. The Company cautions investors that any forward-looking information provided by the Company is not a guarantee of future results or performance, and that actual results may differ materially from those in forward-looking information as a result of various factors. The reader is referred to the Company’s public filings for a more complete discussion of such risk factors and their potential effects which may be accessed through the Company’s profile on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com.
You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to receive news alerts from MGX Minerals. Our Mailing Address is 1080 Howe St., Suite 303, Vancouver, BC V6C 2T1. best2all
N.B.: Cleantech is not the same as Clean Teq Holdings.
$MGX
Here ye Hear ye……
How about working with Clean Teq in the future?
http://thecse.com/sites/default/files/PR-1-25-2018.pdf
Well of course, Some Gr8Full Dude got the info out before it was released 😉
Now I see it. Good job as always Ben…..
I think both can be and are likely to be big winners. But I do not see anything really synergistic between Pu Neng and MGX, or Clean Teq and MGX.
Their priorities are the same: get up and running and get lots of contracts in batteries. They don’t seem to have much to offer each other.
They seem to have pretty separate area of expertise; even though they both have battery interest, Pu Neng is vanadium-based and MGX one is zinc-based. So they will fight over contracts.
The other chief area of competition, with respect to Clean Teq and MGX, seems to be in the waste water treatment of petro, coke and coal wastewater, where Teck and MGX appear to have somewhat of an advantage over Clean Teq.
However I think there is plenty of business to go around. They will both be looking for capital to expand and fulfill their order logs.
Regarding lithium, Clean Teq didn’t even indicate that they can extract it, although I suspect they can and they just don’t want to offer it. On the other hand, lithium is of major interest to MGX.
In China, while both may be talking to coal mines I think the emphasis is different.
MGX wants to clean them up, Friedland wants vanadium. MGX has no reason at this point rto go after vanadium projects, while it is a major priority for Friedland Pu Neng. Clean Teq’s role in such a project is conjectural on my part.
Teck appears to be copying key elements of Friedland’s grand strategy,.but Teck has its own unique set of resources and expertise. They look like they deliberately avoided going head to head with Friedland and Clean Teq wherever possible.
Of course, in battery storage and coal waste, the conflict is unavoidable. But the other areas of MGX’s interest are pretty different from those of Clean Teq and the other Friedland companies, aside from zinc.
MGX/Teck has lithium, magnesium, silica, coal, petro.
Clean Teq has scandium, cobalt, nickel; add in copper, zinc, and PGMs. for Ivan.
Long both tickers.
$MGX
A link below to a vanadium library and papers.
http://vanitec.org/technical-library
Edski, nice link on Vanitec.
The technically-oriented should have a blast on that site.
Most of the papers seem oriented towards vanadium in steel alloys, which is natural since that has been the primary application. But there was one paper on the front page that had this:
“Vanadium Supply for VRB Applications
Abstract:
Only a very small percent of the global vanadium supply… is capable of producing “high purity” vanadium compunds which may be necessary for… VRB system applications. [ VFB demand] could result in an increase in demand for “high purity” vanadium compounds [of over] 45% of current production capacity….”
**
Somewhere else I read that these higher purity vanadium compounds can cost 40% more than ferro-vanadium.
One wonders how efficiently the Clean Teq methods will be compared to the existing methods of producing these compounds. And one becomes pretty sure that finding good vanadium deposits is a very high priority for Friedland & Company.
Thanks edski ! I liked this on Batteries…. http://vanitec.org/images/papers/Vanadium_Supply_for_VRB_Applications_Perles_may_30_2016.pdf ….Cowboy
$VRB $
Yer welcome. I have been trying to determine which way to go with vanadium as an investment, and I chose $VRB, because of being in a friendly country and mining district, the high grades, and close proximity to infrastructure.
“””The Company’s Phase II trial production plant in Boucherville, Quebec is now transforming global VTM, slags and calcine into multiple vanadium, iron and titanium products”””
It is located within a large area of actively producing mines.
I chose it as my “dreamcatcher” in the vanadium cosmos.
I also wonder how long people have been reclaiming vanadium from steel and how much it produces.
Sometimes we keep forgetting that there is not only ONE way to do something, and we need choices for every situation. Look at Nuclear energy! There is certainly other ways to make nuclear power, but look how long it has been and the lack of change in construction of reactors.
edski…thanks much for $VRB. Very interesting.
US : $APAFF
10 cents 30 million market cap
edski,
Came across this on HC, not sure how relevant it is?
Canadian company VanadiumCorp Resource signed a deal over the last week with a developer to achieve a more green/efficient chemical process for treating vanadium, steel, and iron.
A notable advancement given the historical polluting effects of previous processing techniques. These breakthroughs are a promising indicator that the vanadium is attracting interest from varying segments of the supply chain.
Links relating to the deal can be found below.
https://investingnews.com/daily/res…sting/canadian-firm-new-way-process-vanadium/
VanadiumCorp Resource (TSXV:VRB) has signed a partnership deal with Electrochem Technologies & Materials to develop a “green” chemical process for producing vanadium and other co-products.
Adriaan Bakker, CEO of VanadiumCorp, said in a Tuesday (January 16) release that the monetization of vanadium, iron and titanium “provides a distinct advantage” for the company’s 100-percent-owned VTM (vanadiferous titanomagnetite) resources.
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas…inc-sign-partnership-agreement-669637833.html
This thread below on vone and links within is interesting
https://ceo.ca/vone
$VRB $MGX
Good morning. All links welcome, as they say. Some may think I am a learned man after posting the link to the library, but I try and get as much information as possible since I need all the help I can get.
Another big thing for me, is the inescapable feeling and history of Chinese Failures and lost monies and promises in business dealings. I think that your Spartan pick is as close as you get to an active buy-in in China,…But!……I am very hesitant to get in and stuck in that “Hairball”. More dots to connect there than freckles on an Irish Lass, for me.
I just now had another mixup with BLDP, Ballard Power’s deal gone sour with a Chinese firm Broad Ocean concerning hydrogen powered vehicles. I think the market overreacted to a downgrade and will stay the course with my small position.
I also have PLUG, (Plug Power) together with BLDP as a cover on Hydrogen powered vehicles. I am trying to cover electric vehicles thru the chemicals and elements needed for such, instead of a company.
Now you know where I am coming from and where I’m at.
Let’s go get em’…..
Benjamin just posted this…..
https://www.energyandcapital.com/report/even-amazon-is-investing-in-hydrogen/2353
Some interesting posts on the new $TSLA article by Travis this a.m. 🙂
Full article link: https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/profits-unlimited/mampillys-bigger-than-amazon-and-google-combined-stock-tease/
Author: tomtom73 Comment:
All the schemes for electric vehicles and non-carbon fueled electric generation are based on foolish government money grants/incentives/tax incentives. Even with government favors the schemes barely break even or get close to making a profit.
Also, the battery storage technology has hit a wall, even with lithium as the periodic table of elements offers no successor element that will work. Electric vehicles will have a limited range and will be dependent on an electric grid or infrastructure not much different from what we have now. Few want more hydroelectric dams or nuclear plants and carbon fuels are about the only way to do 24/7 and quick startup for peak loads.
Tesla may have an interesting niche product for those with extra disposable income or status seeking but don’t bet on it for the mass market.
Author: pieter132 Comment:
Another development which is increasingly pushed by many western governments which if you analyse the energy capacity of
electric cars and their performance it really borders at insanity that our so called leaders push for such a wrong direction.
you can read the battery technology is still insane poor in 2017.
Battery capacity by 2030 is said to be 240Whr/kg. The energy content of propane is 13,900Whr/kg (availabe and guaranteed NOW) – some 58x more energy dense. Even after factoring in losses due to energy change the comparisons are still orders of magnitude different.
There is zero reason to move to EVs given the abundance of fracked gas (LNG) availability – the push for EV’s is the usual corporate/banking inspired scam to perpetuate the debt cycle by forcing change onto a market that doesn’t want it or need it.
Another development which is increasingly pushed by many western governments which if you analyse the energy capacity of
electric cars and their performance it really borders at insanity that our so called leaders push for such a wrong direction.
Still the world will move into EV just I would like to know how they ever gonna charge even 10% of the global car fleet if they would drive electrical.
Exactly right, that electric battery cars are a long way off for distance travelers, and only acceptable for inner city dealings, but right now, most of the vehicles are luxury plug-in hybrid electric vehicles getting the attention. I mean come on….all of that subsidized money going into high end cars? (Fisker – Tesla) It is not like the space program where most inventions are brought to the masses. I think that is the wrong type of business model to subsidize.
1807. The year of the first hydrogen and oxygen run vehicle. What happened? Oil barons decided what was best.
http://www.automostory.com/first-hydrogen-car.htm
As I mentioned before, There is space for many kinds of technology to be used, some serving a specific purpose that can only use one form of power/driver/energy.
A power source…., we don’t only use only one way of generation, and don’t need to. Heh….when I was a kid, (the 60’s) the teachers told us that one day, out whole house would be powered by a little box (ironically the size of a car battery) by Nuclear energy.
You are in the right place, I think.
We are trying to do the same thing…buy the commodites that will benefit from the big trends.
Your hesitation about a Chinese domicile is understandable. Everyone has to go with their comfort level. I have a similar misgiving but to a lesser degree.
Thanks for your constructive and informative posts.
Edski, I want to thank you for the above post on the the 26th re: $BLDP and $PLUG. I’ve been wanting to establish a position in these two for some time after much DD and did so immediately after your post. #Best2YOU and ALL!
Heh….I am HONORED oh Gr8One!
Lee Barkers tease to Ashton, could it be has news on a significant vanadium discovery or an imminent deal brewing?? Suggested this as I didn’t really see Barker throwing one out just for the sake of it…..
For reference from the Vanitec link below:
Summary •
Only a very small percent of the global vanadium supply base is capable of producing “high purity” vanadium compounds which may be necessary for future VRB system applications •
And we know for sure that Friedland is hunting this one down….
Long $SRI
You may be right SS concerning the tease Lee Barker left me with. He definitely has made inroads with the Chinese vanadium community that no one else has, and he has also referred the very high quality of the deposits he is pursuing on more than one occasion.
He knows our community wants to get in on the vanadium/VRB opportunity in China, and he certainly left me with the impression that he and Sparton might be offer something new in that regard in the near future. And I’m quite certain I didn’t misinterpret the message he was trying to convey.
Thanks Ashton, now imo with the last few posts on here confirming short supply of the higher grade and it seems most of these are in China with Friedland vigorously pursuing vanadium there it can only add to speculation of what Barker has up his sleeve.
Worth further DD around this….
$SRI SPNRF…there are really only a few things we know for sure.
Vstar is 90% owned by Sparton and Vstar holds 18% of Pu Neng. The assets accumulated by Barker that are related to vanadium are in Vstar.
Barker and Sparton are on their own in terms of non-vanadium exploration and development.
**
On vanadium exploration, the role of Sparton and Barker on the one hand, and the Friedland interests on the other is a little muddied because Barker has a Board seat on Pu Neng.
I get the feeling there is a competitive situation between Barker/Sparton and Friedland in terms of landing Chinese vanadium properties.
And it is for sure that if Friedland saw a chance to get back the 18% interest in Pu Neng held in Vstar, he would waste no time doing it.
Barker was unwilling to fold in 100% his efforts, contacts, and potentials for the 18% of Pu Neng offered by Friedland; so he held out
some degree of independence, and basically has a fishing license for vanadium properties that may or may not pay off. If he lands a deal and it is good for Pu Neng or some other entity to do a deal with him, well and good; but such a deal needs to be accomplished while Friedland is trying to do the same thing.
Friedland has corporate muscle, contacts, and financial power; Barker is a geologist with years on the ground and some important IP.
I would tend to bet on Friedland, if I were able to do so, to do a deal first on vanadium or coal; but even if he is first, and Barker does nothing, Vstar has 18% of Pu Neng, and Sparton has 90% of Vstar.
HN – My research leads me to believe that VanSpar still exists, that Sparton still owns 87.46% of VanSpar, and that it is VanSpar that owns 18% of Pu Neng.
As I understood it, everything in which VanSpar was involved was transferred to Vstar except for the Pu Neng interest. Vstar was created to serve as the umbrella under which Sparton could continue to explore vanadium opportunities independently of VanSpar – not to hold the Pu Neng investment.
Have you found something I might have missed?
Ashton, gotta check…I thought ALL the vanadium-related assets and activities of Vanspar were transferred to Vstar, including the Pu Neng interest.
Correct hn, I’m also hoping and thinking that the combination and competiness between Friedland and Barker is a win win for all. Both or either could come up with the goods.
As a side note Barkers little gold project might uncover something to.
Barker’s gold project and vanadium project could be something. But I would rather let them be a net zero or sell them off and take the passive 18% of Pu Neng on futures.
$FYI – Vanadium Price Reached 8-Year High Today; Analyst Coverage Going Mainstream
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4140192-vanadium-price-reached-8-year-high-today-analyst-coverage-going-mainstream?uprof=46&isDirectRoadblock=true
note; the author is John Lee, Chairman of Prophecy Development a vanadium project in Nevada.
$ECSIF long
Griffin…the Seeking Alpha article is extremely interesting, and not just on account of the companies covered.
What is fascinating is that John Lee is the Chairman of a vanadium company, and is writing a comparison of two developers in a mainstream investment site.
This is a very interesting thing.
John is Chairman of Prophecy, so we should have our eyes open; but we would want to find where his analysis is biassed. He may be biassed but accurate.
And it is also interesting to see what factors a CEO in mining thinks considers important, and what his analystical method are.
Lee also quotes sources and comments about the metals business in China.
**
The main problem is that Mr. Lee is comparing a vanadium developer with a cobalt developer. He acknowledges this and justifies it by pointing out there are no active US vanadium projects, and at least cobalt and vanadium are two strategic metals needed in the trend towards electrification. But I would be reluctant to compare the metrics of a silver developer and a gold developer, by way of illustration.
Lee also refers to past historical price movements in other commodities.
This is fair but is hard to take as strong evidence when trying to evaluate a developer.
On the other hand, the picture he paints on vanadium supplies indicates to me that the shortage for high-grade vanadium is going to be even more extreme than the one forecasted by many for cobalt. This is mostly a qualitative description, but from the figures and the ted-bits, vanadium prices could really go through the roof fast. Separate post on that coming.
**
The article is a timely illustration of the issue called out by Noaln Watson.
Junior miners need to find new ways of promoting themselves and gaining financial and stock price support.
John Lee, CEO of a vanadium developer, appears to be in agreement.
**
No position in any of the companies mentioned.
HN – I too have been doing a bit of research on Prophesy and John Lee. He is quite a prolific writer and openly promotes his company, with which I have no problem as he seems fairly honest and objective. You may wish to read his article that immediately precedes the one Griffin cites, in which he talks about Pu Neng and China: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135351-u-s-energy-storage-surges-46-percent-q3-2018-breakout-year-vanadium-batteries
You should also note that John Lee is also the Founder, Principal and Portfolio Manager of the hedge fund “MAU Capital Management” (note – Prophesy is not among its holdings).
John Lee is the Chairman of a vanadium company Prophecy Development Corp which is the operator of the Gibellini Vanadium Project. Mr. Lee chose eCobalt Solutions to compare to because the commodities share the same supply and demand characteristics. Both are the primary output of their respective mines, both have limited supply, and both have a growing demand otherwise there is not much the same, from the supply and demand it makes sense.
Lee’s information on the global energy investment market I found interesting. His projection that Chinas demand for vanadium was going run into a deficit was noted.
I have wondered where these metal explorers get there money to buy claims. I think Watson could do very well with marketing, and financing of explorers. Prophecy and K92 are good examples of what marketing can do for SP. When American Vanadium had the Gibellini project their SP was never more than $2, Prophecy is above $3. McEwen may not be the only one that dislikes royalties so that might be an impediment..
$SAND…I think Watson will finance explorers as he has in the past…put up some dough for drilling in exchange for royalties.
Where I think we will see more creative financing and marketing involvement by Sandstorm are in the advanced development projects that have proven deposits.
We saw what he did with Hot Maden…that was an really aggressive, out-of-the-box deal. with a slam-dunk deposit.
As mentioned, I think Bear Creek is such a likely target although at present there are only dotted-line relations between the two companies.
A number of my exploration picks have fallen by the wayside,
but Watson’s keynote speech gives me a lot of optimism on Erdene and Condor, These have really great potential. I am very confident that Sandstorm will be involved in capitalizing Erdene, possibly with Teck; and I am optimistic that Condor will find something with drill bits in the ground and follow the same path.
The miners can dislike royalty and streaming deals, but they have to raise money. Mcewen may change his mind when he needs half a billion dollars to build the Los Azules mine and his stock price is in the dumps.
Griffin, Lee explained why he had to compare a cobalt company to a vanadium one…and I understand his logic, and it is a reasonable
thing to do. I am not calling his motives into question. It is probably the best he can do, if there are no other comparable vanadium projects with which which he can use.
**
But the fact is that cobalt and vanadium may have different supply/demand/price factors. There are important similarities, price-wise they move in tandem usually, and usually for similar reasons.
But there are difference, also. Gold and silver are quite similar in many respects but I would be very careful comparing a gold developer to a silver developer. In fact I tend to use rather different criteria; not that I am right to do this.
I am just calling out that the basis for the comparison may have a serious flaw in it, one that John Lee cannot avoid even if he is objective.
**
Ironically my impressions are that John Lee UNDERSTATES the potential price of VRB vanadium compared to cobalt. It is possible that he restrains himself and understates the case for vanadium, because he knows his position as CEO of a vanadium company will call his objectivity into question.
Vanadium and Cobalt: Supply and demand
I have called out the necessity of watching for bias in John Lee’s analysis becasue he is Chairman of a vanadium company. I have not detected any such bias.
In fact I surmise that Mr. Lee UNDERSTATES the bull case for vanadium, to be sure his objectivity is not called into question.
It is possible that vanadium will experience an even more severe supply/demand imbalance than is generally expected for cobalt.
**
My observations are those of an amateur, I have no special insight into either the cobalt inductry or the vanadium industry. A few weeks ago I was only vaguely aware of vanadium, and know very little about cobalt. This is still pretty much the case.
But here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
**
The world-wide consumption of cobalt is about 100,000 tons.
Cobalt has many industrial uses, but an anticipated increase in EVs and batteries is expected to be a main demand driver.
The world-wide consumption of vanadium is about 150,000 tons.
The main use of vanadium is in “ferrovanadium”, steel alloys; whereas the anticipated increases in vanadium demand is expected VRBs in power storage.
OK. So they are both expected to have increased demand on account of batteries, and the production amounts seem to be in the same order of magnitude, 1o0,000 tpy cobalt and 150,000 tpy vanadium.
So why might vanadium supply be more of an issue than cobalt supply ?
**
1. The first point of difference is the assertion that””only a small percentage” of current vanadium production is in the higher grades needed for VRBs. This higher-grade electrolyte vanadium is said to cost about 40% more than ferrovanadium.
I do not know exactly what “a small percentage” means, but I tend to think that it is a single-digit percentage since vanadium is in current use as a ferro-alloy and the VRB application is very new. But let’s be liberal, and say “a small percentage”
is 20%.
This changes the supply situation radically. We go from 150,000 tons annual vanadium, 30,000 tons (or less) high grade vanadium. So while both elements have a large anticipated increase in demand in batteries, the demand for suitable vanadium is going to be against a very small subset of existing vanadium production.
2. Speed and rate of demand increases…I have no idea whether demand for cobalt will grow at a more rapid rate than demand for vanadium. Both cobalt for EVs and vanadium for VRBs have a “safety valves”, insofar as EV adoption could slow down because we still have gasoline vehicles; and there appear to be viable alternatives to vanadium in grid storage (zinc phosphate, ferro phosphate)
Grid storage demand is going to explode, and is less likely to be disrupted than EV penetration. The battery material costs for new infrastructure less likely to slow down implementation, which is just starting out, compared to the higher cost of a consumer durable where cost will be a major factor considered by individual consumers.
And grid storage is needed regardless of how fast EVs achieve market penetration.
If the EV is too expensive, we can still buy a gas car; we can even go without a new car altogether and just gas up our old Honda Civic.
The decsion makers in grid storage are not the same decision makers who are are deciding on a retail purchase of an automobile. Incremental costs are very important to a retail buyer; less so to a utility.
3. Supplier profiles: it seems to me from a buyer’s perspective that the sourcing landscape for vanadium is even worse than for cobalt. . Both vanadium and cobalt are largely by-products, so supply is pretty ineleastic. But in vanadium, I do not see even politically incorrect options, like the DRC is for cobalt.
There do not appear to be any near-term options at all, practically speaking, for dramatic and significant increases in high-grade vanadium supply outside of China. At least the Chinese, who consume about hald of the vanadium supply on their own for steel alloys, have some good-looking deposits. But as for most of the world, we are looking at exploration and development projects that are years out before production is brought on line.
**
These are the reasons I consider it possible that vanadium could be even more of
commodity opportunity than cobalt. I am not predicting it, but it is something that would not surprise me.
**
Vanadium is plentiful;
Vanadium is the 20th most abundant element in the earth’s crust;[30] metallic vanadium is rare in nature (known as the mineral vanadium, native vanadium),[31][32] but vanadium compounds occur naturally in about 65 different minerals. Economically significant examples include patronite (VS4),[33] vanadinite (Pb5(VO4)3Cl), and carnotite (K2(UO2)2(VO4)2·3H2O). Much of the world’s vanadium production is sourced from vanadium-bearing magnetite found in ultramafic gabbro bodies. Vanadium is mined mostly in South Africa, north-western China, and eastern Russia. In 2013 these three countries mined more than 97% of the 79,000 tonnes of produced vanadium.[34]
Vanadium is also present in bauxite and in deposits of crude oil, coal, oil shale and tar sands. In crude oil, concentrations up to 1200 ppm have been reported. When such oil products are burned, traces of vanadium may cause corrosion in engines and boilers.[35] An estimated 110,000 tonnes of vanadium per year are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.[36]
Coal ash contains a lot of Vanadium,,, think Cleanteq recovery Also a lot of it in iron slag. Also brine from oil fields.
Vanadium flow batteries use it as a fluid electrolyte in a Redox reaction;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox
That means using the oxide form of vanadium and probably mixed acids primarily sulfuric so vanadium sulfide/sulfate would be ok.
Autoclaves often use sulfuric acid to leach ore,,, producing brine. Vanadium sulfate/sulfide recovery by Cleanteq?
Can and does Cleanteg recover Vanadium???
China has tremendous amount of coal ash/slag which would contain Vanadium as well as many other trace minerals and rare earths.
Maybe this will add a little spice to the soup:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vanadiumcorp-inc-phase-ii-production-210000663.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Green technology going to work.
Yes, thanks Edski, Vanadiumcorp looks like one of the few picks out there for a fairly near-term vanadium producer. I appreciate the contribution very much and am considering a position in it.
arch-uno: Some points you address.
Yes, Clean Teq lists vanadium as a recoverable metal. On their website under the “our Markets” tab, they have a periodic chart marked up with the targets they say can extract. And other sources have mentioned coal ash and coal as sources.
This is one of the reasons my antennae perked up when it was disclosed that Friedland was talking to two Chinese coal companies. What on earth is he talking to coal companies for ? He is the Grim Reaper for coal as a power source. I concluded he is after vanadium in the coal residues.
**
Another thing, the Chinese have banned importation of slag that was a prime source of vanadium. So they are driving domestic produceres into other ways of getting it. This ties in nicely with their national objectives of cleaning up pollution, as there are lots of coal dumps, minewater deposits, and other coal waste.
**
Interesting that Clean Teq does not include lithium in their targets of recoverable metals. My guess is that they can reoover it, but do not want to go after it. Friedland has expressed indifference to lithium; he probably doesn’t want a lot of distraction at Clean Teq over a metal he does not consider an unusual opportunity. Or maybe he is aware of MGX and their lithium projects, and figures he should avoid a catfight in a metal where he is not controlling the world’s best deposits.
As far as Vanadium frequency is concerned, I understand that it is relatively plentiful in the earth’s crust; but that does not mean it is easy to extract or that there are a lot of dedicated mines producing it.
**
Statistical discrepancies in world vanadium consumption and production:
The figures I have seen are pretty vague, but I took one figure I saw for Chinese consumption and extrapolted it based on what we know of the CHinese share of world market.
My figure was a lot higher than other published estimates, but this just amplifies the bull case for vanadium.
EV and battery uptake…the conservative view
Notwithsatnding my great respect for Travis and many others who are sceptical of EV/Storage uptake, let me call out a few points, say I am still of the bullish persuasion, and leave it at that.
First, on “Western governments” pushing it: it is the Chinese/Eurpoean industrialist interests that are leading the charge, and they have very good reasons for wanting to get away from fossil fuels. Please note their position in petrochemical resources, Norway excepted, compared to the US and Russia, and the corresponding enthusiam for EVs. In Russia and the US, coal and oil are plentiful.
Second, on tax breaks, this is not different than in other sectors that Governments want to encourage. For example, our government subsidizes higher education to an absurd degree, which is about as misguided a mass investment as one can make. It doesn’t matter, prices go up and people beg, borrow and steal to get the product and tuition goes up even though the product is available pretty much available for free for anyone that wants to apply themselves. The US and Great Britain legislated coal production to extinction. Good policy or bad, they can do it.
Same with EVs. China wants EVs, the government will see that they happen. A situation situation where the EVs will be attractive economically whether by technology or government carrots and sticks; then people’s self interest will do the rest.
Third, on “real costs” . At the root of it is the fact that the base raw energy solar, wind, hydro and geothermal is FREE. This undercuts arguments about efficiency and power density and so forth.
Sunlight is FREE. Wind is FREE. Contrast this to the petrochemical industry. Crude oil is not FREE.
Fourth, the problem in these alternate energies has been storage. But once energy storage has a feasible solution, the other conventional sources are going to lose an enormous amount of demand. There are figures that show that the cost of solar+storage is dropping below the cost of power TRANSMISSION from centralized power sources…forgetting about the cost of GENERATION. Once this relationship becomes widespread, everybody will go solar.
Fifth, the convergence of multiple technologies and the cost curves of industrial production favor the electric revolution. It is not just “one thing”. It is a convergence of several things. Tony Seba’s video on this point is persuasive to me.
By the time the debate is finished, we will have very visible answers on whose point of view will prove correct. We will be able to see the penetration of grid storage and EVs month by month. T
he winner in the debate will be self-evident.
If I am on the wrong side, then my copper, cobalt and vanadium stocks will not do as well as I had hoped, and I will admit that I was wrong and try to learn why I erred. . I’ve made worse mistakes.
In my haste I neglected to add Big Tech to the EV bandwagon, and Japan and Korea as countires who would like a little less imported oil on the balance of trade. India too, and the sun shines hot in the Deccan Plateau.
Note Toyota just bought into a lithium miner, of all things.
Tony Seba: Cars will be “computers on wheels.”
Meant to reply on first reading.
Pretty obvious that we are moving for certain into EV’s and that I stated previously ICE is dead, apologies to any Luddites that see it otherwise. The momentum will and us being supported by to much muscle everywhere. No doubt the same was said about the horse. True at the moment EV’s are expensive in comparison but in time this will change and very quickly imo. The Chinese for starters will do this, along with California and so many big players in this space it’s a no brainer financially and environmental.
I could go on but hn says it all and much better.
We here are in the right commodities!!
I would still be a gasoline semi-Luddite if a few readers had not posted the Tony Seba video and disrupted my brain.
There are still 99.9% of the people who have not seen the Disruption Slideshow.
**
Consider this: the early 20th century auto disruption was not supported by a fuel distribution network, a paved highway system, a legal and regulatory framework, or a big rubber industry. Yet it was adopted with overwheming speed. It is amazing how fast it caught on despite the only minor presence of supporting industrial and public infrastructure.
It is an exaggeration to say Henry Ford did it on his own…but it is not a gross exaggeration.
In comparison, the skids are completely greased for the EV revolution. The supporting systems are essentially already in place, and in fact have facilitated it: GPS, big data, computers, the Cloud, smart phones, camera technology, LIDAR, road and power networks, robotics. All there. Big tech wants this to happen.
And we have China insisting on EVs, plus the environmental lobby, plus any country not liking their oil import bill, like the EU and Japan and India; and the major auto makers are on board.
Any statist totalitarian supporter is in favor, socialist or communist or something else, because it will increase our dependency on centralized technology and hence the individual’s vulnerability and visiblity to central authority and control. Plus another tranche of people will be out of work, and likely many will become government dependents.
Compare this to the situation faced by Henry Ford.
**
Put up the charging stations, decentralize power and cut costs with solar and VRB/Zinc/whatever,
and away we go. Like it or not. Mega disruption.
Brilliant post hn, summed it up 110% exactly!!
The Tony Seba video was one of the first things I came across on my return here and what an eye opener it was, amazing. Should really be re posted for anyone that has not watched it twice at least in its entirety. Everything that now exists was once just a thought in someone’s mind.
Anyone who believes this new area is not going to happen will be mising out not only on the opportunities ahead from a financial perspecrive but more importantly where mankind is going in the very near future.
Dirty energy will become history as we all move on for a better future….
We have to find the investments that will benefit.
As soon as possible.
well. India and China come to mind.
Suzuki, the parent firm of India’s largest car-maker, Maruti Suzuki, announced its plan to set up a $600 million lithium ion-battery factory. Mahindra, too, is investing some Rs600 crore to ramp up its EV division, and is expected to launch electric variants of its popular SUVs, Scorpio and XUV 500
BYD, Kandi, and Changjiang might be 3 in China; I think BYD is private? and Changjiang does not appear to trade on a US exchange.
I hope I am not disrupting an otherwise intelligent discussion with my insert, but I think this is a very good idea. Very tough to figure out who dominates the battery business, so I would rather focus on some other aspect of this disruption.
rainsonme…there will be plenty of investment opportunities outside of batteries. Unfortunately the
most common and easiest will be shorts, there are going to be a lot of sectors badly mauled and a lot of bankruptcies.
It is going to rainonalotofpeople.
**
BYD is public, an industrial conglomerate.
I also am not looking for who will dominate batteries, per se; or betting on an unproven technical advance in batteries. I am interested in VRB and zinc battery companies that I think will emerge in the next 5 years.
I am still more interested in the commodity winners, which I see as cobalt, nickel, vanadium, and to a lesser degree zinc, graphite, lithium. Scandium will eventually benefit from light-weighting.
The options for public investors are interesting…it seems you can buy big cap companies, like Microsoft, BYD, Lockheed, Amazon, Google, Apple and the like; but the most promising small caps are either locked up tight as privates, like Uber or Lyft, or are pretty chancy long-shot start-ups in tech.
BlockChain and bitcurrency/bitcoin is on track to using as much electric power as EVs. That is a disruptive effect that no one saw coming. Bitcoin may be in a bubble and burst but blockChain is usable for many other things.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pareteum-europe-awarded-guaranteed-87-million-euro-contract-for-managed-service-platform-over-5-years-2018-01-26
A good short read for the day…https://www.popsci.com/renewable-energy-infrastructure ….Cowboy
I didn’t read anything about “shorts” Cowboy!
We are getting there, slowly but surely. I see a future of small commune’s located waaaaayyy off the grid.
Ha ! I have a habit lately of puttin long winded links on here. This one was short and sweet ! Gettin here faster than even I realized…and I work in the electric industry. I do enjoy watchin….Building off the Grid ! Wished I could !….Cowboy
I ran across this article on Scanadium here in the USA. NioCorp..NIOBF-NP…http://netnebraska.org/article/news/1113497/nebraska-niobium-mine-may-advance-soon-demand-second-mineral-increases ….Cowboy
Fixed link I hope…http://netnebraska.org/article/news/1113497/nebraska-niobium-mine-may-advance-soon-demand-second-mineral-increases ….Cowboy
I have stated in the past my thought that continued development of battery tech is critical to our world. This is not just another thing to work on, improved battery technologies must happen now IMO for the general population to have any hope to maintain a reasonable quality of life. I have more reason than ever to think so now. Over the past months I have been conducting DD related to solar cycles, there are several credible resources that I use to gain insight from. One such resource can be found with the following link: https://youtu.be/DyiOuE1oW_A. If the people I have spent much time viewing and reading are correct, we are in serious trouble. To this point in my investigation I have no reason to question the findings of this collection of researchers who, by all appearances, are sincere in their effort to state the truth of what is coming. As always everyone has to decide for his or her self what to accept and what to leave behind, that is the way life should be IMO. I cannot decide which natural resources or technologies will provide the most benefit re the production of improved battery performance, perhaps any or all discussed in this and other mining threads will play an important role. I have no problem with my conclusion that improved battery tech will open many very profitable doors, we will see how this plays out. Zinc? Vanadium? Copper? Nickle? Cobalt? Lithium? Graphite? …. Once again, any or all could play an important role but like HN gas said, you can’t kiss all the girls. I will state my belief that time is a huge factor re this play regardless of the slow pace that the mining sector moves. I view the tech and resources necessary to move battery production forward that are the front runners when TSHTF will be the winners. FYI we are currently entering Solar Cycle 25 (early stage Eddy Minimum). Best.
While late to join this thread, I think it is a very useful forum to discuss the technologies being developed in battery and electric power, their impact, and the companies that develop them.
Will post next week on the direction for the Hard Asset and Clean Teq threads.
MGXMF…Found this today from Critical Investor…http://www.criticalinvestor.eu/analysis/lithium/critical-q-mgx-minerals-ceo-jared-lazerson ….Cowboy
MGXMF…..Is on these Guys Top 10 list for 2018….http://bergdex.com/2018-top-10/ ….Cowboy
Yes Cowboy noticed that, also Noble Minerals which I’ve held for a good while. Np MGX but seriously looking to enter……
Ashton: Re: Vanspar and Vstar
**
January 2 Sparton news release:
“VStar is a 90% owned subsidiary of the Company recently incorporated in the British Virgin Islands….to deal with the evaluation and development of vanadium related opportunities which were formerly the mandate of VanSpar Mining Inc., the Company’s 87.46% owned subsidiary.
All vanadium related interests and activities previously held and overseen by VanSpar will now be held and managed by VStar going forward. ”
I interpreted this to include the 18% interest in Pu Neng. I thought it was a “vanadium related opportunity”. Do you have information to the contrary ?
HN – I will e-mail Lee Barker on this tomorrow, but I don’t read it that way at all. Pu Neng is a VRB opportunity, not vanadium. It doesn’t even have contracted vanadium suppliers at this point as far as I can see.
Vstar was incorporated about the same time the acquisition deal was closed in August of 2017, and I would have thought that if the minority ownership interest was going to be transferred, it would have been part of the many media releases surrounding the acquisition agreement.
I also noted that the 5 December 2017 press release makes it clear that, at least at that point, that the minority interest was still held by VanSpar. Moreover, the VanSpar website is still up and running and advertising the 18% ownership in Pu Neng.
Finally, you will note that the very first press release that refers to Vstar makes absolutely no mention of Pu Neng, which I think would put Sparton afoul of disclosure rules if in fact it did now hold the minority interest.
All that to say, I could be wrong, but don’t think so in this case.
Ashton…you could be right; I have also emailed Barker on this point but
two previous emails have not been answered.
And what is your understanding of the IP ? Is that an interest of Vanspar,
Vstar, or Barker as an individual ?
If the passive equity in Pu Neng is separated from Barker’s other vanadium mining interests, then it is better that it be completely separate in a corporate entity controlled by Barker, with no other assets or liabilities in it. So it is a plus for me if the situation is as you understand it….namely, that the only asset in Vanspar is the passive Pu Neng interest.
In that case it is best that Vanspar and Vstar not be subsidiaries of each other, but separate anrelated subsidiaries of Sparton.
HN – Barker’s Sparton e-mail address is monitored by a webmaster; he doesn’t get them immediately, but assured me they would be answered within a reasonable period.
The IP of interest is a leeching process that is 85% effective at extracting uranium from coal ash. Barker was granted a patent for this in China. I’m fairly certain that Barker retained this patented IP under the Vstar umbrella, but I have e-mailed him to confirm that. I have also asked him if the same process would work for vanadium, since that is present in coal ash as well.
I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with allowing the minority interest to remain under the VanSpar umbrella. I too see it as a good thing that Vstar was created to separate the two interests, and I’m fairly confident you will see them both listed as subsidiaries of Sparton International Holdings when the next financials are released.
It is a matter of opinion whether a VRB factory that buys vanadium and makes product from it is a “vanadium related interest”.
Obviously there is room for doubt, as you and I interpreted the language in the news release differently.
It is pointless to debate the issue, it is a matter of fact as to where the minority interest in Pu Neng is located; which question Barker should clarify.
Ashton…glad you called it out. Yhe issue is material and the facts are in question.
Another possible storage battery. And again…A private company. Ran across this liquid metal battery being developed by Ambri Inc. Some of the funding coming from Bill Gates and French energy company Total. Low cost, low tech approach with no moving parts. The Electrochemistry involves three liquid metal components and is 80% efficient. No real mention of minerals or metals used in the final concoction inside. I just don’t like the internal operating temperature of 900 degrees fahrenheit. Article here… http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017/03/27/ambri-molten-battery and the company homepage here… http://www.ambri.com/ ….Cowboy
Very telling that Total, a European multinational big oil, is so interested in battery technology. My guess is that they will keep it all in house. They don’t need to raise venture capital. They need to transform their business so it doesn’t rely so much on oil.
Lithium Miners News For The Month Of January 2018
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4140705-lithium-miners-news-month-january-2018
Jan. 28, 2018 3:24 AM ET|1 comment| About: Global X Lithium ETF (LIT), Includes: AISSF, ALB, ALTAF, AMVMF, ARYMF, AVLIF, AZZVF, BCRMF, CRECF, DJIFF, DMNXF, EEYMF, ERMAY, ERPNF, EV, FMC, FRRSF, GALXF, ILHMF, LAC, LAXXF, LIACF, LIXXF, LMMFF, LSSCF, LTHHF, MGXMF, MLNLF, NCA, NMKEF, NTTHF, OROCF, PILBF, PLLLY, PNXLF, RIO, RRSSF, SQM, STLHF, TWNAF, WMLLF
Matt Bohlsen
Investment advisor, portfolio strategy, growth at reasonable price
MARKETPLACE Trend Investing (8,366 followers)
Summary
Lithium spot and contract price news – Spot prices fall slightly.
Lithium market news – Oversupply fears grip the market.
Lithium company news – SQM/Corfo settle their dispute over Salar de Atacama with SQM agreeing to pay royalties in return for a higher production quota.
This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, Trend Investing.
Welcome to the January 2018 edition of the lithium miner news. This month we have seen the “drama in the Atacama” dominate the lithium sector with SQM and Corfo reaching a deal after 3 years of stalemate. Due to the announced increase SQM quota, fears of oversupply resulted in most lithium stocks falling heavily during January.
Lithium spot and contract price news… #Best2ALL!
Ben…this is why I am not so keen on lithium as an investment sector. There’s too many suppliers and speculative prospects. It is like junior gold miner lists, there’s just scads of them. You could spend all day every day analyzing and doing due diligence on them. This might be a case where an ETF could be considered, if one wants to ride the wave.
My only lithium exposure at the moment is in MGX, but it is not a lithium-only play, and lithium was an incidental “plus” factor in my consideration.
After a long time betting on junior miners of anything I have come to this conclusion ,,,the largest number of them never turn a shovel or sell a product. They exist solely to raise money to pay company officers and the boards of directors. There are a LOT of outright frauds among them, just not worth taking to court as they have no assets that can be seized.
Somewhere I read that one project in a thousand becomes a mine.
I’m not sure what the real number is; 1 in a 1000 seemed pretty extreme; but the odds are long.
Ben, I thinl you are the poster who cited the high frequency of vanadium in the earth’s crust. My recollection is that lithium is also fairly high in statistical occurrence.
$VRS long
For those interested in Graphene and its multiple applications which includes almost everything. I found these articles extremely informative in getting a grasp of the science, market and future opportunities. Well worth a read but it will take a bit of time
https://www.stockopedia.com/content/versarien-part-1-background-to-the-graphene-marketplace-305388/
https://www.stockopedia.com/content/versarien-part-2-a-deep-dive-on-versariens-busines-305553/
https://www.stockopedia.com/content/versarien-part-3-graphene-competitors-305558/
Thanks chas2411. Fascinating.Confirms that graphene is a tech play, not a commodity play. Outside my narrow commodity rut but very interested.
$VRS, no position.
MGXMF….. Jared Lazerson on the #1 radio talk show channel in USA, WABC in New York. Jared was on radio for about a half hour interview on Dale Jackson’s “Money on the Mark”. Mostly Lithium talk. At the 20:30 starts Zinc and battery talk. 29 min mark starts the geothermal talk…… https://www.mgxminerals.com/media/downloads/WABC_Radio_Interview.mp3 ….Cowboy
$MGX on WABC ?? Talk about reach and marketing. Just what Watson was talking about, although MGX is doing it their way. Remember Teck is in the background.
$MGXMF – small position – Cowboy, can you tell me the date of this interview? I was unable to find that. Thanks for posting this.
MGXMF– Got it here niizajim…. https://www.mgxminerals.com/in-the-media.html It was posted today….Cowboy
Thanks.
$FYI – 10 Predictions for Community Solar in 2018
https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2018/01/10-predictions-for-community-solar-in-2018/27691/
Note: prediction 3 and 7