A Microcap Teaser Solution In Advance !!
(Australian stock exchange CLQ, OTC pinks CTEQF).
CleanTeQ is sure to be the answer to future teasers you will be reading about from resource gurus, To save you all the trouble of solving them, I decided to write this article.
My portfolio was grotesquely overweight in gold and silver positions, and in moments of anxiety I thought it would be a good idea to diversify and take a few positions in something other than gold mines, royalty companies, Mongolian exploration companies, and small-cap copper miners with major operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Thus I made a small speculation in CleanTeQ, solely on the basis that mining titan Robert Friedland was the Chairman, and CleanTeQ was the only resource company I could find that seemed to be in a position to mine scandium, a very rare metal that sells for a couple of thousand dollars a kilo.
My due diligence was so slight that I was embarrassed to emphasize my position to the readers at Stock Gumshoe. We are supposed to study these things a little more than I did for CleanTeQ. And after entering at 50 cents, the stock promptly dropped to 35 cents or so, making me glad that I did not look foolish by publicizing my position.
As the weeks went by, I started to find more information on the company that I should have found out beforehand. This was partly accidental, partly from other Gumshoe readers, and partly from new announcements and company news that occurred after I took a position. But the findings were all very positive, and because the company is so interesting I thought it warranted its own thread apart from the hard asset thread which I moderate.
I have a full long position and high hopes. And I thank Secretsquirrel, Griffin, Larry McKenna, and several others who helped fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle.
Below are my findings, opinions, and summary on CleanTeQ Holdings:
BUSINESS MODEL CleanTeQ is a hybrid company based with three bases: scandium mining and production, cobalt mining and production, and water purification. This seems like an odd combination, but as you will see, it is not. It is a stroke of genius. And I will explain why we should care about scandium and cobalt.
(1) The company is starting production of the Syerston mine, the world’s only scandium mine;
(2) The company will also produce significant amounts of cobalt as a co-product to the scandium;
(3) The company has a large-scale water purification technology, which will target municipalities,
Industrial operations with waste water problems, and mines, which also have water problems
PROSPECTS FOR THE THREE SEGMENTS
(1) Scandium is a very rare metal that usually occurs in only small amounts that are not economical to mine. It is mostly available as a by-product and the market is opaque, usually between private parties. Scandium has very beneficial applications in aerospace, aviation, and technology, but has not been widely applied because there is not a sufficiently reliable supply of it.
(2) Cobalt is essential in many batteries. Lithium gets all the investment press, but a majority of the battery formulations need cobalt, which is rare compared to lithium. Cobalt has a similar supply situation as scandium, it is mostly a by-product and is not commonly a prime mining target in and of itself. But demand for the electric energy market is growing rapidly and cobalt demand is growing and will continue to grow accordingly. Supply chains on cobalt are iffy.
(3) Water purification is a pressing need throughout the world. Cities with lots of people, industrialized places with lots of factories, or mines with waste water, all have a real and pressing need for large scale water purification. I think most people can accept this premise of widespread demand without a lot of documentation.
HOW DO THESE SEGMENTS RELATE TO EACH OTHER ? I cannot get too technical about the water purification technology, but I will try to explain what I understand, and how it relates to the scandium and cobalt operations. They call it Continuous Flow Ionization. Ionization is not a proprietary technology per se, but CleanTeQ has developed a way to implement ionization in a continuous feed, automated loop that improves volume, improves economics, is reasonably priced for installation, and can be custom-modified to specific waste problems. It can be used in conjunction with other filtration techniques. Further, it can be modified TO EXTRACT CERTAIN SUBSTANCES from the feed waste water. This is done by modifying the resins that are used in the ionization process.
Now it so happens that CleanTeQ has developed resins that can extract scandium and cobalt from waste water. So they potentially will have commercial sources of rare metals from the by-product waste of their water purification process !
HOW CLOSE IS THE WATER THING TO REALLY HAPPENING ? It is happening. CleanTeQ has signed a memorandum of understanding with a major Chinese municipality to implement their technology. There is a joint venture, 55% Chinese/45% CleanTeQ. Once the first one is up and working, China has a mind-boggling potential for water purification. For their teeming urban centers and for their mining and industrial locations, shall we say the potential is very large ?
CleanTeQ has 100% of rest of the world. CleanTeQ is closed-mouthed about other commercial sources, but they let on that they have been in contact with the likes of GE, Dow, and other big hitters. They state a pipeline target of $100 million by 2020; I predict they will do much better.
HOW CLOSE IS THE COBALT THING TO REALLY HAPPENING ? Very close. Battery useage is soaring and is the strategic target of many governments, corporations, and environmental groups. Batteries need cobalt.
HOW CLOSE IS THE SCANDIUM THING FROM HAPPENING ? This will take a while because the applications are high tech, with long lead times, and there is only one scandium mine in the world (CleanTeQ’s newly commissioned Syerston mine). CleanTeQ intends to develop the scandium market by being a reliable source of supply, and by driving the price down.
CleanTeQ will have viable margins with scandium prices up to half of current prices.
To give you an idea, the Russians made a few MIGs with scandium/aluminum alloys. They were faster, lighter, stronger. An addition of 0.5% scandium to aviation aluminum strengthens the frame, removes the need for riveting, reduces weight, and makes repairs easier. . The Russians dropped it because of costs; and Boeing and Airbus will not use it without a reliable source of supply. But there is about to be a reliable source of supply: CleanTeQ.
WHAT ABOUT IP PROTECTION ? I believe the IP and know-how moat is sufficient. CleanTeQ holds a perpetual license from a high-level Russian research organization that provided some of the foundation technology. I am not a patent lawyer and a lot of the know-how will be proprietary, not patented. CleanTeQ has been at this for over ten years, I think the barriers to entry are sufficient.
MANAGEMENT Totally a plus. Robert Friedland is the Co-Chairman and CEO, he has 20% of the company, great credibility and clout with the Chinese, and an unbelievable track record in mining. Sam Reggall is the other co-chairman. I know little about him, other than from my observations of him on an Australian investment show that aired last week. He was impressive.
MONEY AND FINANCES I don’t think there is anything at all to worry about. Friedland must be worth billions, the Chinese are in, and the concept has enormous potential.
Sources: as I mentioned, information is scant. My sources were the CleanTeQ website, presentations and and interviews with Friedland and Reggall, and the sketchy information on the brokerage sites. Nothing you cannot find on your own.
Long CleanTeQ
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.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they are not.
What is a closed system? In classical physics one that neither gains or loses material and does not affect surrounding energy. In other words one in stasis.
To look at energy input without considering energy output is like stopping mid sentence and you cannot do that in practice. You must always finish the sentence or your understanding will be incorrect. It is all too common that a researcher stops when their observations support their thesis, but that is not real science, finding the truth.
HN you are correct that the Earth does not fully meet the definition of the classical closed system as we we get tremendous input of solar energy, so much in fact that any thought of man caused change in stasis is misguided. That energy received is exactly balanced over time by energy lost so that the Earth is in “Essential” stasis. It remains the same for eons of time unchanged. We can never run out of what the Earth provides, short of a cataclysmic event, and indeed such have happened in the past. Everything here is cycled and recycled endlessly. Eg. we neither gain or lose Carbon,
Oxygen or Hydrogen so the buffering agents of CO2 and Water vapor are in a very close balance that cannot be changed. I have purposefully avoided going into depth on this but will elaborate on any point where you find a seeming mistake. I am often wrong.
ARCH, John L Casey’s “Dark Winter” is a study of the effects of solar cycles and their impacts on the earth. ~70% of the book is devoted to “Scholarly Acknowledgements” – a summary of peer reviewed white papers. I really liked that section’s opening: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident.” -Arthur Schnopenhauser (1788-1860).
Deanbob Thanks. Most people do not know that our sun is a variable star that varies a great deal in energy output in regular cycles. There are indications that we are entering a maunder minimum and the onset of a mini iceage again. Then climate change alarmists will wish for a little warming,,, and find that impossible for us. Best solution is insulation to stay cool for now as that will help us stay warm in our homes in future.
BTW CO may actually cause more cooling than heating as a greenhouse gas as it absorbs as much incoming as outgoing heat and reradiates it back into space.
arch1…I saw some NASA photographs of the sun based on different wavelengths of light. The scale of the turbulence of the sun is beyond imagination…seething, volatile, and violent.
arch1…on a short-term basis the earth appears like a closed system, except for sunlight, cosmic wind, and stray meteorites. But even the sunlight is very significant, it is not a minor exception. It is only our familiarity with it that makes it banal and trivial in our perception. But without sunlight, there would be no life on earth, and the amount of it striking earth are simply tremendous. Further, E=mc squared…so all this energy has an equivalent in mass that is being added on a daily basis to earth…a theoretically “closed” system.
And this is just the short-term situation. Long-term the chances for outside interference in our “nearly closed” earth system go up…ah…um…shall we say, astronomically ?
As you say, this thread is not the place to go deeply into theories about the earth colliding with other bodies, or the extraterrestrial origin of large amounts of material. But there are many theories about major deposits of various materials on earth that suggest that their origin is extra-terrestrial.
Further, the presence of other large bodies in collision or near-collision with earth would logically explain many of the geological facts and features that are present, and which otherwise go begging for plausible causal explanations.
$CTEQF longer this a.m.. Trading below $CLQ close of .99AUD. 🙂
$ARTH is trading within .0003 currently…
The trade was .77 OTC. HN said last night that this drop was a real possibility.
Ben, I am still long Arch Therapeutics, although my position was reduced substantially (at a good profit) to raise money for Cleanteq. At one point Arch was my largest position.
I think both have tremendous potential. But in considering the time frames and potentially negative events that could happen along the way, my conclusion was that Cleanteq was a surer bet with a faster outcome.
Cleanteq has proven products in the market, at least five installations in operation, and cannot be derailed by an administrative decision at a government agency.
Of course, I keep tabs on the horse race. Arch Therapeutics may run a very good race, and I hope it does. I have a full position in it.
But my call is that Cleanteq will win the race, going away.
Why the extreme volatility in penny stocks such as cleantech?
Probably more than half the market traders think it is overbought and due for correction. Because of that you see far more shorting going on than usual even though that is generally a good way to lose money. Too many expect a major drop. Barring sudden widespread war I do not. Stockmarket has done little more than keep up with the inflation rate in dollars, an artifact of the way the govt. chooses to measure inflation.
Here is present example of how traders jump on every drop seeking to profit from possible cascading effect of one failure causing another.
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/10706827
We have been seeing this greatly exaggerated in the biotech
area where traders are hoping for windfall profits without understanding the field at all. Fluctuations in $ARTH as example.
Speculative stocks are the first to drop because they are speculative,,, blue chips are far more stable. Mining is by nature speculative, even the big ones, and penny stocks greatly so. IMO
South Korea has said they do not want to rebuild Seoul, as they had to following the Korean conflict. Will that shift the potential for physical destruction to cyber and/or sanctions?
#Nickel, other metals, markets, price and carts: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/nickel/ and kitco.com
Long HendrixNuzzles and the GREAT Gummunity! Best2ALL!
Yes, here’s some nickel charts. You can see that the price has ticked up recently.
http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/nickel_historical_large.html
Hopefully, Cleanteq will also follow suit.
re: cleanteq
1. nickel: I was surprised to discover how volatile nickel price is. It has been at over $10 pound in 2013 and 2014, it spiked to 23 ten years ago, and when it was languishing at $4 up until a couple months ago, it was sitting at a 10 year low. There will be increasing nickel demand due to its use in EV batteries, but not a huge effect at moving the needle since so much more of it is used by china for stainless steel. It seems like the chinese economy has more relevance to nickel price than anything else. In any case, it has risen from $4 to $5 in the last 60 days or so, and hit as high as over $5.50. Just from historical analysis of nickel price, my expectation is $4 is a bottom [many nickels producers are losing money at that price], and I don’t see any reason it might not decide at some point to go over $10, I don’t see why not. I REALLY hope cleanteq doesn’t use $7.50 nickel price for their DFS, as they have in the past, it has been over 18 months since it has even been within 25% of that price. But if you average nickel price historically over the last 10 years, $7.50 may be about right.
2. cobalt: for me, this is the prime attraction of this investment. Same for my platina investment. The scandium for me is pure upside, and the platina people think they’re a scandium mine, boy they got that wrong [those guys don’t even know what they have and neither does anybody else at 25mil MC]. I don’t know how anybody else is thinking, and scandium is nice, more about that in a second, but between airplane and bicycle parts, and energy, I’ll take energy. These hurricanes and floods, which will be getting worse and worse as years go on, will help people to realize real quick they cannot waste any more time burning carbon, and the new energy revolution will go into super-drive, and battery factories will be going up like you won’t believe, and the world will be so horny for australian cobalt and I’m pretty sure thats exactly how it will play out. So I own 2 australian properties with super high grade cobalt, and see 1 and 2 below, which will make me a rich man.
OK warning right here…. I don’t give a crapola what your personal belief is about climate change that is different from all the scientists. I don’t want to change or debate you, so peace out.
The combination of these two things gives cleanteq an unbelievable advantage
1. bottom quartile of production costs
2. end product in sulphate form, which is the form needed by battery factories and sells for a premium to the spot nickel and cobalt prices.
3. scandium: I think the market will develop over time, and I think having high purity scandium for sale will be a money maker, if not a printing press. I don’t expect a mass market to develop quickly. I do not expect a scandium contract any time soon, if we signed a significant one in the next 2 years I would be ecstatic. I don’t see why anyone would rush to commit to a scandium purchase before a mine is even built, and 4 years away from receiving it, but that is full conjecture on my part. There may very well be a reason, if it requires an investment in equipment and technology, to incorporate a new material, that they would secure the material. Cobalt is another thing altogether, anyone with the vision to see how there is going to be a cobalt supply shortage for a long time to come, will be smart enough to lock up as much of it as they can. Scandium, we just may need to wait until we actually have some buckets of the stuff to sell.
Thank you (and all who have) for the updates. I took an entry position back ~July after my DD following HN great detailed write up. But, when HN’s original GOLD/PM thread was halted and a new 1 started, I messed something up and stopped received thread posting updates; and I did not know about this thread. Thankfully, I got back on track. And, thankfully, there was the recent price correction that allowed me to increase my position size after getting caught up on everyone’s additions.
Deanbob, you are able to find all HendrixNuzzles, or any member’s, threads by clicking on his moniker/picture that will take you to his Bio page and list all threads he has authored. The most recent thread shall be at the top of the list. Best2YouAlwayz – Ben
Ben, thank you for that info. That is much easier than using the ‘search’.
deanbob…welcome back but pay attention so it doesn’t happen again.
New thread coming in a few days.
Renby, thank you very much for your efforts and thoughts in this post.
Really appreciate your overview on historical nickel prices, I had no idea; and like you, on the future possibility of higher prices, I say, “Why not ?”
Cleanteq did use a $7.50 DFS price on nickel. but they also had a $12 price on cobalt and discounted scandium altogether. As you have seen, the drop in nickel prices did not shut them down like it did at FXP.
I also share your approach on global warming, it is a red herring. What counts is that governments will use it as a justification to encourage certain things, and penalize other things. The concept, whether true of false, will have large scale policies implemented in its name.
Similarly popular and political pressure to clean up water and mine pollution will be a reality. Certain companies will benefit.
As far as scandium is concerned, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
In general your outlook is tacitly confirmed by the marketing of Cleanteq and Platina. Platina is four years behind Cleanteq, so it is useless for them to press cobalt. Who will give them an order, when Cleanteq is so far ahead ?
On the other hand, scandium demand is years away from being significantly larger.
Platina’s time disadvantage compared to Cleanteq is not so critical in this case.
Cleanteq can go after the demand that is here and now. Platina cannot.
CLQ shorts closing out since July as price rose but spike up last Friday. See chart at
https://www.shortman.com.au/stock?q=CLQ
fizee Spike Friday was likely Sept. Puts expiring worthless or being closed.
thanx a1. this is still a comparatively low level of shorting. perhaps of more interest are the levels for lithium stocks – orocobre is the 2nd most shorted on the ASX and galaxy is at 11. List available at
https://www.shortman.com.au/
CleanTeQ is once again flirting with 1.00 AUD on the Sydney Exchange.
Long CTEQF
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-cobalt-evs-exclusive/exclusive-vw-moves-to-secure-cobalt-supplies-in-shift-to-electric-cars-idUSKCN1BX1RE
Rubberworm Thank you for post. As demand increases cobalt may yield better returns than Gold mines,,, depending on recovery costs. There has not been any meaningful recycling program but one is likely to soon develop with the huge number of batteries being produced. Recycling might be another area for Cleanteq
arch1, there is one company I know of that is setting u to recycle lithium batteries, American Manganese Inc, $AMYZF. AMI has patented their battery recycling technology. Here is an article that I received from them;
http://www.stockhouse.com/news/newswire/2017/08/22/the-most-lucrative-niche-cobalt-market
$AMYZF long sp
$AMYZF np – I saw a pump article on them just recently and it sounded intriguing, but haven’t taken a position. I figured I would watch it a little and see what happens. Didn’t want to buy right after a pump either. Only took a cursory glance, but on the surface, it sounded good.
niizajim I think that wise until they show they can turn a profit,,, unless they have a cushy government subsidy to milk the taxpayers.
Griffin Thank you I was unaware of this startup. I would be curious as to how their recovery costs compare with new metal/mining. Often recycling costs more unless done on massive scale to grind the material being recycled,,, often more difficult than ore processing
What has been called recycling so far is collecting batteries and dumping them in hazardous waste repositories. BS the public to feel good. like most glass and plastic recycling.
Hi Griffin,
It was you who first drew my attention to American Manganese ( AMYZF ). They scored an initial success with the purification of electrolytic grade manganese (good enough for batteries) from low-grade manganese deposits, and they now hold patents for this process in the US, China, and South Africa. They have since gone on to recycle cobalt from the cathodes of lithium ion batteries and are currently working with Kemetco Research Inc on recycling cathode nickel, aluminum, and manganese, and have applied for a US provisional patent for this process. They intend to apply for a full patent in November. I’ll keep an eye on them.
A recent update has been released by American Manganese Inc (AMI).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-manganese-inc-updates-lithium-110000223.html
“Kemetco has now completed the successful production of rechargeable lithium ion batteries from recycled Lithium Manganese Oxide (LMO), Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO), Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) and Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) batteries from recycled materials, produced with AMI’s hydrometallurgical process technology. The four batteries representing the leading chemistries in the rapidly evolving battery space.”
“AMI’s research work is on schedule and on budget for the completion and filing of American Manganese’s patent application by November 2017.”
My addition:
Kemetco Research Inc is a private company, part of which specializes in Extractive Metallurgy.
Thanks for the feedback I like knowing I actually had an effect makes all the darn slow typing worth while. I took a small position the end of July and I’m up about 7%. They have had batteries made from their recycled material so they seem to be on the right track but Arch1 is correct we need to see some numbers on cost, that maybe where they are in the development cycle. Patent approval will take sometime 1-3 years. It is hard to think that they will be able to get big enough to affect the battery market soon enough. For that reason with a good patent in hand and satisfactory recycling cost I think they are a take over candidate.
Recycling…fellas, I don’t want to be negative, or discourage research or enthusiasm about innovative recycling companies. But if you believe the Cleanteq technology is anything close to what they claim, then Cleanteq will be far and away the greatest recycling stock ever.
The reason is the character of the recycling inputs.
Cleanteq has available a world of defunct mines and billions of tons of waste ore that are valued at zero or close to zero. Further, theses deposits are large and each is already collected in one place. Further, companies and close contacts of Robert Friedland have 100% control of many such deposits.
In contrast, a recycling effort aimed at consumer battery trash will not only have the technical problems to overcome, but they will have to establish a retail distribution intake system to collect the inputs; and even worse, the collection efforts will depend on changing the behavior of millions of persons, and the collection will be inefficient.
I am not saying that it will not be done. Nor am I saying that it is not worthwhile. Nor am I saying that good companies will not be created to address the problem in that manner.
What I am saying, is that as an investor, is that I would have no interest at all in such a company, compared to Cleanteq.
I can’t argue with most of what you say HN. Lithium battery is still in development mode so a lot of what we are speaking is just conjecture. One of the metals that Clean TEQ can’t do is Lithium we have already discussed that. There is probably a lot of easier pick’en than lithium car and storage batteries.
Griffin…I really don’t want to inhibit conversation on such stocks, I am just expressing my own position, which is subject to change.
If anyone wants to discuss American Manganese or any other recycling play they are welcome to do so. These stocks are completely relevant to the the thread. Besides, someone may be interested in the sector but may not believe in my pick, and may be looking for others.
I was concerned that they weren’t entirely on topic here. Then I’ll just let them fall where they may. Thanks HN
Thanks rubberworm, really important news. VW going electric. If VW goes, Audi and Porsche cannot be far behind. Cobalt and nickel demand going up.
Interesting that the news came a cobalt supplier.
Also the offers were to be in by end of September to start in 2019.
I would think awards on contracts by end of October.
Good that you found this so quickly rubberworm.
$CLQ, CTEQF long – #H20 – Plastic fibres found in tap water around the world, study reveals https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals ht https://twitter.com/woodyjord/status/905413612071788549
Ben If I could I would ban plastic in the food and drink chain.
City water increasingly has chemicals, drugs and now plastics.
I would not drink any water that foams/bubbles up when it comes from tap and I do not like bottled in plastic water if I have a choice. A good filter would probably get rid of plastic fibers or osmosis if needed.
I think $CLQ mainly removes minerals/metals from water and do not know if they make municipal sized units.
arch1..a .Cleanteq JV subsidiary has a binding contract for a municipal size project in China. One of the JV partners is Three Gorges Corporation, a quasi-state entity that controls major power plants on the Yangtse River.
***
My thesis all along has that water purification is one of the aces-in-the-hole for Cleanteq, and it will not be recognized by the analysts following Cleanteq on the basis of being a nickel/cobalt mining speculation.
This thesis has been amply confirmed in Cleanteq news releases.
And amply ignored by the speculators interested in cobalt, nickel, or scandium.
If you consider the mine wast aspect and the metal extraction aspect of Cleanteq, you will come to the conclusion, as I have, that Cleanteq has three aces hidden up their sleeve, in addition to their prospects in nickel, cobalt, and scandium.
If you are at the poker table and have three aces in addition to your regular hand, you are going to win 99.9% of the time.
you are right on about all of this., even canned foods have chems. leaching out from them. WE ARE SCREWED SORRY TO SAY.
This would be bad news for cobalt. There are still NO really good high energy density batteries that do not waste a lot of energy via heat in charging and using them.You must count all costs to the environment before thinking they will replace
Hydrocarbon fuel,,, or non polluting Hydrogen.
https://scienmag.com/researchers-developing-advanced-lithium-ion-and-metal-air-batteries/
Forgive my ignorance but are any of the mines in which Robert Friedland has an interest actually in production or close to it at the present time? From the EV perspective, I’m particularly interested in copper, cobalt, and nickel, the demand for which is going through the roof.
eagerbeaver…Of Ivanhoe’s three main projects (KKKW, Kipushi, and Platreef) none are in production but Kipushi is a very near-term start-up; then Platreef; and KKKW has started down the path to construction but they since have changed plans because the original 4 MMT/yr operation was going to be in the wrong place (Kamoa) and too small to accomodate from the newer, higher-grade finds at Kakula and Kakula West.
Please take at look at the Ivanhoe website, if you are interested you owe it to yourself. You will learn a lot and get a very good idea of where they are, and you will see why they are years ahead of any other non-producer who is taking on a big project.
KKKW is very big but has financing and a new mine plan.
Kipushi has the mine main shaft dug and de-watered and the inclines are ready. Even Platreef has the ore main hoist in place. And with these projects, there is no financing risk at all. People will be falling over themselves to get a piece of them.
Ironically, Syerston at Cleanteq will probably go into production faster than any of The Big Three at Ivanhoe. It is a much smaller project and they have a contract for off-take in hand.
Thank you HN. This is most helpful. Ever since the schools and community colleges went back I have been hugely busy, even today Sunday. I can just about keep up with this excellent thread. I’m quite familiar with Kipusi and less so with the progress of the other Ivanhoe properties. I’m fascinated that you think CleanTeq would go into production faster than the Big Three at Ivanhoe. That would be quite something and excellent news. Awaiting CleanTeQ’s forthcoming DFS with much anticipation.
Syerston is a much, much smaller project than the Ivanhoe projects. And the 80 million or so from Cleanteq’s deal with Pengxin was specifically to fast-track Syerston, and the autoclaves are already en route to Syerston. Plus they have an off-take agreement starting 2019.
So I have not seen formal timetables but one gets the impression Syerston is a much easier project to finish. Kipushi they say would take 2 years, but the haven’t shouted “Go!” yet.
I agree fully 1000%, it’s like medium return and longer return. But great, imo.
hendrix help required – how do I pm you regards something imo to all our advantage which is time and price sensitive. I tried to post info here but getting Awaiting moderators ok or similar. This can’t wait, markets open tomorrow. Tried to remove all the links, re post but ignored. Very frustrating to say the least.
If this didnt matter I’d say hey so what but this was my first board and introduction into this and feel I owe at least this, thanks.
SS.
TRAVIS, SecretSquirrel has a timely post in MODERATION. Please release. TIA – Ben
I give permission to Lynn for her to give you my contact information. Contact her and she will forward my information.
Squirrel, you have made many worthwhile contributions to the thread. Just having your eyes and ears open and giving your thoughts has been very helpful.
If you look at the last feasibility study, it gives 18 months for building the mine, and 18 months for commissioning and ramping up. That is the best estimate of time frame from beginning of construction that I am aware of. Who knows date of first dig, in my head I have spring 2021 as expectation of first batch of product, that gives them 6-8 months to finish PFS, finance, and start, then 36-39 months to finish. I suppose if they go full speed ahead they could conceivably beat this estimate by 6 months or so, obviously the sooner to market the better. My understanding of the off take agreement, was that it starts when production starts, and I didn’t see 2019 as a start up date for that, but maybe I missed that.
I think they are not only going full speed, they are in overdrive. That is what the autoclave announcement indicated to me, and that was the stated import of the Pengxin deal.
If they were taking their time or there were other delays, they could have taken their time shipping the autoclave.
Furthermore, they have a binding contract for 20% of their production, and there is a frenzy building for cobalt supply. So why wouldn’t you get into production as soon as possible ?
HN… Yes, it certainly makes sense to fast-track production of the most urgently needed metal that RF and his partners have access to, namely cobalt, which is in short supply, considering the surging demand. I wonder where the autoclaves are now. Have they arrived at Syerston? When will the production line be ready? Perhaps the forthcoming DFS will tell us.
Eager, based on the date of the press release I would guess that the autoclaves are actually on a boat in the South Pacific, or about to be.
**
But their arrival at Syerston will not mean production can start immediately…the autoclaves are a four year lead-time item and are necessary but not sufficient for Cleanteq’s production. I have no idea about the
status of the other things that are needed.
But the factors that lead me to believe the lead times are accelerated are
(1) the stated use of the funds from Pengxin was to accelerate the advancement of the project. That was a main objective of the agreement.
(2) They do not need to dig deep tunnels or blast rock to get the ore.
(3) The chemical process is not terribly difficult, because Cleanteq set up a pilot plant at Perth using the same technology and process. The Syerston plant will be bigger, obviously; but Perth was constructed without fanfare, and what they have learned from it will surely help them cut start-up times at Syerston.
(4) This to me is the main evidence.
Cleanteq was in control of the dates in the off-take agreement with Easpring. They put in the start dates of the off-take as 2019. If they thought it was going to take longer, the off-take agreement would reflect a later date.
Why make a new contract for off-take starting 2019, if you cannot produce the goods by then ?
**
I say: in two years to three years max, Syerston will be at first-stage full production.
HN…. There is a photo of a pilot plant on Cleanteq’s’ website. I don’t know if this is the one in Perth or if the Perth one is larger. Now, as you probably know, Perth is on the southwestern coast of Australia, far from Syerston, so the crushed ore would either have to be trucked across Southern Australia or possibly to the port of Newcastle and then transported by ship to Perth where the hydrated cobalt (II) sulphate would be prepared. Alternatively, they could construct a scaled up version of the Perth plant at Syerston to start interim production there but not on the same scale as the final plant which will incorporate those massive autoclaves.
eager…just guessing they will max out what they can at Perth, based on needs, while going for a real phase 1 production facility at Syerston as fast as possible.
But the key timetable, IMO, is in the off-take agreement with Easpring. “2019” is between 16 months and 28 months from now. My guess is
24 months, two years from now.
HN, can you please reference where you have found 2019 for the off take agreement with Easpring. The only thing I see is “The agreement term is for an initial five-year period, commencing from the start of commercial production at Syerston.” The best info I can find regarding when to expect production is 36 months after they begin construction, that comes from the last feasibility. The company has referenced “fast tracking” but there has been no guidance beyond 36 months construction and ramp up and commissioning time frame.
renby…looked for it, but cannot find it…so I am now unsure where I saw it, or how I came to the conclusion that the Easpring agreement commenced in 2019. As you noted, it is not in the news release.
I think what I may have done was to take three years from the date of 2016 PFS, and counted the year that has elapsed since the PFS was published.
This is a bad mistake and I regret it. I apologize for the error.
Unless new company guidance takes me off the hook, I must retract the assertion based on the commencement of the Easpring take-off, which is clearly stated in the news release to be “from commencement of commercial production”.
**
My conviction in the time frame is weakened by this, but not by more than six months or so. My outside estimate was 28 months, based on three years from the 2016 PFS date. Another six months means 34 months from now.
Renby, I am embarrassed by my unfounded assertion.
But I still think 2019 is a realistic possibility.
Look at Cleanteq’s guidance: “18 months for construction and 18 months for commissioning and ramping up.”
Come on now. 18 months to work out the kinks ?
When they will have been running their pilot plant in Perth for three years, and the autoclaves have been on hand for two years ?
They have a lot of padding in that figure.
In my mind, I have spring/2021 as my own expectation for beginning of production, and any time sooner would be awesome. We’re a week away from the 4th quarter, which means we’ll be on the lookout for the release of the study, which could come anytime. I would like to see financing within one month of the study release, and beginning of construction within one month of financing, so we’ll see how that all starts out. Once they dig that first shovel in the ground, we can conjecture on time from beginning of construction to first bag of product. I have no idea of the time frame of “commissioning” so right now see 18 months guidance for that.
renby…you could be absolutely correct.
We will see as we go along how fast Cleanteq can get this done.
***
About financing….I know you have read the news release. Recall that they openly admit there are discussions with Easpring for taking an equity position.
Voila.
I would expect a news releases about financing about the same time the DFS is released. It could even be earlier, since they will probably have a private review of the DFS with Easpring before releasing it to the public.
That’s Friedland’s way. Get all the ducks lined up in a row, then: —BAM !—gun them all down.
Renby, you and I can have a little fun ribbing each other as we go along to the final date of production.
Whoever is right won’t matter, we should both make a few bucks whether Syerston starts shipping six months one way or the other.
**
But first friendly poke: they have already made a construction decision. The DFS is window dressing.
We know they have made a construction decision, because they spent $6.5 million on the autoclaves.
Second: Discussions on financing are well underway. There’s the admission in Easpring off-take announcement, for one thing. They are not going to enter serious discussions on selling 25% of a mine they do not intend to build.
You will not have to wait a month after the DFS to have financing certainty.
They can get whatever amount of money they need without a DFS. The DFS will help raise public money, but they can do without it if they have to.
Third: A qualified mining engineer informed on the hard asset thread when discussing the Brucejack mine, that commissioning and adjustments on a large mine could take three or four months. Let’s double that for Syerston…after all, it is a new-ish technology, and even though they have the pilot plant operating at Perth, using the same ore and the same methods, let’s double the commission time. That gives six or eight months. Still a far cry from the official guidance of 18 months.
**
They told us they are fast-tracking it.
They are saving time, here and there.
A year or two on the autoclave. Two months on financing. Six months on the official guidance of 18 months for commissioning. Etcetera.
When you add the time savings all up, you will have a faster finish to production than anyone is expecting, and Cleanteq will outperform their official guidance.
I am vigilant about staying as close to reality as possible, and avoiding having my enthusiasm cloud my expectations. So I tend to be on the conservative side, and that gives room for positive surprise on the upside. My assumption the mine will take 3 years from day 1 dig to first bucket of product comes from the company guidance. And then I just guess that day 1 first dig about 6 months away, lets say 3/15/18 just to put a target date on it. So spring/21 for the wheels of production to start turning. If they can speed that up by a year, or even 6 months, that would be most excellent. If you want to put some target dates on beginning of construction and date of first production, we can have a friendly competition on accuracy. We know we are on the same team, and will do well together.
Renby, we are both going to win on this one, no matter whose estimate of the date of operation is closer.
I am of the opinion that the construction decision has already been made, and they have an internal timetable that is very much accelerated compared to the public guidance.
My conclusions are speculative and circumstantial of necessity, since I am second-guessing the public guidance of the company.
We’ll see what happens.
Hope you make a bundle on Cleanteq.
I’m trying to.
Best regards !
$ERDCF Erdene Resource Development…long…no hard news but a new corporate presentation is posted:
http://erdene.com/assets/pdf/2017/corporate-presentation.pdf
The presentation does have some new stuff. They have a prospective copper deposit in the license they just acquired west of Bayan Kundi, and they have a copper/moly prospect to the northeast.
If they find something really big, there is a buyer lined up. The Hendrixnuzzles Crystal Ball says so very clearly. It is not a smiling man with wavy brown hair.
I see two gray suits… it is a big cap. Maybe two of them.
Erdene Resources is a development speculation. But it is one in which I now have conviction.
Disclaimers: It is in Mongolia, it is a penny stock, it has a small market cap,
it is volatile, and Robert Friedland is not involved in any way.
Long $ERDCF
Cobalt Miners News For The Month Of September 2017
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109133-cobalt-miners-news-month-september-2017
Sep. 25, 2017 7:17 AM ET| Includes: ARRRF, AXNNF, BHP, BKTPF, BRCSF, BXTMD, CBLLF, CEO, CMCLF, CTEQF, Best2ALL 🙂
Loads of useful information in this latest report from Matt Bohlsen, including a graph showing the predicted surges in demand for EV metals with time. It looks like the world’s largest single producer of cobalt is currently Glencore with 30,000 tonnes forecast for this year, of which I believe up to 20,000 tonnes have already been promised to Chinese buyers. There is a good summary of VW’s demands for EV battery metals. As for those cobalt-containing mines currently in development, there is a race on to produce. Bohlsen is full of praise for Cleanteq’s recent deal with Beijing Easpring but he is still not long the stock.
eager…do we know of any other producer that has an off-take agreement for a substantial portion of their production ? This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one.
I don’t know HN. I’m not aware of one. Perhaps a reader of this thread might know. Bohlsen mentions off-take or equity partners as a catalyst for Fortune Minerals this year, but I have not read beyond this. He also says that eCobalt estimates to start production in Q3 /Q4, 2019.
eager beaver have you taken a look at ASX EUC which is commencing drilling sometime in October.
Co, ni could be v. promising if it achieves v. high grades.
I’m no expert Williamstown, in fact quite the opposite, but I had a quick look. European Cobalt with mines in Finland and Slovakia, and an address in Perth, Australia. At least two of their mines have been reopened from much earlier operations. They report an average of 4% cobalt and 16% nickel for some veins of one of the Slovakia mines. It’s probably very early days at the moment.
eager, better check the decimal point on the 4% cobalt. If they really have a deposit with 4.0% cobalt, I would like to know.
The very best large Australian deposit in the Bohlsen list had a grade less than 1.0%, it was 0.72%
HN…..This is part of the text from European Cobalt’s website description of their Dobsina High Grade Co-Ni-Cu Sulphide mine in Slovakia.
“Lower extents veins exploited at grades of averaging 4% Co and 16% Ni and results of up to 8% Co & 17% Ni. ”
https://www.europeancobalt.com/dobsina-co-ni-cu
European Cobalt…The grades look really good. Do you have a stock symbol for them ?
Just took a decent position, liked it so jumped in before the ASX closing.
https://hotcopper.com.au/asx/euc/
HN… I have EUC:ASX
EagarBeaver, $asx:EUC np – What broker are you using if I may ask, please?
Hi Ben,
I’m with Scottrade but I don’t think I can buy ASX through them. I haven’t bought the stock, at least not yet. You should probably ask Williamstown or Squirrel.
#Brokerage – Wow! Thanks, EagerBeaver, DeanBob and SecretSquirrel. 🙂 I”m with TDA, so no way unless OTC and even then some are on the grey market and very seldom traded, so no liquidity; also have an IB account, but seldom use and heard there is a hgh fee/share charge for under $1. USD, that would be onerous on equities trading below 10-50 cents; Ouch. Thanks again for your replies. 🙂
Hi Ben, all my trades are done from Asia via Australia for the ASX and I’ve no idea who they use over there, sorry.
Ben,
I have used Fidelity to buy several Canadian stocks; and I can buy on 25 or 26 foreign exchanges. I had to make a 1 time request to have the “International” capability added. Now it is just another tab on my “Trade” window. Where as most US and OTC trades (includes many foreign stocks like CleanTeq are $4.95 per trade, a Canadian trade costs $19 (commission) and the Aussie exchange is in the $30’s. There is also a ~1% currency exchange fee to convret USD to local $$$, unless one has that currency in their account.
Like the grades and jurisdiction (I think, never checked anything in Slovakia).
Real estate play; if the asset is real it doesn’t depreciate. Also close to infrastructure and customers.
Nice looking exploration-development play but I have to check market cap. I see no intention of building anything in the near future, they look like a project developer.
No position
Thanks for the heads up williamstown, took a position after some dd.
The grades
That should be GRADES. There were no typos.
Apologies to eagerbeaver.
ASX Euc Ss happy you took a position, today reached a high of 17c and drifted back to close at 14.5c Aus.
IMO I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Reason being its probably ran a little too quickly on consecutive days.
If it consistently obtains the grades as expected in drilling, this will be the No 1 Co stock on the ASX with high grades and saving time and money with infrastructure.
Low risk, high return, but still speculative at present.
Tolga Kumova is the young RF of the world.
Quality mgt, TK is also involved in ASX NCZ.
DYOR but don’t take too long to decide.
I took a large position at 15 cents. Yes noticed it had moved very quickly, even so didn’t want to get to cute with my price as I’d rather be in than out. Did enough dd to satisfy me and thereafter gut reaction. Wanted a safe jurisdiction cobalt play high grade (4%) with good upside going forward.
On a side note I liked their creative website tones!
Thanks again.
Thanks, Williamstown !
Australian cobalt…Bohlsen has some useful figures by company.
He charts the top 15 cobalt resources in order of contained metal, giving the ore body size in millions of tons and the grade.
Of course this is inadequate to determine which of the resources might be the best investments. We know nothing about the market cap, price, status of the projects, the companies, or their financials.
But it is a good place to start.
Of the companies listed, the first ones I would investigate for another Australian cobalt play would be:
Ardea, #1 and #4 deposit size. #1 deposit is lower grade
Conico Limited #5 and high grade
Cobalt Blue #6 but low grade
Regal Resources #7 and top grade
Our favorites:
Cleanteq #2 deposit size, good grade
Platina #9 with second-place grades
Of course, Cleanteq’s Syerston is barrelling along towards production, and Platina is raw land with drill holes and a PEA.
Platina is also next door to Syerston, so I am comfy with the pair.
I am not pining for more Australian cobalt.
Most of the others seem to be in western Australia.
Cleanteq $CTEQF and Platina Resources $PTNUF
Suggestions on Australian cobalt plays…a link was recently provided to an article in SA which had a list of the top 15 Australian companies in order of contained cobalt in their property.
I myself at not interested in another Aussie resource unless I can be persuaded that is is demonstrably better than Cleanteq for near-term production (2-3 years from now), or Platina for in-ground optionality.
But if any of you are inclined to investigate further, I have the following suggestion for your due diligence: Look carefully at the status of the project, in terms of how long it will take to get into production. A long project time is OK, but you should be cognizant of that. My guess is that many of the names on Bohlsen’s list will
have speculative production dates that are at least five years out, and that will also have financing unknowns.
I realize that Platina is probably no better than any of the others in these respects. However I am not into Platina because I am expecting them to ship cobalt. I am into Platina because I think someone is going to buy the property.
$CLQ up to $1.04 AUD 🙂 Sep 26, 12:34 PM GMT+10
We like this Ben.
This is sick. I’m hanging around past bedtime on my computer to see the opening price on a penny stock in Australia, and to amuse myself I’m looking at drill assays from Mongolia. Somebody help me.
Indeed! http://www.asx.com.au/asx/markets/equityPrices.do?by=asxCodes&asxCodes=clq+pgm+ncz+euc lol
Hurry ! Hurry !
No…it’s not a tip about what miners are saying about Yukon explorers.
It’s about an advertisement.
If you go over to the Kitco website right away, you will see an advertisement for TD Ameritrade in the lower right hand side of the screen. The stock they are featuring in the ad is $CTEQF !!
Cleanteq has come a long way and has a lot farther to go.
The US volume sure was pitiful today. There was follow-through on price from yesterday’s action in OZ, but hardly any volume. I get the feeling no one over here who has it wants to sell any. I sure don’t.
The ad is gone already !
It was like seeing your child in a Broadway show.
Fame is fleeting.
you know your browser keeps track of where you go on internet and tailors ads accordingly. Checking on Cleanteq is enough to trigger broker ad
arch1…if that is the result of my browsing, it also means the subcontent of the ad is being affected. It was an ad for TD Ameritrade, but the featured ticker was CTEQF.
Correct. Nothing is private now with all the data mining. That is why it is so bad when big companies get hacked. Too much of your life is recorded somewhere
Hi all, really enjoying this and the gold thread. To SoGiAm and anyone else wondering about IB, I just placed an order for some EUC on the ASX, and the commission was $6 AUD. That was not a per cent, it was a set rate, at least within the range in which I looked at it.
asx.EUC Thank you, PozoBlue. I was looking at: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=14718p per share, which may not apply. May take a nibble. 🙂
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/markets/equityPrices.do?by=asxCodes&asxCodes=clq+pgm+ncz+euc
Best2You
Thanks for that ASX chart and the reminder that they are awake and trading down there. I put in a limit order at .14; we’ll see if it fires.
Of course your link to IB did not make it through their proverbial walls of steel. I find IB’s whole setup unwieldy, but they are among the best, their trade fees are great, and I love being able to easily trade anywhere in the world.
CLQ – http://www.ichimokutrader.com/
Clean TeQ Holdings Australia
27-Sep-17 1.045 ▲ Wed CLQ Sydney
Long $CTEQF 🙂
1 AUD = .78 USD… .78*1.045 .8151USD
SoGiAm,
Thank you for all your many contributions. Could you suggest reference material to learn more about technical analysis provided by website, http://www.ichimokutrader.com/? Thanks again
Best thanks is the one that stays… Thumbs UP 🙂
Ichimoku Basics –
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/2014/10/microblog-wow-you-guyz-and-galz-are-incredible/comment-page-1/#comment-4897182 Best2You Long $CTEQF
Nice to hear from you, pozoblue. Helpful posts.
Thank you.
EUC no position favorably inclined
Thanks Ben for the link to EUC presentation.
It is useless for me to check out the reason for it until I am closer to being able to take a position, but I suggest that those who are long try to find out the nature of the debt and cash situation at EUC.
The deposit looks super promising but the presentation says they have no cash,
they are $3 million short. Market cap at 6.5 cents shown at 64 million .
Early in the a.m. in OZ but the prices seem to reflect a movement from CLQ to EUC or some other nearer to production Cobalt equity, at least at the moment? http://www.asx.com.au/asx/markets/equityPrices.do?by=asxCodes&asxCodes=clq+pgm+ncz+euc Thoughts? long CTEQF
Of course nickel dropped again today around 8:30 NY time. http://www.kitcometals.com/charts/nickel_historical_large.html
Nickel
$ECSIF – eCobalt Announces Positive Results from the Feasibility Study on the Idaho Cobalt Project
http://www.ecobalt.com/news/news-releases/ecobalt-announces-positive-results-from-the-feasibility-study-on-the-idaho-cobalt-project
Been waiting for this just started reading.
$ECSIF long OW
xpost
Griffin…$ECSIF…No position…let us know what you think.
Hi Griffin, In Matt Bohlsen’s latest cobalt report that he says eCobalt estimates to start production in Q3 /Q4, 2019. So, with this in mind I read through their latest Feasibility Statement (FS) , dated Sept. 27, with respect to their progress towards production. I don’t think eCobalt has all their financing in place yet. I noticed in the list of equipment and materials, purchased prior to resting the project in 2013, that there was no mention of an autoclave specifically by name. Of course, it’s still possible that they might have one. In the FS, they say they are “considering securing offtake arrangements for cobalt sulphate heptahydrate” and have been sending out samples to “potential offtakers”. So this means they don’t have any off-take agreements yet. They also report that the preparation of the ICP (Idaho Cobalt Project) mine and mill site for construction activities is expected to commence in earnest next year but they were not more specific as to the time.
In comparing this with CleanTeQ’s progress, there are two, possibly three, clear differences, namely that CleanTeQ has two very large autoclaves already purchased, they have a significant off-take agreement already signed, and they may be better financed.
These are just my observations as I am interested in comparing the progress of CleanteQ and eCobalt as they move towards production.
Correct financing is not in place yet and that is why I don’t believe there were any date to start construction. All the long lead mining equipment has been bought and in storage. eCobalt is an under ground mine that will be using conventional mining methods. They are doing what ever work can be done to facilitate building the mine. About 2-3 years ago management had halted any further development of the mine till the price of Cobalt improved.
“The Project’s main competitive strengths are having a primary cobalt deposit located in the United States and a high reserve grade when compared to other existing sources of cobalt located globally. The feasibility study highlights multiple opportunities to enhance the economics of the project and these include expansion of the resource, optimization of the mine plan to process higher grade material and detailed engineering at the CPF to further reduce risk and improve capital and operating costs.” This seems to imply that the mine life is not limited to 12.5 years.Most of the rest of the text is what would expect from any well managed company.
I’m not really the one to comment on of a fesabilty study. I haven’t studied enough of them to know whether the number are good or bad. The only numbers that make any sense are
“LOM Average Co Sulphate Price (contained Co) $26.65/lb this is the current spot price of cobalt
LOM Average Net Cash Cobalt Production Cost $5.05/lb” This is impressive $21.60 profit margin per pound. These figures don’t mean much
“Pre-Tax Initial Capital Payback 2.9 years
LOM Cobalt Production (lbs) 31,767,000
LOM Copper Production (lbs) 42,819,000
LOM Gold Production (oz) 39,241”
A dollar figure on the copper and gold would have been nice.
“The Company is also considering securing offtake arrangements for cobalt sulphate heptahydrate. Independent of the FS, the Company has produced cobalt sulphate crystals from recent metallurgical test work which were shipped to potential offtakers for evaluation. Initial feedback regarding product quality has been positive and current requests for additional material for evaluation are being fulfilled.
Preparation of the ICP mine and mill site for construction activities, expected to commence in earnest next year with successful mine financing in place, continues with access road upgrades, existing facilities maintenance, preparation of temporary power for construction, and approved water discharge line maintenance. At the CPF located in Blackfoot, ID, the existing pre-purchased building has been transported to the site.”
I would like to hope that an offtake agreement would offset part of the mine financing. The rest of the FS is what I would expect from well managed company and what they have exhibited in the previous years that this company in my portfolio.
I took another look at Matt Bohlsen’s recent Seeking Alpha report on cobalt miners.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109133-cobalt-miners-news-month-september-2017
With respect to eCobalt, he mentions
“Upcoming catalysts include:
September 2017 – Feasibility Study (FS) results
2017-2018 – Project financing
Q3 2018 – Construction to commence
Q3 or Q4 2019 – Production to commence”
So according to this, production would start 12 to 15 months after construction began.
It will be interesting to see how this time frame compares with CleanTeQ’s plans, hopefully to be revealed soon in their upcoming DFS.
$ECSIF no position and $CTEQF long…feasibility results..
I am not negative about $ECSIF as a secondary cobalt play, there are several positive things about it. But the numbers in their feasibility study are clearly inferior to Syerston, so strictly on a comparative basis between the two I feel
Syerston is superior.
1. The NPV@7.5% of ECSIF is about equal to the capex required and does not reflect a high multiple compared to their current market MC. It is not a large number. I think the logic of NPV calculation is somewhat flawed, but for comparison purposes it is worthwhile to check it out.
Compare the ECSIF NPV@7.5% to the Cleanteq NPV at 8%.
2. The other issue for me is mine life. The ECSIF LOM forecast is 12.5 years, Syerston is over 20. This is a major difference although it is possible that there are underreported assets in the ECSIF deposit. However it also casts further negative comparatives on the two NPVs, because Syerston NPV is presumeably discounted for 20 years, and ECSIF is only discounted for 12.5 years at a lower percentage rate.
3. Syerston has the upside in nickel and scandium. This is potentially a major plus valuation variable.
All in all, as I say, it might be very good. But I would not reduce my Cleanteq position to get some. In the end the stock might do better than Cleanteq, who the hell knows ?
I got back in last Aug it was still Formation Metals at that time. Travis got in a bit earlier last I looked at his portfolio he was up 150%.
The FS is done, the rest of Bohlsen catalyst are subject to change without notice. I’m strong on management, if I was looking at 400% profit per pound, finances permitting I’d be on a 24/7 construction schedule. Incentives for early completion. The market will be here for a while but the sooner to market the better.
Also mentioned in the FS is that they still have a drilling program in place and good results from that would certainly help. There is some more cobalt property 2-400 miles away. I don’t know geology but from a map that I’ve seen recently ecobalt is sitting at the bottom , with a gap, string of cobalt propertyIIRC.
they use $26 co price lol lol
#Co spot prices and charts: http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/cobalt/
what a laugh
I’ve doubled my money on eColbat lol to the bank.
I’m jealous.
How long were you in it ?
I’ll prognosticate a few key dates, just for the fun of it. How things unfold relative to my own projections helps me to perceive if my expectations are on target, and allow me to adjust expectations as necessary. nov 13-21: release of economics study and mine plan, dec 11 to jan 12: mine financing complete apr 1, 2018 begin mine construction, spring 2021: first production.
renby…you are prognosticating about Syerston ?
yes
OK then. The intermediate dates I will not second-guess, but I think there will be enough time savings in total to move up first commercial production before year-end of 2020.
I do too, and for sure, the sooner the better. It won’t be long now we get the full plan.
From Seeking Alpha: The cobalt cliff
Over the last 18 months I’ve repeatedly cautioned readers that intrinsic and unavoidable constraints on cobalt production would create insurmountable obstacles to the widespread deployment of long-range EVs with high energy nickel-cobalt batteries.
seekingalpha.com/article/4110450-cobalt-cliff-will-crush-teslas-business-may-restore-sanity-ev-industry?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-widget
Thankfully Robert Friedland will save the EV revolution, buy out my Platina Resources, make Syerston a bigger cobalt supplier than Glencore, install cobalt recovery installations on EUC’s waste dumps, and make our brokerage accounts swell up like balloons.
Thankfully Robert Friedland will save the EV revolution, buy out my Platina Resources, make Syerston a bigger cobalt supplier than Glencore, install cobalt recovery installations on EUC’s waste dumps, and make our brokerage accounts swell up like balloons.
Long Cleanteq
I would not put too much faith in Mr. Petersen article he obviously has bias to support and takes information out of context, distorts, or supports the a misconception of the facts for his bias. He has already published one article as a rebuttal to his ‘nay sayers’ which I only read part of due to the lack of supported facts in his favor. Yes Cobalt is a problem for EV production, but it will be solved long before we get to “100 million EVs per year” as Mr. Petersen states.
Griffin. The invisible hand of the free market can work wonders. I have not read much from SA. Thanks for the heads-up.
Thanks for posting and being cool about it. SA seems to a hit and miss for good authors Bohlsen is good and there are few others. One that I thought authored a Biotech market article factually I still got a reprimand from the good DrKSS. I understand where the Doc is coming from SA is a waste of time at his level of biotech.
Griffin…totally agree. Even a reasonable analysis can be wrong about key facts and assumptions, as well as conclusions that stem from them.
For example, I looked at the articles in SA about MUX. None of the ones I saw even mentioned Los Azules. Not that I am correct about it, I may be 100% wrong. But what was a decisive factor for me was not even mentioned in the articles I saw.
**
In the present case, I think the statistical evidence of a future shortage in cobalt does not justify the conclusion that the EV movement will run into a wall or fall off a cliff. It simply adds weight to the idea that cobalt demand and prices will go up.
The full weight of major policy initiatives of influential corporations and governments are behind the EV movement. And so is public sentiment, unlike nuclear. The price of cobalt will not stop the thing. Governments can incentivize or subsidize cobalt production, or EV use if they have to.
There are a lot of new developments in detection and extraction. These will help, and human ingenuity and enterprise will find a way to profit from higher demand for a scarce resource.
There are new deposits, and higher prices will stimulate more exploration and development and accelerate existing projects.
For example, all of a sudden the hundred-year-old tailings dumps at EUC will become an economically attractive asset, and a bunch of cobalt projects will spring to life.
One of the things that I would like to make part of the spreadsheet would be a percentage figure the metals produce. That gets hairy in presentation without running out of display area we may have to put we may have to put a table of periodic symbols on the sheet for reference.
You and I know what the facts are from the numerous good articles we have read and I would hope our gummies have absorbed some part by osmosis if nothing else. The author of the above article is not aware of the efforts to replace Cobalt or recycle Lithium batteries. As a Lawyer I think he should be made to include an expanded statement for forward looking words.
I think new developments are something an investor should be aware of in the markets that they have invested. The development may take 5 to 10 years to come to fruition but that doesn’t mean big money can’t see the profit and get involved. That is one of the reasons I’ll present 4 Lithium brine miners in the “Storage of Electricity – #Batteries & BIG image” column and xpost to here so nobody gets left out. All 4 miners are using a new and different method processing the brine besides the old evaporation method. One may even be competition for Clean TEQ in that they clean water also more research and DD needs to be done on all 4. They arn’t going to be barn burners but there is still profit to be made if you get in early even a starter position that you average down with.
I will continue to state that the real constraint to EV will be lack of generating capacity. Coal plants are still being closed,
it takes too long to permit and construct nukes and wind and solar cell cannot supply enough good generation sites. Vehicles soak up fantastic amounts of energy and batteries waste over thirty percent if all input/output is counted. Batteries do not make power, they only store it.
Arch1, How many coal plants are being replaced by natural gas?
I don’t think there is enough known about the current electrical grid other than it is out of date to make any assumption of its capabilities. There is currently under way (about time) a study of the electrical grid at Pacific Northwestern National Labs. Hopefully PNNL will be able to provide some answers.
NG is replacing coal on a little over a one to one basis,just keeping up with demand.
Studies have been run a few years ago that replacing liquid fuel auto fleet would require doubling present generating capacity. California may give us a foretaste as they are talking banning internal combustion engines and are already short of generating capacity. They now buy a lot from out of state.
That’s kind of what I thought the situation was with coal and NG power plants.
I agree the electrical grid needs more capacity. I also think that solar panel installations (as well as other alt energy) under utilize storage batteries. There are opportunities for solar panel installations that would provide in addition to electricity shelter from the weather. If a standard installation could be devised I think money could be made. Unfortunately one draw back is that solar panels don’t have a standard dimension.
arch1,
you may be correct about EV’s being a net user of energy, and battery useage may put more pressure on existing power sources, as you claim.
Let us assume you are correct.
Being correct about the net energy consumption will do absolutely nothing to stop the EV movement, or the politics worldwide to punish coal or incentivize a move away from ICE’s.
The issue that has traction with the public is pollution. People want CLEAN, and they will support EVs even if they are net energy users compared to ICE’s. And they will not give up their cell phones, either. The public issue is not total energy consumption; it is pollution. People don’t want smog and emissions and coal ash.
I’m not saying that the policies that address this are good or bad, effective or ineffective. I am just saying that the move to electrification is not going to be stopped, just because battery useage is a net consumer of energy.
My guess is that the other favored energy sources will benefit…this means very high-tech, centralized industries like nuclear, regarded as a necessary evil; or hydrogen fuel cells; or the favorite targets of subsidy, which may be solar in one place, or natgas/ oil/hydro/geothermal in other places.
The technology of power storage becomes important, because that technology will be able to make the most of intermittent sources like solar and wind, and smooth out patterns of peak demand when other sources are being employed.
I think we also have to add in the easy of use, lower maintenance, and in the not too distant future cost.
HN I certainly agree that EV’s are coming as the momentum has built in that direction and will persist for some unknown time. There is no such thing as a non polluting vehicle and in time it will be seen that Electric is not a Panacea.
During that interval there is money to be made and we may as well take advantage of the opportunity.
It is not my intention to start a political discussion of the merits of building a fleet of EV’s but to caution that what is rosy now may not be so in 10 or 20 years and change will happen when the shiny turns dull
. Get your money while you can,,, but pay attention to changing mood and stay flexible as to direction decisions. IMO
,
Addition; Don’t overlook that building generation capacity will need a lot of metal,,,copper, aluminum, several rare earths
and possibly uranium as well as all those followed here and more such as molybdenum vanadium magnesium etc… again IMO
deanbob…these dire warnings usually never come to pass.
Put that article in a flie marked January 1, 2023 and check on it once a year.
The price will go up and people will start finding more of it.