Scandium, Cobalt, and Water Purification: Clean Teq Holdings,Volume 2, 20182017 was a year of tremendous accomplishment for Clean Teq Holdings in every respect.
We saw remarkable achievements in mine construction, in finance, and in market development, with landmark contracts in every business segment;
We saw a complex business appear as if by magic, including business offices on four continents, and the launch of business website in the water division;
We were informed of superb existing and newly-formed strategic partnerships,
with the likes of Airbus, Peng-Xin Mining, Chinese state and power entities, Chinalco, and Multotec;
We were witness to a major off-take agreement with a leading battery manufacture;
We learned of an astute acquisition of a controlling interest in a VRB business by Mr. Friedland;
We learned of deep and valuable research and development support at prestigious universities and manufacturers;
and we became sure of unseen low-cost manufacturing contacts and alliances.
And oh-by-the-way, we got a listing on the TSX.
The company inspires confidence and optimism. Robert Friedland has a deep long-term strategy, and he knows what he is doing.
I am not sure what is more impressive: His strategic vision, or his managerial talent in executing it.
Clean Teq is a company that is worth following. It is by far my largest position.
There are a lot of companies with good concepts. But Clean Teq has a deep and brilliant strategic concept which is at the heart of major world trends; a revolutionary technology; and a management that executes flawlessly.
**
GOING FORWARD: SUITABLE TOPICS FOR THIS THREAD
1. CLEAN TEQ HOLDINGS, CLEAN TEQ WATER, and their interests, or related companies.
2. Miners and producers of COBALT, VANADIUM, SCANDIUM; also nickel, zinc, graphite, lithium, rare earths, silica, and manganese.
3. WATER PURIFICATION, especially when tied into mineral extraction therefrom.
4. “TECHNO MINERS” and other innovators in mining and material extraction
See notes below on thread and topic overlaps, which are unavoidable.
**
One year ago this week, I wrote an article on Clean Teq Holdings. It was a speculative company, but
one with a visionary and proven leader, dramatic potential in specific, attractive commodities,
innovative methods and IP for mineral extraction, and big ambitions in water purification.
Clean Teq Holdings defied easy categorization, and continues to do so.
One year later, Clean Teq has not disappointed. Clean Teq has exceeded all reasonable expectations.
**
If you need background on Clean Teq, I refer you to the predecessor of this thread: “Scandium, Cobalt,
and Water Purification: Clean Teq Holdings”, where you will also find the guidelines and rules for this
thread; and to the Clean Teq and Clean Teq Water websites, which warrant close examination.
OUR BIAS AND BASIC VIEW
This thread is for those who believe in the coming EV wave, light weighting of transport, and most importantly,
in the importance of energy storage and batteries of all scales;
and also, it is for those who believe that the disruptions caused thereby will be rapid.
Because of this opinion, it follows that the existing viable battery technologies and the materials needed
for them are important. We anticipate rapid change; we subscribe to the Tony Seba “Disruption Scenario”,
that suggests disruptiv changes are occuring faster.
If you disagree with the Disruption Scenario, or the eventual proliferation of EVs,
that is fine; but please do not debate it on this thread. The thread is for those who believe in the future of battery power,
and in the immediate opporunities in commodities related to batteries and energy storage.
We will be able to see in shortly whether we are right or wrong in this belief.
If it takes longer than we think, we will complain about ”being early.”
My perspective is for the next five years. That is “long term”. This is not a trading thread.
Occasionally short-term opportunities are appropriate to call out,
but short-term trading is not the emphasis here.
On the other hand should restrain ourselves from too much attention
to developments and materials for technologies that are likely to take longer than five years to have an impact.
We are looking for investable ideas, not 10 year forecasts on the Future of Civilization.
So let’s keep it down on hydrogen fuel cells and molten salt batteries for a couple of months.
**
NOTES ON THREAD AND TOPIC OVERLAPS
Our assumption is that Li-NCM, VRB’s, and zinc batteries are going to be the main battery formats purchased,
installed or contracted for in the near-term, hence the commodities needed for them are of interest.
New battery technologies are better discussed on the #batteries thread ,
unless they involve a vertical commodity/battery producer.
We are interested in what is going to have an impact in five years.
For example, if you are convinced that Google is about to conquer the world with a molten salt battery,
then come on over here and recommend Morton Salt as a buy-out candidate.
But debate whether molten salt batteries have a future, and when, on the #batteries thread.
News that shows increasing penetration on solar are relevant,
as they confirm the importance of large-scale energy storage.
But we would like to know who is getting the contracts and what type of battery they are using.
There is going to be some unavoidable overlap. Nickel and manganese sources are swing metals,
sometimes they may be better discussed on the Hard Asset thread as base metals.
If you make a post on the wrong thread, don’t worry too much, there are
no fines or jail time. I do it myself all the time and I understand it can be confusing.
You can also use Travis’ new cross-reference gizmo.
Long $CTEQF $CLQ Clean Teq Holdings
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.
Attention SS and $AUZ longs,
While waiting for Renby to opine on the ARL pre-feasibility study, I thought I would compare it to AUZ’s pre-feasibility study on Sconi.
Guess what. I couldn’t find one.
Does anyone know where I can see it ?
It doesn’t seem logical that The Most Advanced Project of it Kind, The Leader in the Cobalt Nickel Space,
does not have a pre-feasibility study on their Flagship Project.
Please help me find it so I can compare it to Ardea.
Question answered. There is ni-co PFS for Sconi.
The only PFS is a scandium-only PFS done by predecessor Metallica in 2013.
In fairness I must point out that Sunrise does not have one either, for a ni-co PFS.
$FYI – Top 5 Nickel Miners To Consider Before The Nickel Boom
by Matt Bohlsen @sa
Summary
Nickel is likely to do well in 2018 to 2020 as it recovers from a severe bear market.
Nickel projects by reserves and resources, and the nickel cost curve.
Top 5 nickel miners to consider.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4159556-top-5-nickel-miners-consider-nickel-boom?uprof=46&isDirectRoadblock=true
$ARRRF Ardea Resources mentioned
$CTEQF…$CLQ…..Important ! What other junior miner can do THIS ?? :
I was reading along on the Multotec website about Clean iX and what they say it can do. They feature a contract with a gold mine in Australia, landed it in December. Good.
In the copy it said:
“Clean-iX® provides a cost-effective method of removing and recovering cyanide…and the operating cost is approximately 50% of the cost of purchasing cyanide…alternative leaching reagents…are becoming more widely used because of the impact cyanide has on the environment… Clean-iX®, can be used for both these leaching reagents.”
So great. Clean iX will be wanted by all the low-grade cyanide heap leach gold miners, to keep all that nasty cyanide out of the environment. But why do they say, Clean iX has an operating cost “50% of the cost of purchasing cyanide” ?
The miners don’t want to BUY cyanide, they want to GET RID of it….why are they putting the cost of clean-up with Clean iX, as a percentage of new cyanide ? Why are they expressing the cost of the process in terms of the chemical cost of what they are cleaning up ? Weird. Like the autoclave announcement. Something odd here I don’t understand.
Why are they telling us this ?
Holy SH%T ! and AHA !…It hits me. The miners are going to recover cyanide with CLEAN iX and re-use it !
They will be heroes for keeping cyanide out of the environment, and save 50% on their chemical bills for cyanide !!
Every heap leach low grade open pit gold mine in the world is going to want this !
BONUS HENDRIXNUZZLES FIND: There is one other very important word in the Multotec copy I quoted.
Did you notice ? They used the word OPERATING. As in operating costs. As opposed to CAPITAL costs.
This means, potentially, that there will be A LIFE OF MINE residual income from the cyanide recovery installations in favor of Multotec and Clean Teq !!
$CTEQF, $ARRRF. I tell you, between the metals spot price and the sulphate premia, the aud and the US$, the kgs and the pounds, the tonnes and the tons, between 1.0, 1.5, 2.3, 2.5Mtpa, I solved the game Myst without any cheaters, but with all these measures jumbled up and thrown in the bowl like alphabet soup……there is no way I have the will to stretch my brain to the degree it takes to do the freaking math on these cobalt/nickel projects. Thank goodness for guys like Matt Bohlsen who make some sense out of this mess.
That all said, these are very significant numbers comparing the Ardea PFS and the Clean TeQ PFS, and to me, this looks like unbelievable good news for Clean TeQ. Others can weigh in if I’m miscalculating anything, but it looks pretty straight forward. From Ardea PFS, without cobalt credits, the price to produce a pound of nickel is $5.59. I think this is why Ardea’s PFS disappointed, and the stock price got shaved. The good news is, their main by product is the Blue Gold. Its kind of the equivalent of having a bubble gum factory, and the by-product is snicker bars. So after you account for the cobalt credit, now the nickel costs like 40 cents a pound to produce, LOL. And I just read in Bohlsen”s piece that Ardea is the 3rd largest nickel deposit in the world. With premia, you can sell it for 20X what it costs to produce it. So that looks like a pretty good business to me, and if they can get some scandium or other credits by the time they complete their DFS, now you are looking at negative C1. Of course, the assumption is present nickel and cobalt prices hold up, because that is what they controversially used, but the other side of that is most predict those prices will go up, so that would go straight to the bottom line. Now somewhere earlier I said something about good news for Clean TeQ, and that goes to their PFS price for producing a pound of nickel before cobalt credits, and what I see from their PFS is $2.96, so compared to Ardeas $5.59, that is a huge difference. Now a lot of variables go into those numbers, they have different Mtpa output, Clean Teqs number may very well change for the DFS, I think I remember seeing 3 something somewhere else. Since they both have similar nickel to cobalt ratios, that would not account for this price difference. Some say Ardea’s deposit is more difficult to mine then Clean Teqs, though Ardea says their deposit is in shallow soft clay and easy to scoop. Perhaps there is something to this Cleanteq technology that skips steps and saves money. Who the hell knows. But if Clean teQ can produce nickel for anything close to $3/lb before any credits from by-products, the profit is going to be ginormous, I think I just showed Ardea, at todays prices, can get 20X its cost at $5.59 nickel cost, LOL. And if these numbers compare true like I’ve shown, they will have a strong economical advantage over their competitor. [Also remember Clean teQ is valued at 7X Ardea at the moment, so there is that.] Despite recent stock price weakness, I am very comfortable holding both these investments for the long march towards production.
Rebycage…. my reaction on the math was the same, it just made my hair hurt thinking about diving in to figure it out and I knew it could not beat CLQ, and there is no PFS for AUZ, so what is the point.
Conclusion the same also. Staying long.
CLQ is going to give competitors real headaches. But people will say it is BS until the plant is running.
After it is running they will sorry they have tried and true methods that produce at a $5.50 cost, and CLQ can make it for $3,90.
Help! I’m confused as to why Ardea stock is taking such a dive after the release of their PFS, which was supposed to be a grand occasion. Is it because the data in their report was interpreted correctly and found to be disappointing or is it because data in the report was misinterpreted to be disappointing when actually it was good? If it was the latter, then naturally I’m hoping that the much anticipated DFS to be released by Clean TeQ will be absolutely crystal clear and not open to any misinterpretation.
Long $ARRRF, $CTEQF
Eager, I do not know other than what you said…people were disappointed, and the reporting was difficult to understand. Even Renby got a headache looking at their figures. But if you look at a one year chart, you will see that the stock is in the mid-range from where is took off last fall, to the high peak price. So really I do not think it is much more than short term speculators bailing after a so-so report, and the stock settling in after the rocket launch last fall.
Also I suggest you look at nickel prices. ARL and CLQ are now presenting themselves a s nickel mines with cobalt as a by-product.
There are some other reasons why Ardea may have been hurt. They are the first and only ones in the ring with a real PFS. There are no comps from the others, just investor presentations.
Everybody is coming out black-and-blue after tangling with CLQ on costs, and we have the Spin Doctors at AUZ, also with an Investor Presentation but no PFS, and AUZ got their 100% take-off with Korea. This is worthless except to get loans but everybody thinks it is great.
So here is Ardea with real numbers, they are so-so, everyone is looking at CLQ’s investor presentation and AUZ’s “100% binding” off-take, and ARL is getting punished.
ARL also announced during a very bad week for resources, plus the market is skeptical of things that are far in the future.
ARL’s problems are costs, and the time to commissioning.
I do not trust AUZ, but they are likely to be in production before ARL. I suspect they gave away too much to SKI, and that long-term their valuation could be negatively impacted when they are finally producing. That is a long way off, and the stock could do well in the meantime, before the truth comes out. If I do anything with AUZ it will be as a trader.
None of these guys are perfect. But among the choices for Aussie cobalt, I think ARL is still very good and I intend to add to my position.
HN… Thank you for your considered response. Yes, I looked at the chart and Ardea’s stock price rose on anticipation of the PFS and fell back on revelation. Perhaps it was as Renby suggests, namely the $5.59 cost to produce a pound of Nickel without allowing for Cobalt credits. Perhaps some stock holders took one look at this and bailed before considering the big picture. They have created a buying opportunity for true believers. There has been some fascinating discussion about all this on Hot Copper, including a request to Dr. Matt Painter, the Managing Director of Ardea, for clarification on the figures. He responded promptly to this and to follow-up questions, demonstrating both conscientiousness and class. His calculations and conversions all make sense. Ardea is in good hands and I have been adding.
The problem all the cobalt-nickel guys will face is that individually each one is going to look bad compared to CLQ. CLQ’s method has very low projected costs, no one is going to touch them on paper. CLQ may or may not achieve the figures they show;
but the only thing a competitor can do, is raise doubt about the CLQ method and its viability, or stretch out the cobalt price assumptions they make or otherwise fiddle with their assumptions. They are stuck.
AUZ supporters tend to be skeptical of the CLQ method and its viability.
There is some room for doubt on this, because this is the first time Clean iX has been installed in a major production nickel-laterite facility. And anyway the AUZ project is moot because all the production is spoken for, even if it gets built timely. they sold off their upside to try and jump to the front of the line.
ARL got the first whacking because they went into the ring first with a PFS.
They are proposing traditional HPAL methods, so naturally their costs are going to be in line with existing producers. They were further handicapped because their plant was a little on the small side. They showed some restraint and risk management by proposing only a 1 million tpa plant, but that raises unit costs although it reduces capex and project risk.
I think the capex on ARL could be only 50% or 60% of CLQ’s, but the end plant will have poorer profits than CLQ’s…like everyone else’s will.
This has serious future implications for company valuations. When these projects cross over from being projects to being producers, the market will value them differently…it will be on margins and profits. That is one thing that makes me very leery of AUZ.
We do not know how much of their future profit and margin was sacrificed to get the offtake from SKI, and investors like us will not be able to find out until the quarterly reports come out because the discounts are “confidential” and “commercial in confidence”. In other words, they don’t want to say.
So I see AUZ strictly as a pre-production sentiment speculation. When they get up and running, it is easy to imagine persistent disappointment and underperformance on profits compared to other mines. But when the quarterly reports come out, then it is too late.
Correction, CLQ did do a nickel-cobalt DFS in October 2016. The C1 costs were $2.96 on nickel co-product basis, and 89 cents with cobalt as a by-product basis. And that was assuming $12 cobalt (!).
ARL’s PFS actually will be outstanding when AUZ release theirs.
“…something in the CLQ process that saves money”…there is, indeed. They eliminate a lot of steps after the autoclave hall.
Much more streamlined process, cuts time and saves money…If it works on production scale.
$ARRRF, CTEQF both long
Very nicely written renby, thanks.
$MGX
MGX Minerals and Highbury Energy Produce 45% Vanadium Concentrate from Petroleum Coke Ash
https://www.mgxminerals.com/investors/news/2018/337-mgx-minerals-and-highbury-energy-produce-45-vanadium-concentrate-from-petroleum-coke-ash.html
Duncan…very I impressive. Also impressive they beat RF to the punch. I tell you, Tack and MGX are smart.
They follow Friedland and adapt to their own situations. Gonna go long TCK.
Long MGX
Dungac, I want to say this was a really great link that affects my decision-making. Appreciate it very much.
Gives confidence on MGX and Teck, which is no mean feat given how they are performing; and also, that it makes me inclined to wait a little on vanadium, to see if RF or Sparton can land a contract in China.
There are a lot of choices in vanadium to chase after.
Dungac, others interested in vanadium: I think the MGX announcement is very significant for those interested in vanadium. You will recall that I have stated I believe RF is pursuing vanadium by way of Chinese coal and coke producers in China, and I believe a deal is nearby.
In my opinion this puts a different flavor on speculating on hard rock vanadium developers. Likely there will be a craze for them as vanadium gains awareness and market penetration, and surely their will big winners.
But long term, the MGX announcement makes me stop and think. If coal and coke ash are good sources for vanadium, it stands to reason that the waste and tailings of the coal and coke producers will be a much better source of vanadium than hard rock miners. The ash and tailings are already pulverized, they are plentiful, and they need to be cleaned up. I would think the processing needed to extract them is going to be faster and cheaper than new hard rock mining operations.
And as a source, the MGX announcement ipso facto puts them in the lead as a supplier…not only technologically, but source-wise on claims, because they have TECK and the Commonwealth of Canada behind them, Teck having produced coal, and the Commonwealth wanting to clean up old mine sites.
An analogous situation prevails in China with CLQ and the Chinese State. Expect an announcement within weeks or months on vanadium.
So for the moment, I think I will make sure I put more into CLQ
MGX and TCK before I go looking for a lot of micro-cap spec miners.
Well, there could be serious shortage of vanadium, if VRBs get adopted more. Just that one big battery in China will consume 5% of annual V global production! Plenty of room for both hard rock mining and tech extraction to try to cover the demand. This is my concern with Vanadium – maybe there is not enough of it to allow it go mainstream in grid el. storage.
Anyone know how much petcoke there is globally? That MGX article speaks about 106mt, but is it global inventory?
Vanadium related ann by CLQ would be a cracker! Oh this company has so much potential, but it takes time.. Im impatient.
Coke may not be the only source of vanadium see my post above. There are multiple sources to come on line of which the most prominent is Stina Resources STNUF and Prophecy Development Corp PCY in Nevada. These two are probably 3-4 years away if only considering the procurement of Autoclaves. There are other vanadium projects of unknown size being drilled now Vanadium One VDMRF, Spearmint Resopurces SRJ.
Vanadium choices…yes, I appreciate the fact that there are many juniors who may be big gainers, and I am still interested in them. The issue I bring up is that we are likely to see a repeat of the situation in cobalt: dramatic upswing in demand and price, with nobody there in production to take advantage of the high prices.
In other words, I foresee a situation developing that similar to cobalt…lots of good prospects around, but nobody in position to convert by shipping vanadium when prices are highest.
In that scenario, speed to production and low capex become very important. These conditions are favorable to a technological solution oriented towards existing above-ground “ore”, because acquisition of the waste material is going to be cheaper capex, and the existing above-ground ore material is already there, and the technological solutions for processing it are likely to far less capital intensive than starting a new hard rock mining operation from scratch.
We are used to drilling. We first do magnetic surveys and drill a few holes. Then send out for assay. Then have the geologists study the results to figure out a model. Then drill more holes.
Then enough to qualify for the different resource classifications. Then expensive reports. Then you gotta raise $500 million. The whole process takes too damned long.
In contrast, MGX or CLQ can go to a coal or coke plant or waste dump, take samples, send them to the lab, get the results. Then another pass or two and some lab tests. A rough calculation on the
size of the dump or annual production, then BINGO you can tell if the thing is worthwhile.
The installation is low capex compared to building a mine, likely a fraction of the cost.
I am simplifying. But the point is that processing waste from a coal or coke plant is going to be faster and cheaper than building a hard rock mine from scratch. Such extraction plants are also likely to be feasible on smaller deposits because the capex is lower.
That is the picture as I see it too. The size of the pile of waste will make a difference and the piles are all over considering that there are 500 power plants. Another advantage is they have made their process portable. The question maybe how fast can they build these systems and how easy are they to deploy and train personnel. I don’t remember who from Australia requested information on MGX it has been some months. It would be nice to get an update from them. Then we might just hear of a contract for x number of systems.
$MGXMF long and dreaming 🙂
One of my crazier speculations is that CLQ will be able to manufacture the major components of these Clean iX recovery modules for common deposit types, and thus be able to install very fast.
For example, there may be many sites that can use a similar installation and resin for heap-leach gold cyanide recoveries; or in coal ash or coke recoveries.
The capabilities of Pengxin come into play here because they have the capabilities to manufacture components and export them. Pengxin has capabilities that fit well for such a scenario, especially within China.
The major lead time item will be the analysis of the ore, the resins selected, and the
software to control the process. These will actually need to be accomplished quite early in the process. Wat the result will be is longer contract gestation periods but
very fast deleivery and installation once the contract is awarded.
Dungac, think about all the coal waste. Coal has been mined for 150 or 200 years or more.
The industry is dying.
In the southeastern US a few years ago, a major power company was fined $2 billion for dumping coal ash into the environment. Dead money expense.
Gold miners are restricted because they have to use cyanide.
Now along comes CLQ, who can extract value from all the waste while cleaning it up.
Bonanza. Be patient. Before the vanadium craze is hot, you will see an announcement by RF on sourcing it.
Say…that big VRB plant in China you mentioned….Who got the contract ?
If CLQ could modularize part of their their process that would be great. I think that CLQ and MGX technology. The technology that these companies possess has the potential to impact their profit margins as well making an impact on environmental problems that have accumulated over the years. I can’t help but be long in both with substantial positions. I think MGX may have a slight lead in coming to production but also has smaller market. I also think that MGX designed their process to be portable. CLQ on the other hand has far and away the larger potential with clean water and Ionic Industries. Still both represent new technology and until they reliably produce product there is no proof of concept.
Griffin, it is a pretty far out speculation but I do suspect that modular production of Clean Teq installations will become a reality and a major component of their business.
The resin formulations and software are the problem pieces for a specific project. So it makes sense to select specific geology extraction problems that have wide application…such as cyanide recovery from goldheap leach operations, or clean up of coal ash extracting trace elements.
Furthermore Pengxin’s specialties are more useful in this type of end use. They have a mining operation…Pengxin Mining…but it is striking that they do not have a manufacturing enterprise that actually needs cobalt of nickel. Nor is their expertise or assistance needed to construct Sunrise, although there may be some synergies.
On the other hand they have subsidiaries in IT, technology, export, & finance; and they recently set up a position in a commodity trader…one wonders.
I don’t think it’s that far out to consider making the process modular it would probably be the quickest way to deploy it. I had think about it a bit because of the autoclave but processing waste probably doesn’t require autoclaves. CLQ and MGX don’t seem to be stepping on each others toes so it is going to interesting to see how thing play out.
Griffin, I saw a video of Ben Stockdale from November at a Melbourne trade show.
In it he stated that three years ago Clean Teq made a strategic decision not to license or sell the technology. They are going to own or JV projects using it.
This means that the modularization of widespread applications, if it happens, will be for their own projects or JV projects in which they retain an interest.
They will not be selling installs outright, according to Stockdale.
Now if Stockdale is telling the truth 100%, it means that new deals include either a JV or a residual component. For example, Multotec recently announced a small deal for a client in DRC, and CLQ announced a deal for the Fosterville mine in Australia.
There was no mention of JV or residuals in either deal.
This means either that Stockdale’s statement has exceptions (no sale for mining, but sales for water processing), or that the continuing interest of CLQ in the projects has not been disclosed.
Dungac, I’ve been suspecting this. But a review of Stockdale’s comments at the November IMARC in Melbourne, and RF’s comments in the news release on the Pu Neng-Hubei contract announcement,
and installation of a geologist who is a CLQ Director as CEO of Pu Neng,
leave no room for doubt that CLQ is going to land vanadium contacts in China. SOON.
It is as plain as can be. Friedland is giving us a lay-up.
There are quite few heavy metals in coal and I would think that they all get left behind whether coke, sludge or ash. There is enough coal ash generated by the 500 coal fueled power plants in the USA that it would be worth whiled to explore processing. If it is possiblem to get vanadium from ash that would be a big plus for the environment.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heavy_metals_and_coal#Coal_Ash
MGXMF long
Gold from garbage. That is the idea.
Clean up the garbage and make a profit while doing so….get the gold, vanadium, cyanide, whatever is in the garbage.
Ionic Industries…status update…my account is open and funded.
I will be long Ionic Industries tomorrow or the next day. Obviously now a waiting game to see if CLQ elects to form the JV.
Have no idea what to expect, or what time frame. Never have done a pre-IPO placement.
Will keep everybody posted.
Ionic Industries…my cash is with the broker but there is more red tape, which I am not sure I can overcome.
Will update when resolved.
https://twitter.com/MarkSita5/status/979556630416179200
Ist time I ever saw this ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4hRJVZ7pM&feature=youtu.be
Rubberworm…very useful and informative link. Stockdale said they are NOT going to sell the technology, he said they made the decision three years ago to retain it and to become a techno miner that will capitalize on depsoits no one else can do economically.
This corresponds roughly with the time frame they decided to do the scandium-only PFS on Syerston.
Strategically they are going to go into big projects for extraction, and own or JV them.
$CTEQF $CLQ…..Royalties, JV’s, or what ?
I have emailed CLQ IR to clarify the structure of new deals and whether the same structure applies to water and minerals. Will post when I get an answer.
I was trying to wrap my mind around your previous post and having difficulty more lack of experience at fault. I would think that trying to go it alone with their technology would end up being awfully cumbersome just too much demand. Whether “Royalties, JV’s, or what” they are going to get their share and it may not be the same for mining, water, or waste.
$CTEQF, $MGXMF, $STNUF long and hoping to go longer
griffin…I was sort of surprised by Stockdale’s comment myself. However it does seem logical to maintain a royalty (this is different than a license or an outright sale) or a JV…or own it outright. What it implies is that there are long-term “strings” on the mineral extraction installations.
This is hinted at on the Multotec website when they present the cyanide heap leach recovery circuits for gold miners: they express the savings in terms of “50% operating savings versus buying new cyanide”.
The implication is that a user has an ongoing cost to recover their own cyanide, which presumeably is some type of payment to CLQ.
With production of multiples in the basic equipment, CLQ can approach the heap-leach acid gold guys with very low capex on the installation.
“Tell you what. We know things are tough. Our cost for the circuit is X. You give us 50% of X and we go 50/50 on the income. You are getting 92% recovery, we can recover another 6%. You get 3%, we get 3%. You are going to improve your income by 3% with virtually no capex. ”
Net result: CLQ gets 3% of Mine Z’s life of mine production, and Mine Z improves its production 3%.
The Multotec royalty agreement sounds like a win win. If the Stockdale’s comments are close to what RF wants CLQ to do I would think that CLQ would have retained ownership of the equipment. As well as any maintenance of the equipment would be done by CLQ or perhaps Multotec in that they are a JV. RF only needs to look as far as IBM to see how to maintain control of there product.
$CLQ $CTEQF Conviction, deep conviction, and ultra conviction
Nickel and cobalt and water gave me conviction.
Scandium gave me deep conviction.
But after piecing together the clues on vanadium, I have ultra conviction.
In the IMARC interview, Ben Stockdale stated flatly that CLQ decided three years ago to “keep” CLQ technology, not to sell it or license it. They are going to be a miner.
Robert Friedland acquires Pu Neng, the leading VRB maker in China, and installs Eric Finlayson as CEO.
Eric is a geologist and CLQ Director.
In November 2017 Pu Neng wins a provincial-sized VRB contract in Hubei. When installed, it will be the largest VRB installation in China.
In the press release RF talks plainly about sourcing vanadium from local sources in the province. He says
“We have discussed [the future with the authorities]. This is the first step of many steps we will take together.”
He is telling us plainly: CLQ is going to get vanadium deals in China and supply Pu Neng with vanadium.
A quick note to anyone following the miners in Australia. you should look at KRC going forward. They have more property than just about anyone in this area. check out their website and see what they have going on. Make your own decisions on investment. Lot of people involved in this deal. Good Luck
Hendrix, question here. Why would CLQ have to be involved in this at all? Why not just have Pu Neng acquire the vanadium directly from sources in China? You write as if CLQ will be the middle man here. I don’t quite follow the reasoning.
Pu Neng is not a miner. CLQ or somebody has to extract the mineral from the ore. The “sources” have to get the technology from somewhere.
RF owns both Pu Neng and CLQ. It is not like CLQ is inserting itself where it is not needed.
I’m a little outdated lately, but could you please just shortly explain how CLQ is linked to vanadium? I understood that the CLQ director is the CEO, but do CLQ have vanadium-resources?
There is no link yet. I am predicting there will be one shortly.
Friedland owns majority of Pu Neng.
Pu Neng is a VRB maker with a big China State Grid contract for vanadium redox storage.
There have been explicit though incidental references to RF negotiating with Chinese coal interests;
Friedland himself has referred to developing local vanadium sources in China; CLQ literature says
CLQ can extract vanadium. Also see announcement quoting RF on the ocasion of the Pu Neng grid contract announcement in November 2017.
Friedland controls CLQ, he controls Pu Neng, and the CLQ director Eric Finlayson is CEO of Pu Neng.
WTF does a vanadium storage company need a geologist for a CEO ?
Because Pu Neng’s main problem is finding a reliable source of vanadium.
Finlayson will tell RF which of the deposit sources are best; then away we go.
CLARIFICATION OF CLEAN TEQ STRATEGY
edited from email of Richard Glass
“Dear [Hendrixnuzzles]
Our strategy [previously] was to deliver engineering/process solutions [with our technology] to clients. However, the Company realised there [was greater potential in] applying our technology to an asset of our own – hence the acquisition of the Sunrise Project.
Beyond Sunrise, we may… licence our technology to other…companies where we [can deliver shareholder value]. This may be [by] direct technology licence or perhaps a technology-for-project equity swap (project ownership level)….[but] I must stress…our current focus… is Sunrise and executing this project well. We believe [this project will validate] the technology and [it will become] an attractive proposition to other resource companies.”
Mr. Glass also indicated that the annuity income option will be a target in water projects.
Can you please explain a bit more as to what you mean by “annuity income option”? Thanks.
The structure of Clean Teq water processing deals can be “X amount for each cubic meter of water processed.” Forever.
MGXMF–Long….Article on the zinc-air spinoff… http://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2018/4/mgx-spin-out-zinc-air-fuel-cell-division-grow-technology-internationally/ ….Cowboy
Cowboy…that was fast. They just acquired Zincnyx themselves recently.
Can’t complain. Hope they get a boatload of $$ but I somehow think it is a little early to get full value.
Wonder who the CEO will be.
Long MGXMF.
Thanks Cowboy for the link.
Real money…Everything cleared for me this week and I had to make some decisions.
1. VANADIUM…The pressing issue for me was vanadium, which had a large number of spec picks in an early stage
of market awareness. Because of the review of the situation with Cleanteq, I decided to put another
slice of money into Clean Teq; boring, but I think an announcement is coming this year and CLQ will be in the vanadium business faster than hard rock mining specs. I expect a complete supply chain package from Chinese coal-to CLQ-to off-take by Pu Neng.
There are a number of good vanadium speculations but I will wait for a hit on something else before putting in more $$.
2. WATER/tech…the aforementioned buy into Ionic Industries was big for me and soaked up a lot of capital. This is a long-term high risk speculation, so my appetite for other long-range speculations was reduced.
3. COBALT…the additional money into CLQ also covers for cobalt. I believe CLQ will be first with new uncommitted production; plus CLQ also covers scandium and nickel. Way overweight in CLQ but it is a very efficient investment.
I also increased my ARL position a little on recent weakness. Still considering re-entering Platina, the market cap is so low it is insane. COB is new to me and also attractive but I will hold off for now.
Could not bring myself to start with AUZ. It could be good but I cannot execute well without putting more money
into secondary accounts; and I will worry too much about it to make it worthwhile.
4. GOLD Didn’t do anything but may put some more into ERDCF and SAND.
5. OTHER…I will likely buy some SCCO; but this week I could not pass on IVPAF at $1.99. The valuation is below the value of the Platreefs South African project. Too much intrinsic value to pass.
Thanks for the run-down HN… Love your posts.
Are you still in Sparton $SPNRF $SRI ?
eemajin…Yes long Sparton. But I cannot recommend it to innocent bystanders.
It is really my major vanadium speculation besides CLQ.
The company owns 18% of Pu Neng through a tortuous and inscrutable daisy chain of holding companies.
Sparton Resources and Ionic Industries are my far out spec plays; both have more money than I should have put in, so I am a little cautious with the rest of my long-shot exploration money.
I will fess up to owning both, but I cannot discuss them like I would Clean Teq or Sandstorm.
What a difference a year makes. Clean Teq feels like a blue chip.
Pu Neng…from Friedland’s perch at I-Pulse
https://www.ipulse-group.com/Technologies
It states in plain English that Pu Neng (=Friedland) and HPX (=Friedland) are actively searching for vanadium mining opportunities (more than one) in China.
Hard to see how CLQ (=Friedland) will not be involved.
$CTEQF long
Did everyone else get their Notice of General Meeting and the voting instruction form for Clean Teq Holdings?
We need to vote For, Against or Abstain for 1. Ratification of prior issue of shares, and 2. Approval of proposed issue of shares.
The AGM is being held in Melbourne (Vic, not FL) on Wednesday, April 18th. If it were Perth or Sydney I could persuade someone to go on my behalf, but I don’t knwo anyone in Melbourne.
Is there anyone in this thread on SG who would think of going to the AGM?
Your best avenue is to follow Hot Copperin Australia, with members supplying information on meetings updates.
There will most likely be updates on the Companies website later that day.
$CTEQF long
Thanks williamstown. I followed your advice and registered with Hot Copper. O my, there is a lot of reading one could do on that site.
I love Hot Copper, you get a lot of names and good links.
The analysis and quality of the posts is low, on average, IMO; a lot of noise.
People there are sensitive and very partisan, and very preoccupied with daily price action.
They are concerned with market manipulators and people controlling stock prices.
Since mid-February I have been on HC a lot because I wanted info on cobalt and vanadium companies. . The opinions are almost uniformly positive, if you are neutral or negative you get accused of being a short-seller, or a “downramper” trying to scare people so they sell and you can buy their stock cheaply.
The funny thing is my opinions did not change at all on cobalt…the only new name I found that I would consider was COB. CLQ, ARL, AUZ, PGM, MEI, EUC…all we knew about beforehand.
When you get a name, you still need to DYOR. The opinions cannot be trusted.
In vanadium, many good leads. However because of my own research, I think the very best vanadium play is CLQ again. To my knowledge, no one on HC was tuned into the Pu Neng
VRB potential or Friedland’s interest in Chinese vanadium, although a few people were onto Sparton.
I can only confirm what you say !
If one is sceptical and dare to post it, you are a downramper !!
But your insight in CLQ, can not be compared. some seems to like your (many) comments and some dont.
Have just one thing to say: KEEP THEM COMING
CLQ long
Curtis, thanks.
The sheer number of contributors on HC are a mixed blessing; the mass appeal tends to lower the quality of discussion. HC is a free-for-all. On Stock Gumshoe, the tone and focus of the thread can be controlled to a degree by the author/moderator.
On HC I raised some questions about AUZ, a stock of interest, looking to get factual answers, and I got a sh#tstorm of enraged accusations from long partisans; but no rebuttal of facts or pertinent things that pertained to the issues.
Meanwhile small cliques use the forum as a chat room; though I guess we do a little of that also.
One interesting thing about wide appeal, you can
throw something out there and see what comes back.
For example, I was concerned about speed to production on cobalt developers. Readers here know that CLQ is in the lead by most measures though one may differ on the importance of that.
So I asked an open question: “Does anybody know of a project that will get to production before AUZ and CLQ ?” I got no answers that created doubt. One or two small projects, and a call-out on Cobalt Blue;
but nothing that changed my outlook.
So I have confidence that our outlook on CLQ
being first is pretty accurate, as far as Australian cobalt projects.
The fewer number of participants here is actually a good thing for better quality discussion and analysis. It is better to have a smaller number of interested parties. We get as many good ideas and leads here as from a wide audience.
And we need to do our own DD anyway.
Curtis, it is so absurd.
During the Trading Halt That Devoured Melbourne, hundreds of AUZ partisans were gleefully speculating that the stock was going to 25 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents. One guy who claimed himself an experienced stock trader said the SKI deal was the “deal of the century”, we would be lucky to buy it at 18 cents after the resumption.
After the Blockbuster Deal That Shook The World,
AUZ rocketed from 12 cents all the way to its current level of 9 cents.
But the cheerleaders are not accused of pumping or
upramping. The insults and accusations are saved for the people that questioned whether the stock had as much value as everyone else said that it did.
The Evil Downrampers.
$CTEQF long I received my proxies and voted yesterday online.
A main event will be the vote on how much oversubscription money to take.
We will see the plan on equity versus debt. I have a feeling they will be able to finance the rest of the Sunrise capex with debt…good for us.
Would I ever like to be there. Maybe announcements after the vote !
Clean Teq nickel-cobalt PFS…When Ardea came out with their PFS a little while ago, I looked high and low for a CLQ nickel-cobalt PFS and did not find one. I found the 2016 scandium-only PFS.
However, they DID in fact do a nickel-cobalt PFS in October 2016, shortly after the scandium-only PFS.
The figures confirm positively that the mine will make unbelievable profit.
It also tends to confirm my assertions that they made a construction decision a long time ago.
Process 2.5 million tons ore per year.
The rough production figures are 19,000 tons nickel, 3,222 tons cobalt, 50 tons scandium.
The operating costs are about $3 for nickel and cobalt; maybe a little higher for scandium.
I did a rough calculation on slightly different numbers:
Cobalt…4,000 tons/year. They will alter the mine block plan to take advantage of co prices.
Nickel…18,000/tons/year. Slight reduction to up cobalt.
Scandium…100 tons/year. They have 170 tons capacity for each of two autoclaves.
Taking today’s prices, $6 nickel and $45 cobalt, and allowing for $500/pound scandium,
and a $3 lb co-product basis, they will have about $1 billion in free cash flow per year.
At 85% margins.
And the sulfate premiums are not included.
Capex in the 2016 report is low, they will probably need over 1 billion.
This mine is going to cause an uproar in the industry…if it works.
$CLQ…a confluence of new information
A number of recent incidents and discoveries have made me more strongly convinced then ever before about the future of Clean Teq. And I was awfully bullish to begin with.
What is happening is that I am having trouble bringing myself to allocate serious money into other cobalt or battery material speculations. It is hard to justify not buying more CLQ, when I compare other picks to it.
Some of the recent things:
1. My discovery of the nickel-cobalt PFS done almost three years ago. With today’s prices, I am sure the BFS this summer will be outrageous. They already have scandium in a separate PFS…when combined, the financials will be pwoerful.
2. The interview with Ben Stockdale at IMARC in November, and my exchanges with CLQ IR concerning the future strategy of the company.
3. The hugely successful capital raise.
4. Increasing evidence that CLQ will soon have blockbuster deals and a mile head start in scandium that will dramatically affect CLQ profitability.
5. Increasing conviction that CLQ will soon make a major entry into vanadium mining, and get to production faster than anyone else.
6. Friedland’s recent visit to the LME, and LME statements that cobalt sulfate futures will be available next year. This is why RF does not need off-takes.
7. The fact that negotiations are continuing with Easpring indicates something major will happen. I expect LOM 20% off-take, and Easpring equity into CLQ.
8. The lack of any serious contenders for speed to market in cobalt. AUZ may be fast but will not have uncommitted minerals, all their production goes to SKI.
COB is moving fast but they are behind.
9. Continued on-the-ground action at CLQ…hiring, key people, soliciting of bids.
10. Evidence that CLQ will go after specific applications like cyanide removal.
Of course, Clean iX needs to work at Sunrise. A lot depends on that.
Edited comments from CLQ I on future business combinations:
HN: “Concerning the future arrangements with other projects, I interpret your explanation to mean that Clean Teq has a flexible posture concerning future arrangements on the mineral side.”
CLQ: “Yes. We believe our Clean iX technology is our key competitive advantage which has applications across a range of commodities and projects. [However we are [now] focusing on Sunrise… in the future [it will be applied] either through licencing or as an asset owner/joint….[depending] on the commercial terms [of the specific situation]…”
NB: “…key competitive advantage which has applications across a range of commodities and projects.”
Since we are still close to Easter, I am reminded that one should not put all of their eggs in one basket, HN.
Another thing, and maybe I missed it being discussed, is there could quite possibly be Implications of having/doing trade with China, as is evident in ‘newscasts’ these days……
Thanks, edski.
I wrestle with the “one basket” issue regularly.
Cobalt positons and opinions
A while back in mid-February, I came to the opinion that it was a matter of some urgency to review my cobalt positions, with an eye to diversifying a little, since Clean Teq is dominant in mt portfolio. After a fairly intensive investigation, I am pretty much where I started out, except that my conviction on Clean Teq has increased more than diminished. I am more conflicted about shifting money out of CLQ than before, as my opinion is more slanted in favor of CLQ than it was six weeks ago.
Nonetheless, here are my evaluations and opinions of the other Australian cobalt developers that I have looked at:
ARL…good long-term resource, but has taken a recent hit on account of a poorly received PFS, and long lead times before production. Production before 2022. Still great value in the ground, but a mine is a long ways off. I am long with a small position, unlikely to add, but on the fence about holding
AUZ…I can live without it. I might consider it as a trading play, at under 10 cents (about $250 mil MC) there is a lot of upside. They have a great deposit, a 100% off-take with a strong counterparty, and a good second deposit in Flemington.
Negatives: there are 2.6 billion shares, and I am skeptical they will achieve their timeline, I do not trust management, and SKI the Korean counterparty has tied up the deposit without putting any cash in, and they hold an option on 25% of the company at 12 cents. AUZ has value but they are not in control of their own destiny. There is also undisclosed future profit erosion in the undisclosed details of the SKI deal, and the $65 million option money is an illusion because it is tied to further pricing concessions in the off-take. Also I cannot buy AUZ effectively on the US exchanges, and the following of the company is mostly retail investors, which is a negative.
COB…looks good, they are smart and look well-directed. The deposit is the lion’s share of the Thackeringa deposit (which AUZ trumpets as an AUZ’s ace-in-the-hole). COB is a pure cobalt play, no secondary metals. This can be an attraction or a detriment, depending on your point of view. I would consider COB as a reasonable speculation in pure cobalt. The recent foothold with LG is a big plus.
PGM…poor Platina. Next door to Sunrise and RF with a good deposit. And no leadership, they fired the founder. Followers are despondent. But it is so cheap at a $30 million market cap, I am still tempted to re-enter.
VIC… mentioned a lot, but I have no position and no opinion.
EXPLORATION…there are a number of micro-cap explorers who could hit it big,
but I am less inclined to go after long-shots right now. EUC, KRC. JRV, MEI, Celsius, etc. The only one I have is EUC, I will sit with a small position.
BIG CAPS…there may be good large cap miners but this is not the direction I am interested in going. It may suit someone else
Correction: The SKI option is for 19.9% of AUZ and must be acted upon within three months after the Bankable Feasibility Study, scheduled for June or July.
Ionic Industries April update:
https://mailchi.mp/73d90ee35125/new-patent-breakthrough-and-directors-interests-1077789
Research progress, new team members and new investment
…an update on all that we’ve been up to over the past few months
Dear Ionic Shareholders and Friends,
Since our last update in February, we’ve been busy working across all of our reserach programs overcoming a range of technical challenges and bringing us closer to commercial outcomes. We also have a number of new people in our research teams and welcome several new shareholders to our list of investors.
Research Update
We recently finished all of the testing required to support our MICRENs patent application. The results were all as expected, demonstrating that we can achieve consistent results over many repetitions of our work. We now move into the next phase of work on creating more sophisticated devices that will be closer to meeting the specific performance requirements in our target markets.
Our work on water treatment technlogies has continued with Clean TeQ in the context of our government-funded CRC-P program. We faced a number of challenges over the past 2 months as we moved to larger scale production, however these have been largely overcome now and we look forward to progressing our commercialisation plans with Clean TeQ in the coming months.
Unfortunately, over the past few months we have encountered some logistics and administration challenges that have delayed receipt of critical materials. This means we will need to slightly extend some of our deadlines by about 6-8 weeks in both the water and supercapacitor programs. While this is frustrating, we are fortunate that these problems are all solvable and not particularly surprising as we are dealing in a complex global supply chain with advanced materials coming from places as diverse as India, China and the United States.
New Team Members
In March, we welcomed two new members to the Monash research team. These researchers will deliver much needed expertise to support the next stages of our research in both energy storage and water treatment.
Dr Meysam Sharifzadeh joins us from Nanyang Technical University in Singapore bringing expertise in materials science and device design and fabrication. His expertise will be critical as we enter the next stage of our supercapacitor program where we need to consistently produce many prototype devices for use in testing and up-scaled production processes.
Dr Sebastian Hernandez joins the Monash team from the University of Kentucky (USA) bringing specific knowledge in chemical-environmental engineering processes, separation processes and nanocomposites. He has arrived in time to contribute critical expertise to support the scaled production of our water treatment technologies and testing in industrial applications.
Capital Raising
We are also please to report that Ionic has been able to raise a further $200,000 through unsolicited applications and private share placement. We are delighted that we are attracting the attention of new investors who see the value in what we’re doing and with the confidence to invest in us.
Kind Regards,
Simon Savage
Managing Director
#Best2ALL!
Thanks Ben. This is a real nano-cap…that $200K in unsolicited investments gets mentioned in an update shows how tiny they are.
That’s probably me and the half-dozen people who asked for the brokerage info.
It’s like being able to pick out your own transaction in the daily price/volume data.
Anyway it’s so difficult to do a transaction, I will forget about it and leave the money alone for a few years.