2017 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.
If the long awaited DFS moves the needle south, can someone tell what it will take to move it north and when.
Very disheartened.
Long (maybe too long) CLQ
ARL publishes a conventional PFS…stock goes down.
AUZ announces 100% take-off…stock tanks.
CLQ announces BFS…stock craters.
**
This week’s price action is really demoralizing, and I do not have a good explanation. In some ways the announcement had all “the bad” (high capex, lower IRR, and higher cobalt price assumptions) and none of “the good” (final financing, new take-offs, scandium). I tend to believe that the short-term price action is a result of non-fundamental trading strategies by big money; after all, these stocks have no income and are driven by sentiment and emotion.
There a number of things in the BFS that I think are very positive but I will wait a little before posting on them. I want to make sure I am not losing objectivity.
I still have no thought of selling, on the contrary I am considering adding.
I am not a seller at these prices.
I have to laugh about it. When the stock was over $1.00, I fantasized about how much I would add if it ever went under $1.00 again. And now here we are, and fear takes over, at prices I consider to be a bargain.
Another chuckle for a grim few days: One poster on HC who is partial to AUZ gave a taunt to CLQ holders about the price action. Of course, AUZ went into another trading halt,for unspecified reasons, for an unspecified length of time; so he cannot sell his AUZ at any price, nor can anyone buy it; which is less than can be said for CLQ.
I wonder if it has anything to do with Benjamin Bell’s comments in London that SKI made a commitment to finance the mine, which detail was not disclosed at the time of the take-off announcement. In my opinion this is a material issue that should have been disclosed months ago. People have been fired for less than this.
The contrast in management skill is striking. Putting aside the market reaction, CLQ announces a BFS with no trading halt at all; AUZ gets an involuntary halt
for unknown reasons, in addition to the self-inflicted disaster in February when they were in a halt for almost a month because of wording and misrepresentation in their take-off announcement.
One other thing, a friend who is involved in quant programming advised that
the frequency of discussion on some popular websites is actually a variable in a lot of the bot trading programs…that a high frequency of discussion is often taken as a “bearish” variable in the programs. So much the better that we are off in an unpublicized corner of Stock Gumshoe.
It will be a major undertaking but we will just have to move Australia to the northern hemisphere!
Long CTEQF currently at 3.2% of portfolio.
But an easier way might be to bring your northern hemisphere compass to Australia!
Be careful what you ask for!
Someone bought $20 worth of Sparton, and raised their market cap by over a million dollars and their stock price by 25%. Cute!
It wasn’t me !
SPNRF–Long…..News today… http://www.spartonres.ca/news/press-release-june-27-2018/ ….Cowboy
Thanks, Cowboy.
Great for Pu Neng, therefore Sparton. Disappointing, as CLQ may be out of the vanadium supply chain for Pu Neng.
Vanadium: Not totally decisive; we cannot tell whether the group making the deal is a miner. The agreement is for the counterparty to supply vanadium electrolyte…we do not know where or from who they are sourcing the vanadium.
Aha…a little clue holds a ray of hope on CLQ being in the Pu Neng/VRB Energy vanadium supply chain.
Whose name is listed as one of the contacts on the news release from VRB Energy ?
Eric Finalyson. On the Board of Clean Teq.
Still hope.
Little info available on the counterparty Pangang V&T, but from what I can see they are manufacturers, not miners. So a little more hope.
UPDATE 2-Congo miner Gecamines plans to renegotiate with foreign partners
10:33 AM ET, 06/14/2018 – Reuters
* Gecamines chairman says partnership revenue too low
* Congo has taken increasingly hard line with foreign miners
* Companies have threatened legal action to retain exemptions (Adds Randgold CEO comments)
By Fiston Mahamba
LUBUMBASHI, Democratic Republic of Congo, June 14 (Reuters) – D emocratic Republic of Congo state miner Gecamines has called on its foreign partners to renegotiate the terms of joint ventures it considers to be unfair, its chairman said on Thursday.
Heavily in debt and with dwindling output, Gecamines has long complained about its joint venture terms. It launched a contracts audit in 2016 and is now ready to sit down with its international partners to thrash out better deals.
“If our partners think that operations bringing in 2.5 percent in royalties to the state are sufficient, they are mistaken,” Albert Yuma told a mining conference in the southeastern city of Lubumbashi.
“We will use all legal means to reclaim our rights,” he added, complaining that Gecamines’ partnerships have not brought in sufficient revenue to the Congolese state.
Yuma’s comments followed the announcement on Tuesday that Gecamines had dropped legal proceedings against Glencore subsidiary Katanga Mining aimed at dissolving their Kamoto copper and cobalt joint venture.
As part of the deal, Katanga agreed to a debt-for-equity swap that will cut Kamoto’s debts by more than half and to pay Gecamines about $190 million.
Congo is Africa’s top copper producer and the world’s leading miner of cobalt, the price of which has surged over the past two years because of its use in batteries for electric vehicles.
HARD LINE
Congolese authorities have taken a hard line with foreign miners in recent months as they try to capitalise on high commodity prices. In March President Joseph Kabila signed a new mining code that increases taxes and royalties and cancels exemptions.
Major companies operating in Congo, including Glencore, Randgold and Ivanhoe, have threatened legal action if the government does not respect 10-year exemptions granted under the previous code against changes to the fiscal and customs regimes.
Randgold CEO Mark Bristow appeared to strike a more restrained note at the conference, saying that the new code “breaks down trust” but that mines in Congo could succeed in spite of it.
Yuma also said that Gecamines’ Deziwa joint venture with China Nonferrous Metal Mining (CNMC) would produce 80,000 tonnes of copper next year.
Gecamines has reached a revenue-sharing agreement with an unidentified Chinese company to develop the Kilamusembo copper and cobalt mine, he added.
Since its heyday in the 1980s, when it produced close to 500,000 tonnes of copper a year, Gecamines has fallen heavily into debt and last year produced less than 16,000 tonnes of copper. (Reporting by Fiston Mahamba Writing by Aaron Ross Editing by Edward McAllister and David Goodman)
**
My take is that the miners will, one at a time, arrive at understandings with the DRC regime. I have said all along that I think DRC cobalt in particular will not be 100% shut off. Note that an anonymous Chinese firm reached agreement on a copper and cobalt mine, and that CITIC just put in $700 million into Ivanhoe’s KKKW project.
The Chinese will move in while others panic.
Brief but good report here from McKinsey about fundamentals of Cobalt (full report at end). The key is that cobalt supply is dependent on Congo AND that outside Congo its very much dependent on nickel and copper price as primary deposits are rare. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/lithium-and-cobalt-a-tale-of-two-commodities?cid=soc-web thx @cdchi1
Remember the Tony Seba presentation: McKinsey was paid a large amount of money by AT&T in the early 1990’s to forecast cell phone distribution by the year 2000, and their number was off by a factor of 100.
Maybe I missed it, but anybody a clue why CTEQF has been plummeting? Is there an end in sight?
Hmm. Nobody responded to my question. Perhaps no one knows. Perhaps it’s the crapshoot aspect of the market? Nevertheless, in my eyes, it sure looks like it’s crashing. There’s got to be some rationale behind it.
wade3 – did you read this post from hendrinuzzles:
ARL publishes a conventional PFS…stock goes down.
AUZ announces 100% take-off…stock tanks.
CLQ announces BFS…stock craters.
**
This week’s price action is really demoralizing, and I do not have a good explanation. In some ways the announcement had all “the bad” (high capex, lower IRR, and higher cobalt price assumptions) and none of “the good” (final financing, new take-offs, scandium). I tend to believe that the short-term price action is a result of non-fundamental trading strategies by big money; after all, these stocks have no income and are driven by sentiment and emotion.
There a number of things in the BFS that I think are very positive but I will wait a little before posting on them. I want to make sure I am not losing objectivity.
I still have no thought of selling, on the contrary I am considering adding.
I am not a seller at these prices.
I have to laugh about it. When the stock was over $1.00, I fantasized about how much I would add if it ever went under $1.00 again. And now here we are, and fear takes over, at prices I consider to be a bargain.
Another chuckle for a grim few days: One poster on HC who is partial to AUZ gave a taunt to CLQ holders about the price action. Of course, AUZ went into another trading halt,for unspecified reasons, for an unspecified length of time; so he cannot sell his AUZ at any price, nor can anyone buy it; which is less than can be said for CLQ.
I wonder if it has anything to do with Benjamin Bell’s comments in London that SKI made a commitment to finance the mine, which detail was not disclosed at the time of the take-off announcement. In my opinion this is a material issue that should have been disclosed months ago. People have been fired for less than this.
The contrast in management skill is striking. Putting aside the market reaction, CLQ announces a BFS with no trading halt at all; AUZ gets an involuntary halt
for unknown reasons, in addition to the self-inflicted disaster in February when they were in a halt for almost a month because of wording and misrepresentation in their take-off announcement.
One other thing, a friend who is involved in quant programming advised that
the frequency of discussion on some popular websites is actually a variable in a lot of the bot trading programs…that a high frequency of discussion is often taken as a “bearish” variable in the programs. So much the better that we are off in an unpublicized corner of Stock Gumshoe.
Guys its decision time. If you think that all the deep thought thats been offered here on this site is speculative hogwash….you should get out and invest in something else you know B all about.
Alternatively, if you think that whats been said here has some depth of understanding, some merit, you should be joyful, smirk and treat the markets maneuverings as a buying op or simply ignore it.
In or out? But please, no more whinging. Lets build on the info we have or leave the auditorium. After this much effort, if weve got this one wrong, what hope for the next ‘BIG WINNER’.
Only you sign the cheque….better make sure your DD has the right name up top.
wade3…sorry to miss your query.
I am coming to the opinion that a lot of short-term action is caused not necessarily by “manipulation” per se, although there is some of that, but by quant, computer, and program trading by larger players.
In other words I do not think that short-term action is causing stock prices to move in ways it has historically, and that the price movements are being driven by programming we cannot see or evaluate. The results are that the stock prices are driven by neither sentiment or fundamentals.
It becomes a question of whether the Goldman Sachs program algorhythm by the MIT guy is better than the algorhythm by the Cal Tech guy at the Blackstone Hedge Fund. These small caps have no sales or earnings and can blown around pretty badly by big money who is interested.
For little guys like us in speculative stocks, it means we better be right about our long-term fundamental analysis, and have a really strong stomach,and a position size we can live with; because our picks can get knocked around pretty badly.
If we are going to throw out our convictions and research because the stock takes a dive, we are going to get blown out. Of course we have to be objective when the fundamentals really do change for the worse, and that can happen. But if the fundamentals and analysis are good, we should not change our minds because today’s price is upsetting us.
Now about CLQ. Every pundit and analyst will say, “Well, the capex is too high, the market didn’t like it, the IRR is too low, yadda yadda”.
But anyone serious knew the capex was going to come in higher, it is no surprise. But the sag could be exaggerated when two dozen quant programs all get the same signal and flash “SELL!”.
One other thing. There might be a negative self-reinforcing loop happening out of control, because CLQ is traded in in different time zones in Australia, and in North America. So it goes down on the TSX and OTC, then the Australians sell; the Australian ASX goes down, and this sends a signal to the NY and TSX guys the next day; and so on.
Who the hell knows.
But there comes a point where one says say, “Sh#t, I know the company is worth more than this, and I know more about the company than 99.9% of the people selling out, this is a great company and I am not selling at these stupid prices and I am going to buy more if I can get my nerve up.”
Informed conviction is a must.
Pig-headed stubbornness is a problem.
Now if only we can tell the difference.
Im sure you are right HN. Robot computers can only be programmed to rapidly react to changes in the fundamentals and price movements, not the nuanced story line. So I dont think this started as a retail sell off…..although that has certainly followed. My guess is that they sold at ~ 0.90A$ to protect their investment, plus provide the opportunity for a human who understands the story, to consider re-entering lower. IMO volumes over the next few days will tell an interesting story about what the market really thinks about Cleantec as an investment.
But I do think they made a whopping mistake by publishing the DFS directly before the Oz open. That caused a knee jerk, aka, robot feedback reaction that crashed the price. Had they published on the Friday night, humans would have had the weekend to better consider it. It was also unfair to the retail holders as they would have had an equal time opportunity to consider their positions and enter their orders to the market for action at the bell along with the robots.
Personally, Ive been a buyer at A$0.78….fortunately I can afford to wait for the big payday that Im sure will arrive.
Hi Sarah, I thought the timing was excellent.
No halt. No muss. No fuss.
They have to consider the hours of the OZ and North American operations.
It also cut down on the participation in the teleconference. I think only two analysts even had questions; I barely made it just to listen.
**
I have read a lot of comments from people saying “What is so bad about the report ?”…”Looks good to me..” etc.
All the post-mortem analysis is after the fact, it is plausible, but I do not believe the post-mortems have the real answers.
Why did AUZ plummet 25% after announcing 100% take-off ?
Why did ARL get hammered on their PFS?
And now this with CLQ.
Is there some cobalt project we don’t know about that is going to get to market ? Is there another cobalt-nickel project with a BFS that CLQ failed against ?
CLQ put out an email today containing links about India’s state owned firms being mandated to secure EV metals from ‘abroad’.
Why did CLQ choose India when most countries are in a rush to secure EV metals ? Is there a deal on the cards?
Not seen it, can you post it?
Maybe you are referring to this – http://www.miningweekly.com/article/indian-state-owned-firms-mandated-to-acquire-overseas-lithium-and-cobalt-assets-2018-06-22
FYI
Dear Clean TeQ News Subscribers,
Local Media Coverage
Following release of the Definitive Feasibility Study for the Clean TeQ Sunrise Project, Clean TeQ has been featured in a PRIME7 News television story which highlights the strong progress being made on development and the benefits expected to be enjoyed by local communities.
You are able to watch the story by clicking here.
India’s commitment to domestic EV sector
In addition, an article published by MiningWeekly (click here to view) discusses recent news from India whereby state-run minerals companies will be mandated to work collectively to acquire strategic minerals including lithium and cobalt from overseas. This directive is aimed at supporting growth in the domestic electric vehicle manufacturing industry as India moves toward a target of 30% battery powered vehicles. The commitment by India, the second most populous country behind China, to domestic EV capacity is expected to further increase demand for the critical raw materials Clean TeQ’s Sunrise Project will produce – nickel and cobalt sulphate.
Regards
Investor Relations
Clean TeQ
Visit Clean TeQ’s Website
Thanks Sarah, this only helps get the story out there. Regards India I’d say that after China, India have a very good reason to get on the EV bandwagon and fast. Sure I read somewhere they had set an early date in relation to other countries to remove ICE type vehicles permanently. The country is a bike polluting minefield like a lot of Asia.
I don’t see India being anti DRC cobalt though, same as China, but I also see that as OK, the world moving this way can only be good for all in making ICE polluting vehicles history.
CLQ – nothing there to specifically say CLQ have any deal pending, but I would add that RF’s reach is obviously global so anything is possible. Copper for the Silk Road etc.
Regards the recent DFS I’m losing no sleep on this one and if I was less stacked up would add at current prices as clearly an overreaction which is not unusual.
As for the CLQ/AUZ noise debate, most amusing, reminds me of 2 football teams rivalry but fortunately with far less violence. Now If only we could just get on……no reason both will not do very well for anyone holding LT, say 2/3 years minimum? or even longer for greater returns as the EV revolution unfolds. Anyone doubting this “revolution” is ignoring the monies invested so far early days by all the major car companies and the political intent all countries on the planet that hold any substance.
Best SS.
$CTEQF – Sarah, nice find. IMHO, being on the leading edge (some longer than others) means we have and will encounter events and actions that may take a while to unfold or become apparent. I am enjoying the ride!
IMO I wouldn’t say that they choose India per se. The mandate is what their attention is focused on. As the market for EV metals tightens up we will more auto and battery mfg signing more and bigger off takes. The competition is fierce and just starting. China already has a head start and there will be no let up.
$CTEQF – Very disappointed in the price action recently but not that surprised. Lately this has been a “sell the news” market for miners. I think I’ll just buy more at a discount and wait it out.
What a disaster. Something wrong, DRC miners trashed but no corresponding upsurge on projects in safe jusrisdictions.
The last three days I have had the worst losses ever in stocks.
Anyway…Sarah, to answer your question…I bought more today at 56 cents, not as much as I fantasized in my moments of imaginary bravado; but a good-sized shot.
I am in, until and unless I see the prospects of the company change for the worse.
I am laughing at myself because when the price was higher, I used to bluster to myself about how I would load up if the stock ever came back down.
I do not think that the higher capex justifies a change of outlook: especially since anyone with a calculator should have known it was coming before the announcement. I just do not feel that the long-term situation has deteriorated.
I can well understand if others feel differently, and decide to exit; and it is not my intention to argue with anyone about what they think is the best strategy. For me, the money invested is important but is not causing emotional distress, or panic;
and I still have belief in the company, so it is not emotionally disruptive for me to stay with it. Other people will have different emotions and strategies.
HIGHER CAPEX…People can point to the higher capex, but CLQ sent plenty of warning about it, so I do not understand why it would have been a trigger for disappointment. Plus, they are working on a more competitive bid.
ANXIETY OVER FINANCING…some people are concerned that financing will be a problem because of the higher capex. I do not believe it. RF just got CITIC to put $700 million into the DRC, this month; I can’t believe he will have a problem getting money for a project on strategic battery metals in Australia.
NO TAKE-OFFS…this is the stupidest reason to exit. What I think is happening is that the negotiations for take-off, project equity, EPC, and financing are all inter-related and complex, and could not be concluded prior to the self-imposed deadline of June 30.
But I believe they will be concluded soon, and they will be excellent.
This sector has been unfortunately brutal this year so far. The brutality has been compounded by the incredible rise in both cobalt and nickel price. I mean, HN and I got into Clean Teq the same week, which was about 18 months ago. Others reading this may have the same timing. So in 18 months, cobalt has more than doubled, and nickel up maybe 75%. Normally that should produce at the very least a doubling, if not tripling of the stock price of the producers of those commodities,. We got a double, now a slide all the way back. Very disillusioning.
For those that have been following my writings, I was very concerned about this type of market reaction prior to the release of the DFS, and then upon reading the DFS, immediately posted uh oh before the market opened. Unlike HN and other posters, who think the market reaction was a bit mystical and not involving fundamentals, I fully disagree, and posted I think 5 very good reasons why the stock price should have gone down. As a long term holder, I was willing to hold thru the DFS, and chance the market reaction. Keep in mind, my investment here was WAY huge relative to my totality. Despite the uh oh reaction, my initial thought was the story remains the same, stay with it. But 24 hours digestion led me to thinking, and I just went thru this with Ardea, this is going to go a lot lower. The big market cap relative to its cousins make the stock price super vulnerable. Not panicking, but with a measured decision in light of how big my risk was, I protected the last 12% of my profit, and sold 80% of my holdings. That saved me from going into the red.
My hope is to buy all of them back at .45 US, because I still absolutely believe in this sector, meaning owning producers of nickel and cobalt sulphate. I believe the future for these resources, and the ones with scandium in addition, is brilliant. I expect prices to go a lot higher, and I also believe they have a chance of going way higher than anybody is presently thinking.
.45 is my new valuation of what is a really good buy price under the present fundamentals. It might never get there, and if it doesn’t, that’s OK. I still have 20% of my shares, which is still a substantial amount. I never fret if a stock I want never gets to my buy price, and then takes off. If CTEQF makes it to .45, then I pulled what looks like a great move. I’d have cashed out most at a 12% profit, and then lowered my basis from .62 to about .48 for my massive chunk. I’ll have to think about whether I want to go back to my former full holding, or maybe somewhat less, even though it would be cheaper than original. This investment is now much riskier than when I bought in, [1.5B plus much longer pay back period on debt] and that is a big change in fundamental.
If not, I have a big chunk of money looking for a new home. I was actually just about to take a healthy bite out of Cell Cube Energy Storage [CECBF], and WTF, it got put on trading halt pending an announcement. We’ll see what this announcement is and market reaction, but I may have literally missed out within minutes of something very good. I like this company’s prospects, they seem to be in full ramp up mode in the Vanadium energy storage space, like full verticality from resource to all kinds of sizes of products, a new team, and buying up companies with super interesting synergy.
Also re CECBF, the price was super sweet, it was definitely in jump on it mode, so now we’ll have to see.
Renby, hope you stay with us. You have a clear eye and I value your opinion, though I am staying in CLQ; I believe that take-off and financing are near. Could be wrong, of course.
Whether I come back big or not will depend, but doubt I will let go of those last 20%. I believe cobalt and nickel sulphate prices are as good a bet as there is right now, I kind of see it like oil in the early 1900s. The energy revolution is for sure. I believe we are thinking right. Copper, vanadium, nickel, cobalt. Bend your vision toward china, and freaking stay as far away from the US as you can. Not necessarily the location of the business, but the market they will be in. Be super careful with debt. Debt scares the hell out of me. As far as Clean Teq individually, I have little doubt that RF and the CTEQ team will pull the value of that deposit, which is like 20-30 billion dollars. And thats without our other hopes on the tech front. Timing is another story, and thats where you need freaking balls of steel here. Patience will be rewarded, but only if you live long enough.
Hi Renby. You have, I think, “spilled all”, so I would like to share with you and the readership one factor that helped to persuade me on Renby Blue Vision, and may be of comfort and hep to those who are as befuddled by recent price action on our favorites as I am.
I found a link on a website that was to a Chinese State paper on energy policy. The paper made it very clear that major money would be going into grid and electrical storage. We are all aware of the EV and grid storage boom, so this paper,
on the surface of it, just re-emphasized the seriousness and scale of the trend, and China’s leadership role in it.
Like it or not, EV and grid storage are going to happen fast, big time.
OK. So we are home free on EV battery materials.
But what about grid storage ? After my usual armchair research, I came to the conclusion that Li-NCM was dominant, with VRB and zinc-air coming on strong and gaining important market share as chemistry formats. There are other formats, some are proven like the iron chemistry at BYD; but in my mind the Big Three for the forseeable future is Li-NCM,m vanadium redox, and zinc-air.
OK. So far so good.
But what about new technology ? It is moving so fast, any of these three could be invalidated by a new discovery or chemistry. Things happen fast nowadays, and technology is unpredictable and everybody is working on something or other. This is what has always worried me about tech investments. What about solid state scandium ? …or molten salt?…or hydorgen fuel cells ?
IMO, the key is the Chinese economic plan. It is in 5 year increments.
We are midway in the second year. So that means that the factories and plans and decisions that have to be made, must be made in the next 24 months…if the bureaucrats and factories want to show they are on board with the direction From the Top.
They want to obey; they want to perform; they want to get promoted; and if they are in manufacturing, they have to produce. To produce, they need to commit to products, formats, and processes that are PROVEN NOW.
They have to go with what is a sure thing, TODAY.
They cannot wait for someone to come up with a new technology, they must act in the present. If Three Gorges or Rongke or Pu Neng has done a big state deal, then everyone else knows that these technologies and methods and companies are going to be approved by the bosses.
So while it is impossible to predict what will happen in technology 7 or 10 years from now, because of lead times
inherent in negotiating, building, approving and planning, plus the lead times in manufacturing, we can be pretty sure
of what technologies and methods will get MOST of the business in the next 3-to-5, maybe even 6 or 7 years. They will be the technologies that are proven and available in the marketplace RIGHT NOW.
An innovation can come that is greater than sliced bread.
Technology advances rapidly and unpredictably. But the Chinese 5 year plan is not going to change, until the next one is published.
A new development it is not going to help someone that needs to do something by the end of the 5 year plan, or bring out a new line of electric cars by 2022. The innovation might get into the NEXT five year plan. But it isn’t getting into this one. It is too late.
***
What this means is that I am confident of the need in the next 3-7 years for cobalt, zinc, nickel, graphite, and copper, of course; vanadium, of course; and lithium and lead also, though these do not interest me much as investment targets.
I also see zooming demand for scandium and vanadium. It is just starting. Some upside also in magnesium and aluminum, from Li-NC batteries; but these are not primary targets for me.
Graphene and hydrogen fuel cell adoption will not be important commercially this period. Maybe next.
A low-cost high return on graphene is worth a shot for the long term, and platinum has other value besides use in hydrogen fuel cells, so I am good with it.
But for the next few years, copper, nickel cobalt, zinc, vanadium, zinc, and graphite are where my money will be.
Gold and platinum are OK too, even though they not currently used in battery formulations. Gold especially has other appealing characterisics.
Correction:
“But for the next few years, copper, nickel cobalt, zinc, vanadium, SCANDIUM, and graphite are where my money will be.”
I believe this is right thinking. The battery/energy materials are about as sure a bet for exponentially accelerating demand as you can wish. And procuring these materials is much more difficult than oil, economic deposits are much rarer, and mining them more difficult. Conclusion: prices are going to go way up, so way more deposits become economical. The deposits that are economical today I think could make us rich at say, $20 nickel sulphate. Its not a sure bet prices are going to spike that high, but thats the way I see it, and thats the way I’m playing it.
Et all…..I read each n every word posted and I am grateful for the insight for i am also long and so so busy…..
I look at it as a 3 to 5 yr position and perhaps it’s the ‘holding I will leave for my grandson’.
RF is a Billionaire….he sets up his family for the future, not short term or for himself! Now that he is working the asian angle, he is thinking generations, perhaps so should we.
Further to this after reading another post…..remember the pictures of new york lined the street with horse and buggy& one car,;; then in 10 years later all cars/ one horse n buggy. Was anyone smart enough to recognize that all these cars require ‘gas’…..probably not except the texans. So we are further ahead, smarter and may not get it all correct, but there were alternatives to ‘gas then as well….
I know I don’t add much, but I am here to encourage and growth.
I agree 100% Lulu …good points….MHO btw RF is at Sama Resources for Nickel Sulphate. Investors with Bils are going into Nickel. I’m not just talking about RF. I’ll follow the money myself. Thought the IRR # was very low IMHO…. Cobalt and Nickel will be much higher in a few years as I see it. Regarding IRR Ben S replied this to me….We just adopted the future/forecast prices the ‘market’ itself is using, which is the easy way to avoid people telling us “you are being too optimistic”. We do think there is good potential that there will be strong years for both cobalt and nickel but we leave the forecasting to others
The logic and vision was flawless. I thought cobalt at $12-14, that was the price before EV batteries and at historic lows, therefore EV battery demand was a total game changer, therefore the price of cobalt, according to future demand graphs, was going nowhere but up, and probably way up, therefore find the best cobalt deposits outside of the Congo and in a great jurisdiction with already obvious economical deposits. How do you load up on the 2 best deposits, just hold for 18 months, watch the commodities sky-rocket, and not get rewarded.
But this game is far from over, though far more brutal than it looked, and I still expect to make a fortune in this new energy sector.
I’ll also share that I moved some of the CTEQ money to Ardea at these prices. This was just a lateral move based on relative market caps, I feel a lot safer right now with the low valuation on Ardea vs the high valuation on CTEQ. These 2 companies stock prices interestingly have several times been identical, at 1.18, at 1, and at .65. But I always thought Ardea had so much more room to grow, when the stock prices are identical, I think CTEQ market cap is 7 times Ardea MC. But I maintained a much stronger position in CTEQ because with that much money for me, Ardea was no Friedland, its a different games when you have 2 billionaires with access to unlimited money. But right now, CTEQ stock price is too vulnerable for me, I still had some profit, and it is never a lose when you cash out in the green.
Last thing I’ll share, and then I think I’ve spilled it. I’m not posting this with any kind of anger or emotion, by now you guys should have figured out I’m about as cold and hard an analyst as they make them. To me, emotion and investing are worlds that simply don’t intersect. Its 100% logic to me.
At least five really good reasons why CTEQ stock price should have gone down:
1. They still haven’t figured out who is going to build the mine, we absolutely expected to get this info from the DFS.
2. They used scandium, and still got under 20% IRR. How is that not disappointing.
3. The FID pushed back again, how can that not make some people nervous.
4. 4.3 cobalt Mtpa, avg for 25 years, so why did they just raise it from 5 to 7, somebody please explain to me what that announcement was all about just a month or 2 ago, something is wrong there, not in a good way. Same kind of thing for the nickel, it went form 25 to 20.
5. The water thing may or may not become a huge thing in the who knows when future, but it is most definitely not an anything right now.
I think its fair to say that we’ve collectively priced in a lot of intangible value for RF’s abilities; but however good he is, in the end the market only concerns itself with the numbers. I like what you say renby. I will pay a lot more attention to the cold hard facts in future and wave aside the personality razzmatazz.
Renby…all valid points. Not trying to persuade, just to air out the possibilities. You, me, and everyone else can make their own decisions.
The rationalizations are
1. EPC contract…true they are undecided, but the option may enable lower capex and take-off. Obviously the market does not like uncertainty, but the uncertainty is on the improvement side. The published bad, high figures are from the deal in hand from SNC-Lavallin. Nevertheless, the market reaction is what it is.
2. The scandium was introduced in really small amounts and will enable credible inclusion of larger amounts when take-offs are finalized. But all the expenses for expanded scandium production are included. They would be laughed at for including 40 or 50 tons per year scandium, when world useage is only 10 tpa and they have no take-off agreement. When the scandium takeoffs are announced the IRR will hop up.
3. The FID date must give enough time for the take-off and EPC decisions to be made without pressure. It is 90 or 60 days. I think that is one reason they got into hot water this week, they had to make an announcement by July 1st, and the negotiations on PC and take-off were not completed.
4. Cobalt nameplate: the higher figures are nameplate production of the proposed installation; but they do not have the corresponding permits for such an increase.
So they can only refer to nameplate, they cannot use the higher figures as production forecasts until the permits are in hand. They would get crucified.
5. The water did not and will not get credit until contracts are landed.
But this is not a new situation; the market has never given CLQ any credit for this.
But they keep moving towards its development, market cap credit or not.
Again I am not arguing with your points. My counter-arguments are only speculations. Meanwhile the market has responded.
***
I also wonder about the effects of technical price action from big-money interests and programs from one market to another.
I suspect that price changes may be getting amplified because of negative loop-type reactions in program trading, bot programming, and momentum models.
No way to know. But to your points, based on what we know about macro trends in cobalt and nickel, the price action is not understandable. It can be rationalized, but it is always in retrospect: AUZ, ARL CLQ all have had objectively good announcements that have been met with major declines in their stock prices.
HN: I dont think you and Renby are at odds, youre simply coming at it from different angles. To your entire credit youve made all these points before and certainly they are tantalizing and valuable for the eventual longer term prospect. Renbys point though was that the market (espec computer robots) cant place a value on your espied goodies and underlying reasoning about rational about permits…..they simply crunch the given numbers and the numbers given in the DFS were down on expectation, consequently the sp went down as the robots sold off.
Personally I think this is a wonderful buying op, but I only sign my cheques, no one elses.
HN: Play Devils advocate for a minute and give us 5 good reasons why we shouldnt consider buying CLQ at this time and price.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE: Here are the reasons that could be put forth, none of which I believe; but other people will:
1. Capex is too high, making IRR too low, they will have trouble finding finance at good rates.
2. Too much risk in their BFS cobalt price, it is too high for comfort.
3. Scandium income is a pipe dream. You cannot count on it.. 10 tpa is the total world production right now.
4. The water division is worthless in terms of TODAY.
All futures, nothing for sure.
5. The remaining components are this overvalued, so the cap compared to other ni-co developments is too high.
6. The technology is unproven and too risky. No one has ever done RIP at this scale. Capex blowout on top of an already too-high number is likely.
7. The Chinese will grind RF into the dirt and take over his company.
Great HN. Now if you hadnt done all the research you have done (and generally Mr Market hasnt) what sp price would you put on CLQ.A? My guess is A$0.76.
But you have done all the research ! So what price would you now put on CLQ.A? Lets say A$2.
Doesnt this make A$0.76 for a A$2 stock a wonderful buying op?
Luv ya man.
So it may take a couple of years to make that 263% profit. By contrast, it will take you 26yrs to get that return from a ‘safe’ bank deposit.
Even if RF totally screws it up….the cobalt, nickel etc is still down there (the DFS says so) and it aint going to corrode in the ground. So sooner or later the paydirt WILL be dug up and itll be party time.
Let’s just say that I will be disappointed with less than $2.00 AuD by year-end. However this is not a target.
It is just an expectation, based on the events I expect to happen: namely, take-offs, EPC decisions, and finance.
My plan is to see what the price is, when they start shipping sulfates in 30 months; and to think about a strategy at that point. The only thing that will upset the plan is a major fundamental deterioration of company prospects.
Other considerations that could derail the price:
1. Technology breakthroughs (however unlikely)
2. Commodity price breakdowns.
3. AU$ losing a lot of value relative to US$. Has been as low as 0.50USD.
Some of these have been mentioned previously but since we were reviewing possible issues.
Hi Hedy !
The thing that wories me on cobalt is the DRC
opening up again. I think the whole child labor thing is manuafactured, and I see the Chinese moving in there, while stocks in the “ethical” jurisdictions still get no traction.
I’m not worried about the $AuD. I am more worried about the $USD.
Australia has stuff the world needs to buy.
Re: ”AU$ losing a lot of value relative to US$.”
I dont see the problem. I assume metals are priced in USD, so if the A$ goes down relative to USD, they will get more A$ per tonne on the conversion, not less.
Sarah-the stock is priced in $AU. If tomorrow the $Au drops, the stock drops. It ($AU) has been much lower. Not sure the value of certain commodities is a self regulating mechanism. I assume everything they own is valued in $AU. Perhaps my understanding is wrong.
I think metal prices are set on The London Metals Exchange….in USD (?). Not sure about sp as CLQ.T is in $Canadian and CLQ.A is in A$ and the US pinks are in USD. Who knows…. if the sp is a reflection of the metals value then CLQ.A could soar as the A$ goes down.
HN and I aren’t at odds at all, we are very close in our analysis. I’m a little colder about being non partisan, and HN has an enthusiastic style, and looks for the positive. I still love this as a long term growth company, I have pulled back in a defensive move, because now I am starting to think the dramatic stock price growth may not come until the day they actually prove to the market they will produce at the levels they claim. There is going to be some skepticism with an unproven technology applied to difficult laterite ore, and there’s really nothing to allay that skepticism, until they actually do it. And that could be 5 years away. Which is too far out for me at the present valuation of the company. But I still keep a decent sized parcel, because at that level, there is no disaster sized loss should things collapse in a bad way. I know this company inside and out, so I’ll be keeping a close eye should conditions warrant coming back stronger. Simply put, mediocre performance [I’ve made my points to justify that judgement] at best by the company over the last 12 months has resulted in loss of position as a company in the #1 position in my portfolio.
We are not at all at odds. Mostly we see things the same. Renby invented Blue Vision. I have his glasses on, I borrowed them.
#Animal, Vegetable, Mineral game, changed in 2018 to “Value That Mineral!”
Someone thinks of a Mineral
The players then take turns asking questions regarding the value of the particular mineral that can be answered with a YES or NO
For example, if the object is a ton of Vanadium,
The questions in this instance could be:
Is there a mine already built?
Is the mine in a friendly Jurisdiction?
Is the CAPEX under $1Billion?
How quick can I score big money?
After 20 questions, if the mineral hasn’t been guessed, everyone has one last go and then it’s the next person’s turn to choose a minerals value.
Hang in there guyz and galz. I didn’t lose a penny in 2008. I lost it all in the two years before that! Precious Metals and Minerals have taken on a new and flabbergasting pricing structure over the years, just ask Gold and Silver.
I agree with your assessment of the possible positive resolutions of the points which are pressuring the stock price right now. I think this is gong to be a huge growth company, I’m just not sure on the timelines right now. My biggest issue are things [like profit and loan payback] are getting pushed deeper into the future. While I didn’t agree with you that it mattered at all who would be first to production, I totally agreed that speed to production was hugely important. Since then, nothing but delays and uncertainty. When I bought in big 18 months ago, I expected they would be starting to build the mine 4Q2017.
Totally respect your point of view and fully allow for the possibility that your actions in the situation may have better results than mine.
$VRB – VRB Energy signs Strategic Cooperation Framework Agreement with Pangang Group Vanadium and Titanium Resources,the world’s largest vanadium oxide producer
https://www.vanadiumprice.com/vrb-energy-signs-strategic-cooperation-framework-agreement-with-pangang-group-vanadium-and-titanium-resourcesthe-worlds-largest-vanadium-oxide-producer/
“Robert Friedland, Chairman of VRB Energy, and John Wang, Chief Executive Officer, announced today that the company has entered into a Strategic Cooperation Framework Agreement with Pangang Group Vanadium and Titanium Resources Co. Ltd. (Pangang V&T). Pangang V&T is the world’s largest producer of vanadium oxide and a listed subsidiary of Panzhihua Iron and Steel, one of the world’s leading steel producers since 1971. The strategic agreement paves the way for VRB Energy and Pangang V&T to jointly advance the vanadium flow battery industry through a long-term vanadium supplycommitment, cooperation on electrolyte leasing, and technology collaboration on VRB Energy’s world-leading VRB® (vanadium redox battery) energy storage systems.”
VRB np
$STNUF long.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cellcube-spin-vanadium-assets-vanadium-120000347.html
Reprinted/paraphrased from another website”
“There is no question now that Friedland is fully vetted [by China] and that China is co-operating in full with Friedland’s enterprises.
The Chinese state is a backer of Robert Friedland.
The evidence for this is very clear. Friedland has amassed partnerships with Chinese state enterprises in a number of deals:
Zijin Mining..major investor in Friedland’s DRC copper
Pengxin…full partner in CLQ
CITIC Metals & CITIC Group…now have equity in Ivanhoe Mines; powerful state conglomerate
CHINALCO…aluminum and aerospace, scan-alu research, state entity
Easpring…leading battery technolgy in China, state founded
Pangang Vanadium and Steel…new this week, they did a deal with Friedland’s VRB company to supply
vanadium electrolyte. State enterprise.
ICBC…International Commerce Bank of China. World’s largest bank. One of four state banks.
Mandatory Lead Arranger for Sunrise, added to the original three in December 2017.
VRB Energy, Pu Neng: Friedland allowed to acquire a Chinese-based tech leader in VRB battery technology, which has state contracts
WATER…the support of the Chinese State is a prerequisite for every deal inside China: Friedland has successfully concluded contracts with provincial level authorities, and also with Three Gorges, the biggest hydro authority on the Yang-tse River.
***
For these reasons I laugh when people worry about financing for Friedland’s projects.
One of my basic principles for investment targets is that if the Chinese want to buy it, I want to be long.
The Chinese want to buy Robert Friedland and his companies.
RE: Pangang and CLQ in Chinese vanadium:
Little available info on Pangang but from what I can see they are not miners.
Therefore I have inquired of IR at VRB Energy about the pursuit of VRBE on primary mining projects in China; whether Panganag is a miner, and whether it is possible that CLQ or CLQ technology will be brought into the supply chain from Pangang to VRBE.
Mr. Trenaman could not answer directly but responded and said he will consult with various parties at CLQ and VRBE to compose an answer.
Obviously there will be limits to what he can say publicly.
We will have to read between the lines and speculate.
Folks here will be the first to hear.
You know you have hit a nerve when the IR guy needs to go consult with the executives about what he can and cannot say, and how he should say it.
Ha Ha we await an update…. (-:
We will get an artistically crafted non-answer.
I can’t wait to apply the Hendrixnuzzle’s Minespeak Dictionary and Auto Translation Machine.
SCANDIUM…when it takes off !
It’s pretty futile watching my screen and waiting for CLQ to recover, so I thought I would do something potentially useful.
I have had the sneaking suspicion that CLQ is underplaying the scandium thing, and I figured I might as well take a stab at getting an idea of what scandium useage might be in aviation.
This would maybe give me justifiable optimism, and keep me from moping around because of the crippling, devastating, and generally horrifying losses in my brokerage accounts. It would also keep me from kicking my innocent dog Hendrix, who loves me whether my accounts are red or green.
***
Now we know that scandium-aluminum alloys can be used and are desireable because they cut weight without loss of strength. This is really important in aircraft, because more empty plane weight reduces the fuel you can load up with to get max takeoff weight. And fuel is very heavy. More empty plane weight also reduces cargo and passenger capacity, which also have the highly undesireable attribute of being heavy, especially if the passengers are your fat in-laws.
And of course, less fuel means shorter range.
And a heavier plane means you need more fuel to go a given distance.
The airlines hate fuel costs. God, how they hate fuel costs.
So we can understand why a scandium aluminum alloy might have some appeal for Mr. Boeing, and Mr. Airbus, and Mr. Chinalco, and Mr. Israeli Defense Force and his big brother, Mr. Lockheed.
***
So I went to Professor Wiki and looked up the Boeing 767.
OK, here is what we got:
We got an aircraft that weighs about 175,000 pounds
and has had sales of 1200 units in 40 years.
There are all kinds of variations and configurations. But let’s just take round numbers, on this one successful commercial aircraft.
So let us imagine that we can get a 767 made largely from scan-alu alloys, that is mostly the same as the model they made 1200 of in the last 40 years.
Let’s imagine that the weight using these new alloys might save 12% or 15% in weight. But since I don’t know what I am talking about, let’s cut the weight reduction to just 10%.
Now our 767-SC will come in at 175,000 pounds x 90% = 158,500 pounds.
Let’s round it, call it 160,000 pounds.
Well, the scandium in a scan-alu alloy is less than 1%…it varies, so let’s just call it half a percent, because it is easy to calculate. Then our new 767-SC might have 800 pounds of scandium in it. But the scandium will sort of gradually work its way in there, and again there is the Hendrixnuzzles Ignorance Co-efficient. So lets say for the first generation, only 500 pounds of scandium will get into the
new 767-SC.
OK. 1200 Boeing 767s were put into service in 40 years.
That’s 30 per year.
30 planes x 500 pounds is 15,000 pounds, or 7.5 tons.
So therefore: If one aircraft company decides to make one new large passenger aircraft, going max scan-alu alloy to cut weight, we might expect them to need 7 or 8 tons of scandium per year for that aircraft.
Of course the sales will be in scandium oxide SC2O3. The atomic weight of scandium is 21, of oxygen 8; so scandium oxide is roughly 42 to 24, So scandium is just 64% of scandium oxide, by weight.
So 7 tons of scandium will require 7/.64= 10.9 tons of scandium oxide.
**
Well now. What an amazing coincidence. This is pretty close to the 10 tons per year annual scandium oxide production in the Clean Teq BFS.
So if Mr. Boeing decides to go for a new model 767-SC, he might be interested in all the scandium oxide that CLQ is going to produce.
But that wouldn’t be very nice for Mr. & Mrs. Airbus, or for the. Chinalco family, would it ? And what about cousin UAC ?
**
Now I do not really think it will start this way. They will first start by cutting weight in components, parts, engines, and so forth, because scandium powders can be used in computer printing. They will test it out before going full-out for a max-scan-alu plane. At least, I think they will.
But we can see from the scale of things, eventually scan-alu alloys are really going to…well, they are going to…aw shucks, I’ll say it…
THEY ARE GOING TO FLY.
Soar. Take-off. Get off the ground.
You know what I mean.
I started your post above and a Scandium off take would be out standing. The off take would have to be for a significant amount of yearly tonnage to attract attention and with somebody like Airbus. I think the share price would jump. It would get even better if CLQ could make enough Scandium available from a pilot plant for Airbus or,,, to start production. watch out
I looked at the flow charts. Scandium will be produced from the beginning and stockpiled. They say 80 tons per year, but only count 10 tons per year in sales. Their stockpile will encourage people to plan and use it.
One big new plane going all-out for weight reduction would use all the current world production. But as I said I do not think it will start that way…I think uptake will start on the 3D printing applications, for structural interior parts and engines; but it spread like wildfire, arriving shortly at use in the fuselages.
Scan-alu alloys will also have explosive growth in military applications…weaponry and rockets.
At the end: one major new plane the size of a Boeing 767 going all-out max scan-alu, and selling 30 planes a year with 500 lbs of scandium in each plane, would take an amount of scandium equal to the entire current world output of scandium.
Good stuff HN on scan-alu. An almost identical argument can be made for graphene in carbon fibre., which will also be a contender for our notional Boeing 797 or Ainus A360. That’s why I am very long VRS which happily seems to be moving in the opposite direction to CLQ, in which I am merely long.
I have also put the CEO’s of Ionic and VRS in touch with each other, as I can see lots of synergy there which could impact CLQ water eventually.
Bloody predictive text. I meant Airbus, not ainus, which used to be part of British Arsopace.
Did you hear that the inventor of predictive text died last week? His funfair is on monkey.
Shavian, do you know from a comparison viewpoint which metal is better?
Shavian, my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that Boeing already have a few research papers re the use of graphene
Also Ionic, I think use graphene oxide for their SC and water filters.
I am sure that they will each have specific applications in aerostructures so may not be direct competitors. Graphene in carbon fibre seems to offer similar astonishing improvements in tensile strength (and therefore ligh-weighting) as scan-alu alloys. IE an improvement of up to 30% for the addition of 1%. Most engineers would wet themselves at this level of breakthrough. The difference in my view will be the scarcity of Scandium. Once the production of top quality graphene (fewer than 100 layers) is hacked, graphene will be everywhere. Only problem is that almost nobody has hacked this. In Oz Ionic is closest, but their focus is the commercialisation of water filtration for which the lower-quality GO is adequate. This why I am increasingly long VRS, the first and only, as far as I am aware to have yet mastered the production at pilot scale of Graphene Nano Platelets (GNP) of the right size for dispersion into carbon fibre. Scale-up is happening as we speak, so expect to hear more of this as 2018 progresses.
Sorry, I meant 10 layers of g raphene, not 100. Lots of so-called ‘graphene’ companies out there (Talga, First Graphene etc) are merely selling multi-layer graphite (50-100+ layers) not true graphene. The forthcoming ISO standards will sort the sheep from the goats.
Shavian thanks for that, I can assure you that First Graphene has one of the best quality graphite in the world, sourced from Sri Lanka.
They’re stockpiling the graphite at their premises in Perth, and can obtain world quality graphene from it.
IMO you couldn’t compare Talga to them, on many levels, let alone in quality.
The next six months should be defining for First Graphene FGR ASX.
We know that FGR has lots of excellent graphite, but have yet to see evidence that they know how to make few-layer graphene platelets or inks out of it. Grigor talks a good talk, let’s see if he can walk the walk.
Shavian, thanks for your comments, re the attributes of both VRS and FGR ASX.
Let me say from the beginning, that we’re both passionate about our companies, and understandably our focus is on them.
Thus, I respect and acknowledge your opinions on VRS.
Let me briefly reply to your points, covered in your posts in relation to FGR:
Point 1 – no evidence that they know how to make few – layer graphene platelets, or inks out of graphite.
Reply to 1 – refer to https: //www.firstgraphite.com.au/investor -relations/asx – announcements? task=document.viewdoc &id=278
The existing information was part of a ASx announcement re above, ref. pages 7-8 – 1.2 P roduct Description and Quality, where it lists FGR’s GRaphene Specifications, with the specifications detailed by the University of Adelaide, Australia.
It clearly states that FGR’s graphene is 1-7 layer, which satisfies the ISO specifications as being Few Layer Graphene platelets.
It should also be noted that the surface area of FGR’s Graphene is 500m2 per gram, compared to VRS’s surface area of 45m2 per gram, I cannot verify if this is the current figure.
Point 2 – once the production of top quality graphene ( fewer than 10 layers ), is available, graphene will be everywhere.
Only problem is nobody has hacked it.
In Oz, Ionic is the closest, but their focus is the commercialisation of water filtration, for which lower quality GO is adequate.
Reply 2 – not correct, as the graphene specifications included in FGR’s Capability Statement were completed in their 250 ltr just in time production cell, which has a capacity of up to 14tpa, to convert graphite to graphene.
To my knowledge, Ionic, have not even completed construction of their graphene production method.
Point 3 – as far as I’m ( Shavian ) aware, VRS is the first and only Company to have yet mastered the production of pilot scale of Graphene Nano Platelets ( GNP ), of the right size for dispersion into carbon fibre.
Scaling up is happening as we speak, so expect to hear more of this as 2018 progresses.
Reply 3 – FGR have already mastered the 14tpa production method for FLG.
They’ve recently completed a 50 – 100 tpa commercial production facilities at Henderson, West Australia.
The cost of these facilities was just under $1M Aud, and has a daily capacity of 136kg.
I run out of space, so I’ll finish Points 3&4.
Reply 3 – continued
Re the Henderson facilities, the cost was just under $1M Aud,and having a daily capacity of producing graphene of 136 kg.
As disclosed in VRS’s March, 2018 investors presentation, that their current graphene capacity at that time was 1kg per day.
Note that the current figures maybe more.
Final Point 4 – lots of so called companies out there ( Talga, First Graphene ), are merely selling multi layer graphite.
The forthcoming ISO standards, will sort out the sheep from the goats.
Reply 4 – FGR are positioned to be a main participant in the Graphene Revolution, having a low cost process to make Pristine Jumbo platelet, lowvdefect Graphene, highly conductive graphene.
The Company has already disclosed that they are looking at selling commercial quantities of graphene for US $100/150k per tonne.
This low costing will open the door to many industries to use graphene.
As an example, Graphenea sells graphene for $97 Euro p er gram, or $9.7 M per tonne.
Here is a link to FGR’s plastic pallet test.
https: //youtu.be/5zcR- UHTEKM
Finally, Warwick Grigor, FGR’s chairman, recently advised in a investor video the likelihood of an offtake agreement within the next few months for ALL of FGR’s planned production.
https:youtu.be/ HDuAXaBlnNg
Williamstown : thank you for your strong defence of FGR and some great educational points. I had better shut up on the subject until I have done more research on FGR!
Meanwhile back at the VRS ranch, a significant news release yesterday:
Versarien PLC Battery Technology Update
Source: RNS Non-Regulatory
TIDMVRS
Versarien PLC
02 July 2018
Versarien plc
(“Versarien” or the “Company”)
Battery Technology Update
Versarien plc (AIM: VRS), the advanced materials engineering group, is pleased to provide an update on its activities in relation to graphene enhanced power storage devices such as batteries and supercapacitors. The primary goal of incorporating graphene into these devices is to significantly increase power storage capacity and reduce charging times.
Versarien has been working with WMG (Warwick Manufacturing Group) and their partner companies and scientists at the universities of Warwick and Cambridge to collaborate on the production of power storage devices such as batteries and supercapacitors using Versarien’s proprietary Nanene graphene nano platelets. Significant advances have been made through incorporating the Company’s high quality graphene into these devices and the Company looks forward to commercial products becoming available in due course.
The relationship with WMG has now been supplemented by a number of other agreements that provide Versarien with access to both leading technology providers and manufacturing expertise, both in the UK and overseas, including China.
Zap&Go
Versarien is pleased to announce that it has entered into a collaboration agreement with ZapGo Ltd (“Zap&Go”), a high technology business focussed on developing a new class of energy storage device with considerable functional improvements over current commercially available supercapacitors. Zap&Go’s technology and growing patent portfolio is in part derived from Oxford University research, and in part developed independently by Zap&Go’s own scientists. Zap&Go work with a number of Chinese partners to manufacture their technology.
Versarien and Zap&Go have agreed to collaborate on research and development projects involving the incorporation of Versarien’s proprietary Nanene few layer graphene nano-platelets and other Versarien supplied two-dimensional materials into Zap&Go’s supercapacitor type devices with a view to enhancing their performance, specifically through the increased electrical conductivity of the supercapacitor cells.
Flexibat
The Company, through its subsidiary Cambridge Graphene Ltd, is pleased to be part of the Flexibat consortium that has recently been awarded GBP1.2 million of grant funding from Innovate UK as part of a GBP1.5 million project to develop and bring to market graphene enhanced, thin, flexible printed batteries for electronic wearable and IoT (Internet of Things) devices. From the GBP1.2m of grant funding, Cambridge Graphene will directly receive approximately GBP145,000 and indirectly benefit from the funding provided to the other consortium members.
The Flexibat project aims to provide much thinner and more flexible batteries, with higher energy densities, than those currently available. These are expected to be straightforward to manufacture using roll-to-roll printing processes. The initial target market will be for healthcare and wellbeing wearables.
Chinese Graphene Order
In addition to these relationships, the Company is pleased to report that it has received its first small initial order for Nanene graphene nano platelets from a Chinese automotive battery manufacturer for their technical evaluation.
Neill Ricketts, CEO of Versarien, commented: “Improved battery technology is a key area where the addition of high quality graphene can provide significant benefits. Alongside our work and collaborations in the areas of graphene enhanced composites and plastics, battery technology is a key focus for Versarien.
“We are pleased to have entered into these new collaborations and to have received our first Nanane order from a Chinese battery manufacturer. In particular, Zap&Go are at the forefront of developing ultra fast charge carbon-ion cells that can replace slow charging lithium ion batteries in a wide variety of applications from cordless and mobile devices, to infrastructure and transport. We anticipate that the addition of our graphene to their already very innovative products will bring significant enhancements. The market potential for their technology is enormous.
“Our strategy is to work with partners who can provide both technology and manufacturing expertise with a view to ensuring that Versarien is placed at the heart of the rapidly developing graphene enhanced battery ecosystem.”
Enquiries:
Versarien
Neill Ricketts, CEO
Chris Leigh, CFO 01242 269 122
Arden Partners (Nominated Adviser and Broker)
Chris Hardie
Dan Gee-Summons 020 7614 5900
IFC Advisory (Financial PR and IR)
Tim Metcalfe
Graham Herring
Heather Armstrong 020 3934 6630
About Versarien
Versarien plc (AIM:VRS), is an advanced engineering materials group. Leveraging proprietary technology, the Group creates innovative engineering solutions for its clients in a diverse range of industries. Versarien has five subsidiaries operating under two divisions:
Graphene and Plastics
2-DTech Ltd, which specialises in the supply, characterisation and early stage development of graphene products. http://www.2-dtech.com
ACC Cyroma Ltd, which specialises in the supply of vacuum-formed and injection-moulded products to the automotive, construction, utilities and retail industry sectors. Using Versarien’s existing graphene manufacturing capabilities, AAC will have the ability to produce graphene-enhanced plastic products. http://www.aaccyroma.co.uk
Cambridge Graphene Ltd, supplies novel inks based on graphene and related materials, using patented processes to develop graphene materials technology for licensing to manufacturers. http://www.cambridgegraphene.com
Thermal and Hard Wear Products
Versarien Technologies Ltd. has developed an additive process for creating advanced micro-porous metals targeting the thermal management industry and supplies extruded aluminium. http://www.versarien-technologies.co.uk
Total Carbide Ltd, a leading manufacturer in sintered tungsten carbide for applications in arduous environments such as the oil and gas industry. http://www.totalcarbide.com
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact rns@lseg.com or visit http://www.rns.com.
END
NRAUGURUMUPRGAG
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
July 02, 2018 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)
Do you see graphene in the fuselage skins and engines, or in parts, interior structure, and special applications ?
Everywhere, eventually. Initially in non-critical items like passenger seats, overhead lockers and trolleys where a lot of weight can be saved without waiting for the essential certification needed for wing structures etc. Light – weighting of the main structures will come eventually but will take time any lots of testing. And watch for turbine blades. One of Versarien’s collaborations is believed to be with GE.
Is graphene bio degradable? The world is doing its best to rid itself of materials that harm the environment.
There is the irony. Using Carbon to lower our Carbon Footprint!!!
Thisis three years old:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/35qqlx/is_graphene_biodegradable_if_so_why_do_its_strong/
also this:
http://www.graphene-nownano.manchester.ac.uk/our-research/examples-of-current-projects/bio-medical-applications/biodegradation-of-graphene-and-related-materials-in-tissues-in-vivo/
Hmm? I think Ill pass on that investment. Other than for very specific items, I cant see society allowing its mass use…..and there wont be many specific items so the sales will be minuscule while the supply will be near infinite.
Isn’t that what they said about Monsanto?
Heh…see ya………………
Yep, and look what miserable return thats provided for investors over 5yrs.
NP
Excuse my possible silly question, but does it have to be only 1 layer of graphene in these applications? And I thought that mixing with aluminum was done by actually mixing graphite/graphene into the aluminum during production. Thanks guyz…edski
edski…there are many combinations of layers possible, from one atom thick on up.
Yes, but we keep hearing of creation of the Holy Grail, which must be One layer only and cheap to produce…. to be classified as Graphene….Pure, unadulterated, honest to goodness 1 atom thick.
Shavian mentions this and I was wondering if that meant that only the one layer pure Graphene was what the airlines were looking for.
I believe that both GFR and VRS can produce ‘Graphene ‘ less than 10 layers thick. But maybe the economics just isn’t there yet.
I found this link to a single layer of Graphene, (making it real Graphene as one layer makes …Graphene) :
https://www.firstgraphene.com.au/graphene/future-applications/wing-manufacture
I believe they will be able to sell all the scandium oxide they can produce. Not sure of the price, though not worried about it, and not sure how long it will take. It’ll eventually have a lot more applications then just aerospace and transportation. Its absolutely great stuff. The 3 D printing thing I think is a big potential, but aerospace is a given, given its cost savings factor. But I don’t expect an early off take, it would be amazingly good for the stock price, but I don’t expect it for a couple of years at least, and maybe as long as 5 years even. Because stockpiling is a big part of getting this thing going. What if Boeing did a commitment for 10 tpa, and invested how many hundreds of millions or billions to revamp their factory and design. Consider the implications of a threat to supply. Lets say a global recession that ground stuff to a halt. Clean teq has technology problems, and production is shut down. The stock market crashes, and future financing starts looking iffy. I think Boeing is in no rush whatsoever to make a commitment, why should they before they need it. First they wait to see 3 years worth of supply stockpiled, and the wheels turning for continuous supply, that would be the time to negotiate an off take. Thats how I see it. I could easily be wrong.
We are both speculating. As usual I am a little more optimistic than you are; this time, on the timing for the scandium offtakes.
I agree on Boeing.
But I think Airbus, Chinalco and UAC will lead.
AIRBUS: they are already wholesaling selling 3D sandium powders to other manufacturers, in addition to making complex models and parts. That cool motorcyle was made by the Airbus R&D, 3D printing; they have been featuring it for at least a year.
CHINALCO: the research deal with CHinalco, Congqing and CLQ is a two-year deal and we are already a few months in. Plus Tim Langan “Dr Scandium” is on CLQ payroll and is already in the saddle
at the research venture. So they may not announce it, because production is a ways off; but I have a hard time thinking Chinalco wouldn’t have a project or two ready to go within two years.
UAC: My understanding of their business is that they fabricate complicated parts for the aircraft companies. So I see applications in parts and interior structural stuff that could happen sooner than later. In fact this is how I foresee most of the early takeoff:
complicated parts, some engine components, interior compartment partitions and so on that are hard to make but will save weight and be quick to production with 3D printing.
The other thing I find odd, is that they mention these three manufaturers BY NAME in a DFS release. Why plug these names four or five years in advance of a deal ?
Since we are between friends and it will be fun to watch, I say that the first CLQ take-offs in scandium will happen before the BFS.
Just for perspective
The figures are really very rough and from different years and sources,
but to get an idea of the order of magnitude of world production in different metals I thought this might be useful.
Approximate annual world production in tons
Copper 20,000,000
Zinc 14,000,000
Nickel 2,500,000
Vanadium 150,000
Cobalt 100,000
Silver 27,000
Gold 3,000
Scandium 10
$EUC.asx > Gotthard Adit Cu Ni Co id #beautimus https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180629/pdf/43w4k6vs1csvmj.pdf
Euc Asx
Ben did you notice the photo in the announcement, the purple/ pink rock?
Could very well be 5/6% Cobalt.
Very low key announcement, await drilling results, whenever they are released, to get an idea of grades/ resource.
mgx minerals.cleans water and gets minerals from it too. lithium from clilie is next too. see website. GOD bless America, Canada.
$FYI – Vanadium Miners News For The Month Of June 2018
by Matt Bohlsen @sa Includes: AMVMF, APAFF, ATVVF, AUEEF, BSHVF, CCC, CCCCF, LGORF, PCY,
Summary
Vanadium spot prices were up significantly in June.
Vanadium market news – “We are already in a market deficit with no known strategic stockpiles. This is only going to be further exacerbated as rebar companies begin complying.”
Vanadium company news – Technology Metals Australia produces a stellar PFS result.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4184739-vanadium-miners-news-month-june-2018?isDirectRoadblock=true
“The bottom line, based on our analysis, is that we are already in a market deficit with no known strategic stockpiles. This is only going to be further exacerbated as rebar companies begin complying with the new regulations and vanadium flow batteries begin taking off.”
$CECBF $VDMRF
$CECBF
Wouldn’t this news hurt Cellcube because their battery ingredient price just went up? If they are vanadium miners, then I can see how they would benefit by an increase of vanadium price, but as far as I can tell they are not. They are battery makers. Indeed their stock value has fallen in the month of June, not risen. Correct me if wrong. I’m a newby at this.
That’s a good question, and I’m wondering the same thing. The Vanadium deposit is in Clayton Valley, NV. the Gibellin project. They are not the only ones in Clayton Valley, so is Prophecy Development Corp. and there maybe more. Before the current explorers and developers there was American Vanadium Corp (AVCVF) who was also a licensee of CellCube. AVC is defunct they perhaps focused too much on battery business. CellCube has a CEO with experience in sales of batteries, I hope that makes a difference. They have also announced today that they are spinning off there vanadium projects;
https://www.vanadiumprice.com/cellcube-to-spin-out-vanadium-assets-to-a-new-vanadium-focused-public-company-and-to-make-special-distribution-to-shareholders/
“A National Instrument 43-101 Indicated Resource of 11.9 million tons at an average grade of 0.39 per cent vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), and an Inferred Resource of 7.0 million tons at an average grade of 0.42 per cent V2O5 (see Company news release Sept. 13, 2016). Only 12 per cent of the Bisoni McKay area has been drilled, and none of the Bisoni-Rio which is contiguous with Bisoni McKay and sits between Bisoni and Prophecy’s Gibellini vanadium deposit.”
Hopefully thi9s will mean they put more emphasis on vanadium.
There are two companies that seem to be disjointed MGX with the zinc-air battery CellCube with the vanadium battery both are flow batteries. I would like to see some one make a flow battery company out them and mines.
What is forgotten by many is that even early on in projected pricing for vanadium, cobalt, graphite, any mineral used in production of the battery brigade, once all of these mines come into production, the price will eventually come down due to the large supply made available on the market.
How can one possibly come up with a price for today’s market shares based on two years future “outlook” of a commodity’s price? All of this up and down stock quoting doesn’t make too much sense if it’s based on every little mention by a company announcement or thought by a analyst, or that guy that bought $20 worth of stock that drove the share price up 25% last week?
Also, Cell Cube leases their fluids if you want to. Is that figured into each equation? I doubt it.
Micro managing can lead you to the nearest Mental Health Center sometimes. And I see no problem with having a few types of Flow Batteries made available for use. After many years of actually using them in real time/life situations, one may turn out to be better than originally though.
My 2 cents…………
Investors who make the big bucks use future outlooks…I agree with this guy. And so does RF as he wants Sama….I’m going to make a killing with CLQ IMHO cause the IRR will be much higher….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_Kl5HYxKq4
“Do not write something when you are tired”…edski.
I do not mean to ignore future outlooks in any decision regarding DD. I was just trying to say that one thing said every day about a company should not be taken as meaning that you should buy or sell your basic thoughts regarding a company.
And while taking that into consideration, I mentioned that the forecast for future prices, in this case vanadium, would also lower because of the increase in availability from all of the new mining in a couple of years. Same with all of the EV metals.
I like the link you gave and especially the “tip” into GIGA.
I will add that I also bought Vale a while back because they are already mining nickel, and that price will be going up..(I hope) before the new mines are operational.
I think that I am covered in everything needed for the future of EV and batteries except for graphene. I think HN’s Ionic investment will totally work out for him, unless other companies establish strong markets for their products first. I would be very tempted to join HN if I could. I am looking into other suppliers currently.
$TMT
They have produced stellar PFS with 1.3b NPV, capex 380m and 55%IRR and sp dropped by cca 10% on the same day.. after one week sp is back, where it was, but seriously, what is wrong with markets reactions on study releases lately? It’s just stupid. Basically it is sell the news without reading them. You could just be shorting all stock with some releases blindly and you would made a fortune..
Sp should be flying after such PFS.. their V is of great grade, easy mining & processing, capex is low and some people are still afraid about not being able to secure the financing, because their mcap is only around 35m..
BTW I’m in some serious loss with CLQ, but it does not make sense to me to sell now, when the damage has already been done and things look grim and investors are scared and they alredy fled, quite big time. I should have awaited such reaction to PFS based on ARL and TMT and others, but thought it will be different and thought DFS will be bombastic and with some positive surprise. Have to learn to respect the market. But it seems I’m not alone, hey look at Macquaire, they are almost as stupid as me! Well, I will need to work for one year more than I planned to.
Im sticking with CLQ, because of the potential, you can wake up one morning with mammoth water contract for China worth billions or at least scandium off takes. Good luck chasing CLQ after that.. but given the markets reaction, maybe everybody would sell those news… I dont know! 🙂
Long $TMT even though their sp reaction so far is just weird, not going anywhere in months, seems capped at 50c, maybe someone is accumulating. Dont know why it havent re-rated yet, it is undervalued compared to others, mainly our neighbour – AVL, they move forward quickly, very active and capable management.. thinking about adding more but we are getting closer to upper price range again..
Good luck to all
Dungac, there is company after company where decent or objectively good news has been met with massacres of the stock price. I am beginning to think that deep trading programs with big money are behind it.
It is not “manipulation”. I think it the emergence of new algorhythms based on “old” technical analysis, which are creating disruptions in the chart and price action of the old technical reactions.
One person I know informed that some program trading programs have the frequency of discussion on major blog sites as a negative input factor in its program. Thus a news announcement with a lot of discussion might create a “sell” signal that is unrelated to anything, other than the fact that people are talking about it.