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.
Posted on HC by thaiinvest, whose posts re worth reading IMO. Am posting here as pretty much sums up most but not all of how I see the current AUZ situation. Written clearer than I could put.
Although I haven’t done any deals in Korea I have for many years dealt with the Chinese and found them more than honorable.
thaiinvest
Date: 01/03/18
I have done many deals in my time in Korea, though not in the mining space
My views are there is nothing better than a Korean company who wants a deal they cannot do enough, if on the other hand you want a deal from a Korean company – good luck it very difficult. Its no doubt that SKI really wanted this deal.
Also you have to bear in mind that there are 2 languages (English and Korean) so everything takes longer and there will also be a Korean Agreement though I would hope the English one is the operative one and arbitration in the event of dispute is in Australia or in the International Court of Arbitration (that would be normal for international agreements of which SKI would no well). Also in Korean Companies everybody and there brother is required to sign off / chop internally on external agreements including from experience HR, Accounting and every department head this takes time and increases the number of people where leaks can occur.
AUZ had 9 potential partners and with all considered thought this was the best deal and I have do doubt that all considered AUZ supported by Medea selected the best deal available and I think this will be proven.
I believe the Koreans are significantly better and more professional at “partnerships” and trustworthy than Chinese entities and from what we have heard from Flippa and JD the Korean kit supplied by Korean manufacturers is significantly better than Chinese. In the end my view is that Chinese Companies always want to be Top Dog and want to own and over influence a company in which they have shareholdings and ultimately want to own you. For JV’s with Chinese Companies my feeling is that the Australian Company shareholders get shafted often they put in a Chinese sales company in-between the miner and end customers and thats where the real profits are made.
So I am very happy with 19.9 % SKI shareholding they have enough skin in the game to in helping to successfully build the Sconi mine and plant and help finding finance but not enough to overly influence the company. Its good that there will probably be a Korean Director on the Board. For AUZ I am sure they were on the radar screen and had possibly been approached by potential buyers for a takeover, for the AUZ Board and Ben who want to to see this through from explorer to full scale miner the SKI deal provides the security of a friendly /semi institution share block to ensure protection from a takeover and makes sure Shareholders will get the full benefit.
As regards what happened in releasing the information on the deal. My experience is if there is a leaky ship on information its always in Korea. Up to now information has not previously got out from AUZ and Medea are use to deal making/ assistance and are a very professional company used to the importance of secrecy in such deals.
My sense is that this deal leaked in Korea the day before it was announced first by AUZ in Australia. I think someone said there was a press article in the Korean press a day before. I remember when I worked in Korea the Korean press was publishing details of our supposed confidential salaries and stock options.
So I think if indeed it the deal was in the Korean press the day before the original release, it put pressure on AUZ to release something in more of a hurry than they may have originally planned and when you do thinks in a hurry there are normally screw ups.
I think the agreement with SKI will prove to be better than good for AUZ and its shareholders. Its 100% of production so easier to deal with the complete supply chain. AUZ – SKI – Mercedes (and others), I am sure samples sent by AUZ will be put into sample batteries that will be trailed in new EV Mercedes prototypes. Its not just AUZ that will be building the Sconi mine and plant, it will be SKI that are building their Hungarian Battery factory and expanding their Korean Factory as well as Mercedes that will be tooling up for their new EV models – these are all very long lead time things that all new to come together at the right quantity and quality parameters at the right time.
So yes its very normal to have agreements with clauses based on, specific hurdles time and quality requirements and time hurdles. Remember all agreements for any company will after all other hurdle and conditions have been met and mines and plants are in production will still have quantity and quality control clause requirements on supply of products, this is normal not a reason fro down ramping.
I have no doubt that Ben has been talking to SKI (along with the 8 others) for at least 8 months since he first went to Korea and a good sense of “partnership” between AUZ and SKI staff has developed, the ability to work with your “partner” company is as important as the financial factors and what they can bring to the table.
I also have no doubt as others have said that SKI will be able to bring a lot of project management experience and manufacturing contacts to the table and will assist in helping find financial partners. With 19.9% SKI shareholding in AUZ and a binding agreement on supply and payment from SKI, I have no doubt that the over capitalized Korean banks, of which there are many and which SK has significant relationships with, will be falling over themselves to participate in financing the Sconi project in “very safe” Australia. The Korean banks have long and significant experience in support and financing of Korean companies and Chaebol like SK infrastructure projects all over the world.
My read of the clause that SKI can participate in future finance is simply so that if there is the need for any future fund raising CR’s in the future that SKI can keep its shareholding at the 19.99% as envisage in the current agreement. Also as noted by Ben in the AUZ AGM Q&A’s he envisages that future dilution will be minimal. (i.e Sconi Project I anticipate will be 100% debt financed however AUZ will still have funding needs for Corporate needs and drilling and proving up Flemington and Tackaringa.
Up to now Ben Bell and AUZ Board and Management have not put a foot wrong, in 2 years (24 months) they have completely transformed a minnow of a non successful gold mining entity to the pre-eminent non DRC highly focused EV Battery (Cobalt and Nickel Sulfate) and High tech mineral (Scandium Oxide) Company in the world. From a Market cap of under A$10 million to a significant company that is capitalized at A$280 million enough to be part of the ASX 300 (ASX 300 participating companies are selected by ASX committee). Posters should read the AUZ presentation of Nov 2015 to see how far AUZ has come I do not know of many companies that have made such a successful and shareholder beneficial transition.
In the interest of Shareholder and minimizing expenses and shareholder dilution have Ben and the team tried to do too much with too little resources – probably. However in a fast growing company like AUZ HR resource hiring is always playing catch-up to the opportunities.
Net net was the SKI Agreement release well handled – NO, though there were probably mitigating circumstances that we do not fully understand (i.e Korean press leak, new team and advisors working together – new company secretary, new corporate advisors Medea and possibly a few other factors we do not know about)
So like everyone we all make mistake and live and learn plus hopefully correct and learn from our mistakes. I have no doubt at all the Ben Bell’s heart and commitment to shareholders is in the right place and so yes I am willing to cut Ben Bell some slack after what he has achieved in the last 24 months for long term shareholders thats the very least he deserves.
SS…all credit to Bell and AUZ for getting it to this point. Really AUZ deserves praise for the deal.
I am optimistic for AUZ and believe investors will profit by owning it.
SK is a great counterparty. I do not need to be persuaded about SK. But I am not investing in SK.
But the management of AUZ is a question for me. It’s OK if anyone wants to give Mr. Bell a pass on the news release fiasco.
I am a little more doubtful than most on this issue. Mr. Bell is a geologist, a good strategist, and my guess he is a good
hard working guy.
But the way this has been handled is a mess, and management is responsible. My background and inclination is to hold management responsible.
It is not a decisive negative, as one cannot ignore the deposit nor the off-take. But there is doubt.
There is always doubt in every stock.
The other thing is that we cannot do anything about it until next week, and the way the market will react is anybody’s guess. The price we can get matters to those of us who are not in it.
Best regards
Dang SS…wonderfully written from experience. Well done.
edski, the post was taken from HC and written by thaiinvest as stated, just so we are clear.
Best SS.
Hi Squirrel. FYI The Aussie dog is locked up in the pound again.
Yea well you’ll be Like a Dog out of a Kennel once released, I’m sure, quite funny really…. (-:
I mean it’s not as If you are the BIG Bad Wolf!
CLQ and accounting magic…scandium, nickel, cobalt, and water
Clean Teq is in a unique position because of its product mix.
Since following them, I have seen them change their emphasis to investors from water, to scandium, to cobalt, and now to nickel.
This is not hanky-panky by Clean Teq. It is smart merchandising and completely justified. The fact is that any of these segments could carry the company, and CLQ has the luxury of being able to slightly shift their presentation emphasis as market conditions change, without really doing much alteration at all to their actual operations. A change in the cost allocation methods is sufficient to do this.
The February 2018 presentation illustrates this very well. The presentation emphasizes nickel, and it presents the C1 cost of nickel with cobalt as a by-product; scandium is ignored altogether.
They show a pie chart that indicates that the forecasted revenue from nickel and cobalt are roughly equal, and the C1 nickel cost at $1.40 after cobalt credits at $14/lb
cobalt (!).
What this means is that they could basically show themselves as either a cobalt producer with near zero cash costs on a by-product basis (nickel as a credit), or as a nickel producer with near zero cash costs (cobalt as a credit).
If they go to co-product accounting, they will have low costs for both nickel and cobalt. The margins on nickel will be good for miners. But the margins on cobalt will be absurd; probably $4 cost and $40 sell.
[it is fair to assume that the processing costs on nickel and cobalt will be very nearly the same, the only major difference being in the cost of the chemicals needed for the respective precipitation circuits.]
On top of this insanely profitable situation, there are three other potentially major sources of income:
1. The scandium. It is possible that scandium may produce more income than
nickel or cobalt someday. Value assigned in presentation: ZERO.
2. The Water. I cannot even venture a guess as to what this will be worth in 5 years.
My feeling is that the water division will be in the spotlight until the BFS is completed.
3. Extraction contracts. These are building up in water and minerals. Blue sky.
There are going to be JVs, you can bank on it.
Long CLQ
$CLQ scandium and industrial disinformation…the more I look at CLQ literature and presentations, the more I am persuaded that they are deliberately concealing how profitable they are going to be.
In my opinion they are downplaying the scandium in every possible way, under the guise of being “conservative”. They are concealing it so that other mines do not prepare themselves, in particular the Aussie mines that have scandium in their ore. And CLQ is even starting to disguise the cobalt.
The analysts say, “Well, there’s hardly any useage, the world scandium consumption is only a couple of dozen tons, and the applications are pie-in-the-sky, better forget about the scandium, it’ll just disappoint. Years away. Maybe 5. Maybe 10. ”
The market says “We don’t care about scandium. We want cobalt and nickel,
that’s what we want. And we want it now. ” So Clean Teq goes along and shows the cobalt and the nickel. Screw the scandium, nobody gives credit to them for it anyway. Bury it in the footnotes. Everybody clamoring for battery materials…and CLQ has them, so they go with the flow. Nickel and cobalt.
Officially, CLQ says, “Well, yes. scandium will be potentially be important someday. But our focus is on cobalt and nickel.” And they exclude it from the figures. No income shown. In fact, they are even starting to hide the cobalt.
**
But here are some facts for you to consider.
Clean Teq filed several scandium patents recently. In fact they did so right after I inquired of IR about it.
Then came the announcement of the Chinalco-Chongqing collaboration.
This is a dead giveaway. In the middle of an all-out effort to get Sunrise up and running, why does RF take the time to complete a complicated research deal with China’s number one aluminum manufacturer ?
Look at the figures in the presentation. Scandium has disappeared. It is so small in the footnotes you need a magnifying glass to read that “potential scandium revenue is not included”.
Yet, did you know that in 2016, they did a complete feasibility study on Syerston, with scandium as the production target ? And that there were regular announcements about the scandium resource, and the scandium market ?
And do you know what the gross figures were ? The 2016 PFS showed a milling of 64 thousand tons of ore, producing 49 tons of Scandium oxide, which is about 32 tons of contained metal. They did a complete PFS based on 49 tons of scandium oxide, 32 tons of metal, from 64,000 tons of ore.
The 2016 report high-graded the scandium, it was their target. Now they are talking NICKEL and that other metal, the blue one. So, lets assume the new planned scandium grades will be lower, since they are going after nickel and cobalt. To be conservative let’s say 75% lower. One quarter the grade.
Okay, so 64,000 tons ore will produce 32 tons scandium.
But the new plan calls for 2,500,000 tons of ore per year, not 64,000 tons !
At 1/4 the grade of the 2016 study, 2,500,000 tons will produce 10 times what you would get out of 64,000 tons. Eventual full production of scandium could be 10×32 tons =320 tons. This is hundreds of millions in income, per year.
Why are they doing this ?
In my opinion they are concealing from competitors what a bonanza they will have in scandium. When they go into production, they will have several times the current world annual consumption. They will control the price and positively kill any competitors. They will be so far ahead with such low costs, nobody will be able to raise capital to target scandium.
Renby said it a while back: How can you compete with Sunrise ? Sunrise will be producing at unbeatable prices, and they will have the top customers locked up, they will be producing amounts that are several times the entire world consumption.
Lets say the PGM deposit next door is just as good. Why invest $500 million or a billion to build a scandium mine next door to Sunrise ? CLQ will make mincemeat out of you. You publish a PFS with $750 scandium, Bob will do an offtake at $600 and your PFS goes down the drain. You do a BFS at $600, Bob will run a summer special at $550 and make you look stupid. You show a cost, Bob will just do an accounting adjustment, and his costs will be lower…because, they are.
When Sunrise starts rolling, competing in scandium will be a nightmare for anyone considering competing. The dreams of realizing high-priced scandium by competitors will be just that…dreams. CLQ will be setting the prices, and they will have the lowest costs. And you are two years behind, or more, and Bob has the connections. Good luck with that.
The fangs should come out in the BFS, or on an offtake with Chinalco. I now believe they may hide and delay the announcements. What do they need to tell people for ? Let the other guys ignore scandium a while longer. Let them plan their mines without scandium circuits.
#Sc $PGM $PTNUF fp – Well then, what do you make of this?
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180301/pdf/43s27w4fsdy1t5.pdf
This is Bob’s neighbor. Assume they can and do read their neighbor’s historical reports, probably study them, full time.
Post, drive by… ignore…
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/2018/01/microblog-scandium-cobalt-and-water-purification-clean-teq-holdingsvolume-2-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-4975586
#btw $KRC.asx was given to the group by #SecretSquirrel, TY ss.
$PGM $PTNUF…what I make of it is they are headed for a brick wall. Now don’t misunderstand me, at their market cap I think they are a great buy and I want to re-enter.
$PGM is a great metal-in-the-ground play. I want to own it.
But I think they will get bought out; or alternately, if they go through with it and build, they will never meet their DFS figures.
$PGM.asx re: Owendale Pilot Plant 20180229
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180129/pdf/43r2zy26qj05x8.pdf
They will go through all the motions, it adds value.
Mosig was doing the same.It increases the value of the project.
We’ll see if anything gets built there, or not.
$PGM…Ben, I did not know what to make of Mosig’s resignation: but based on their move to Ausenco, it looks like they were dissatisfied that he was not farther along.
I still like the deposit and think it is extraordinarily cheap.
But honestly, if RF said “I’ll give you X cash, , and stock or warrants in CLQ”, I would jump at it as a shareholder.
It is going to take them years and years, and a big capital raise along the way. Why bother ?
Great post HN.
Interesting action today on the ASX – 2 days in a row now.
Someone’s taking a stake.
Just as long as our stakes are as large as we can manage comfortably.
Since 2014 & holding long.
yes, I appreciate you remembering I made the point, CTEQF is positioned unbelievably in the scandium field. As a result, I believe they will be able to sell a lot of it, because they can price it to sell, and still make a lot of money. And over time, the price is likely to rise, as I believe available supply will explode utilization.
I don’t think they will leave scandium out of the PFS. I think they will show the project works with room to spare at present N/Co prices, and then I hope they will show some upside cases with scandium and higher nickel/cobalt prices. I don’t think they are hiding anything from anybody, it isn’t like the scandium sector doesn’t know what’s going on.
Renby…yes the scandium will be in the BFS/DFS (the PFS is done already)
MGXMF–Long..Nice over view on U-Tube from Jason Lazerson ( 2/25/18 ) on the Energy future. About 4 minutes long. MGXMF is getting back in the buy range near its 100 day moving average… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wosNL1R7WrI&feature=youtu.be …Cowboy
Edski and Fluence…I saw edski’s post and I agree with him, there are other water plays that could be excellent. Fluence is already on my radar on account of energy storage and the relationship with Siemens. Didn’t realize they are into water as well.
Remember this about Fluence!
Fluence- AES and Siemens project is still “private”, that is, a partnership between the two companies is developing BATTERY STORAGE, NOT listed as a company, and not into water. We are watching!!!!! Past attempts have failed because of lack of funding by lenders to those wanting to participate.
Siemens is the LENDER for the joint effort between them.
Fluence-FLC:AU….Australian Market….Up and running with a great program all around the world with water cleaning pods waiting to be delivered. I found it by mistake and ended up buying a bit. I like it’s work, quickness to perform, worldwide business, and a future of less and less available water for many.
Edski…happy accident.
Agree, I like Fluence…Siemens has the bucks, technology, and also a world-wide sales network.
A lot of disruptive stocks to buy right now.
Big shifts coming. Very favorably inclined, no position.
$KRC (Aus) Someone mentioned King River. Interesting optionality play, vanadium, copper, other metals. Early explorer/developer in Western Australia, $69 mil Ozbucks market cap.
No opinion, no position. Interesting, though, on account of vanadium and multi-metallic deposit.
I mentioned this a couple of times, got in Long a while back. They have a number of very interesting things, not just vanadium, I did take my position based on the vanadium, their vanadium purity achieved was very high.
They had a recent big hit on fluorite, which I’ve never heard of before.
Also a very promising gold situation under the great name of MT remarkable!
Appears to be a very well run company and can IMO only see this going up with the same early potential as AUZ.
Another one I’ve took a position on is AEE for their vanadium, they have uranium as well.
Piece below: sorry could not add the grades/tables as won’t cut n paste.
HÄGGÅN PROJECT, SWEDEN
Häggån is located in central Sweden and is one of the largest undeveloped vanadium and polymetallic projects in the world.
The project has a resource of 7,870 Mlbs V, 1,640 Mlbs Ni, 2,230 Mlbs Zn, 1,070 Mlbs Mo and 803 Mlbs U3O8.
The Häggån project is located in a sparsely populated area of swamp and forest used mainly for commercial forestry. Sweden’s has a current and active mining industry, with a clear regulatory position and a well-established path from exploration to production.
A Scoping Study was completed in May 2012 suggests that the Häggån Project has excellent potential to become a major, low cost producer of a suite of strategic ‘green’ metals. Aura’s discovery that the mineralisation is ideally suited to bioleach metal extraction was the major breakthrough to creating a robust and economic project. Bioleaching, including bioheap leaching, is a proven technology widely used in copper and gold industries with some application to the battery metals and uranium industry.
The Häggån Inferred Resource contains 2.35 billion tonnes at the grades shown in the table below. Metal content is also shown.
$AEE.AX SS, I have just reviewed the 2 AEE projects, based on the ‘downloads’. The Mautitania projects a breakeven @$35/lb U308 and the Haagen project is breakeven either @$13/lb +when nickel and molybdenum treated as by-products or $26/lb when nickel and molybdenum are included as U3O8 equivalents. While I did see they have vanadium, I did not see much (any?) discussion about mining it. Do you have any updated info? How good is HC info (I am having some troubles getting on HC) ?
AEE ASX deanbob, the best person to help you is SS with this stock.
Re HC I was talking to a friend yesterday an made the comment, ‘ you don’t know anything about who the person that is posting ‘.
There’s many on HC who promote, downramp to their advantage, so it’s important that you do your own research on a share.
Conversely their are many posters who have indepth knowledge.
We can say the same about 99%!of share forums.
Very true williamstown, I tend to believe that we here on SG are truthful in our search and are not up/down ramping ever. I have my picks /opinions only as I see them, never do I try to pump them up for gain, not right sometimes but that’s different,
Some very good insightful posters on HC, but always be careful. Buyer beware comes to mind….
Hi deanbob, at the time I read enough to want to take a position along with my other vanadium play KRC. I find the HC info can vary but overall it is good starting point for certain, lots of DYOR reading required.
Not sure why you would have trouble getting access there, never any issue here…
Couple of posts, both from HC this year below:
Best,
SS.
22/01/18
Post #:
30454669
key points – potential investors read september quarterly. its hard to believe in this market that AEE’s EV is around $20 million. A major rerate WILL occur.
The Häggån Polymetallic Project contains significant quantities of cobalt, vanadium, copper, uranium, molybdenum, nickel, zinc and neodymium.
In the 2012 Scoping Study the project value was US$1.8 billion. This value only incorporated a small portion of the Battery Metals. Todays value is $217 billion.
During the quarter, Aura continued to focus on development of ‘green’ and ‘Battery Group’ metals, including vanadium, nickel, cobalt, zinc and neodymium, at the Häggån polymetallic deposit in Sweden. Häggån represents one of the world’s largest undeveloped vanadium resources with significant value in nickel, zinc, copper and cobalt, in addition to the previously defined uranium value.
Aura conducted a study of Häggån’s gross metal content to highlight the significant polymetallic potential of the project and to illustrate the value of these metals at current prices
Metal Value Distribution Total Metal Current Prices
Mo $ 7,418,362,500
Ni $ 7,351,740,000
V2O5 $ 151,533,704,341
Zn $ 2,886,622,500
Cu $ 1,616,677,686
Co $ 3,007,044,071
Ag $ 663,721,731
Nd $ 3,446,651,000
Base metals $ 177,924,523,829
U3O8 $ 40,067,500,000
Total $ 217,992,023,800
###
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/AURA/13463201.html
THE HAGGAN PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT PRODUCER OF BATTERY METALS
AURA COMMENCES PROCESS FOR POTENTIAL LISTING OF H£GG£N SEPARATELY ON MULTIPLE INTERNATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGES
SHORTLISTING OF INVESTMENT BANKS AND BROKERS UNDERWAY
Aura Energy Limited (AEE; ASX, AURA; AIM) is pleased to advise that it has commenced a process to list its 100% owned Haggan Project in Sweden separately on multiple international exchanges to maximise the significant value of the Battery Metal content in the project.
Aura has previously announced it was reviewing options for the Haggan Project given the large aggregate content of Battery Metals including vanadium, molybdenum, cobalt, neodymium, nickel and zinc. Most of these metals have not been fully considered in the previous technical studies.
Metal prices rises over the past 2 years, including 400% for vanadium and 300% for cobalt, have significantly altered the aggregate metal value, and value-mix, of the Haggan deposit. These changes are the key drivers to this reassessment of Haggan.
Peter Reeve, Aura Energy’s Executive Chairman said “Aura has always considered Haggan to be the company’s most valuable long-term asset and the significant recent price rise in Battery Metals has transformed Haggan’s current value proposition. Haggan now has potential to be one of the world’s largest sources of Battery Metals and the Company believes a separate listing in this environmn separately with a focussed Swedish management team and the resources to independently finance and propel the project with the new impetus of the growth in Batteries Metals is a very appealing strategy to drive development of this substantial multi-commodity project.
The Haggan Polymetallic project was the subject of a Scoping Study in August 2012 with very favourable technical and financial outcomes however that study did not consider;
Vanadium recovery
Cobalt recovery
Neodymium recovery
Optimisation and improvement of the by-product base metal recoveries or
Downstream processing of Battery Metals as integrated manufacturing industries
Overall the HC reader input is not great, but there is a minority of
posters who are excellent. The hot stocks attract a lot of irrelevant chatter. For ASX stocks a little out of the limelight, I think there is benefit to be gained.
The signal to noise ratio is not good overall.
Approx market caps selected Aussie ni-cobalt prospects, millions of $Ozbucks
PGM $32 one main project plus a long shot in Greenland, of all places. No CEO.
JRV $108 royalties and other stuff included
ARL $118 straight ahead ni-co optionality
AUZ $281 (in trading halt, supposed to be tradeable 3/6; they have 2 other ni-co projects besides Sconi which is 100% sold conditionally)
CLQ $797. Obviously they cannot be valued just on their NI-Co deposit.
The above parties should collaborate and establish the #CAPAJ Consortium, imho. 🙂 Amused https://www.stockgumshoe.com/2016/05/microblog-magical-music-mystery-mining/comment-page-4/#comment-4975699
Long all except $JRV.asx, yet. Capaj i Venko Son sum sonil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wiRA8ciEp4 😉 Published by
IVANCAPAJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bHU7SAxT34
Чапај – Сон сум сонувал https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9LhyleQy5o 🙂
I think a NSW consortium is a good solution. On a macro scale it is very wasteful to build two more 800 million dollar plants next to Sunrise.
At least, until Sunrise is in full production.
Imagine investing for a new mine at Flemington (AUZ) and a new mine at Owendale (PGM).
It doesn’t make sense to me, especially when CLQ is going to have way lower opex. Best to get along and join forces, in my opinion.
CLQ is already building a regional operations center, and negotiating with Easpring to build a cathode plant there.
The Aussies are going to be a powerhouse in battery materials, no need to kill each other with overcapitalization, excess capacity, and cutthroat prices in one corner of the country.
Obviously Sconi or a west Australian deposit is something else.
They are far away. But Sunrise, Flemington and Owendale are one
geological ore body.
Look at what Friedland is doing in Kamoa-Kakula-Kakula West.
Master planning for an enormous geographic claim.
The New South Wales ni-co-sc guys should co-operate, they would all make more money co-operating, with Friedland calling the shots. Honestly, I don’t see why it couldn’t happen.
Friedland could acquire PGM Owendale and the AUZ Flemington deposit with cash, CLQ stock and warrants.
As the market cap of CLQ swells up, this becomes something which is really feasbible. Why not ? The market cap of AUZ and PGM is only 300-400 million, and the have to raise at least a billion between them, more likely a billion and a half. Tough row to hoe.
$TAR.asx Taruga Gold – https://www.tarugagold.com.au/about-us/
01/03/2018 $ Reinstatement to Official Quotation 1 Page PDF
01/03/2018 $ ACQUISITION OF HIGH GRADE COBALT-COPPER PROJECTS IN THE DRC 27 Page PDF
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180301/pdf/43s2lwn58jf0k8.pdf
26/02/2018 $ Suspension from Official Quotation 2 Page PDF
$TAR don’t know if this cobalt project is legit, but if it is can’t not be in it at this tiny market cap. 100% downside, ridiculous upside if real. Small punt only. ty https://twitter.com/Cdchi1/status/969391280223526912
TGIF
#Tunez > It’s a Miracle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MySqsrnCF8 🙂
🙂 Things Left Unsaid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0knKQEjRifA 🙂
Peace could break out in the DRC someday.
$TAR is stupidly cheap if the figures are as they say. But then again so is Ivan.
HN this hot copper post numbers 31487989 & 31488049, shows the companies who are situated in the Lachlan Belt area of NSW ie CLQ, AUZ, ARD and PGM amongst others.
Shown in colour.
Yep, CLQ i the middle between PGM on the north and AUZ on the west. Lots of yukking by AUZ and PGM holders that they each own half of Sunrise. But that makes three halves.
Occasionally the AUZ guys say things like “we’re gonna buy CLQ”
or “CLQ is trapped they need us” etc etc.
Meanwhile CLQ could show a 40 year mine life and is about to leave these guys in the dust.
$CLQ…perspective on scandium
It is striking how much scandium is downplayed in the recent presentations, communications, and presentations by Clean Teq.I have exaggerated to a degree by saying they are “hiding” the scandium; but my allegation is not so far from the truth, insofar as the financial impact of scandium has been segregated from the nickel-cobalt by design. This is documented by Clean Teq in the reports referenced.
I believe the scandium is being isolated as a separate profit center.
I suggest to those interested that the the 2016 reports be reviewed, in particular the 30th August 2016 release entitled “Completion of Syerston Scandium Project Feasibility Study”, and also the scandium marketing analysis and other reports on scandium released in 2016.
In the referenced report there are a lot of statements in plain English and straightforward calculations that have a direct bearing on what we can expect from the upcoming BFS, on what we can expect from Clean Teq with respect to scandium, and what the future may bring us in scandium market developments.
The August 2016 PFS for Scandium lays out the following parameters:
64,000 tons feed ore per year, 20 yr LOM, 18 month ramp-up, 49 tons Sc2O3 pa.
Feed grade 583 gr/t, recovery for 99.9% pure sc is 88%.
Global supply of Scandium oxide is put at 10-15 tpa, at prices between USD $2000
and $3000. Price assumption for the PFS is US $1500 kg,
Cash costs $593 kg, AuD kg, USD $444 kg.
NPV8% $273 AuD, IRR 33%
Capital cost for the scandium mine is $100 mil AuD
1. The report lays out two scenarios: (1) smaller scandium only operation as contemplated in the PFS; or (2) that the scandium production be incorporated in a large-scale nickel-cobalt operation.
Well, we know they selected option 2.
2. Flow chart…the flow chart for processing is similar to the chart in recent presentations…except that nickel and cobalt are missing.
3. Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 give succint summaries of scan-alu alloy applications and development in aerospace, transport, and…surprise…solid oxide fuel cells. The collaborations with Airbus and Universal Alloy are mentioned.
The 2016 Scandium PFS in Relation to actual Sunrise Project
The 2016 scandium PFS clearly calls out the possibility of incorporating the scandium into a larger nickel-cobalt project. This has actually happened, as we all know. Conclusions:
A. The new Sunrise production plan vastly exceeds the parameters contemplated in the 2016 scandium PFS. While the scandium PFS was for a project with 64,000 tons of ore, the actual Sunrise project will process 2.5 MILLION tons of ore per year. The sheer tonnage increase make changes in the scandium head grade grade somewhat irrelevant. Sunrise will, by itself, increase world supply by several times, likely 2x to 4x world consumption at current levels.
B. Scandium operating profits…the enlarged Sunrise project is being presented as a nickel-cobalt project. Thus the capital and opex assumed for the 2016 scandium project are being absorbed or allocated into the figures for the nickel and the cobalt. Scandium is excluded from the nickel-cobalt project calculations for now; although I expect them to be included in the BFS.
C. Since the August 2016 scandium PFS, we note the developments with IP and Chinalco.
***
The nickel and the cobalt will cover the opex and the capex.
Thus, on a by-product basis, whatever Sunrise scandium income is generated from 2.5 mta, on the books the cost for that scandium is going to be ZERO.
The scandium is being segregated and will provide windfall profits because all the costs have been allocated and covered by the nickel and cobalt.
Big profits ahead for CLQ Sunrise.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-staggering-demand-commodities/
China’s Staggering Demand for Commodities
JEFF DESJARDINS March 2, 2018
Apologies if anyone posted previously, sure it would have been. Anyway AUZ mentioned in article below, now is it not possible that either Apple, Tesla or BMW might do an O/T with CLQ. You could say CLQ cobalt is going to China (BYD?) because of the Pengxin Mining connection, but in the end the best overall deal wins the main prize here….
RF’s conversation with EM was a while back, maybe they spoken since, pure speculation of course.
Can phones be made out of scandium? It could be a new angle for Apple to exploit. As scandium (great name btw imo) will be used for planes/space travel from what I’m reading so image wise it’s very good.
And one last point, should any parts of CLQ be spun off separately, the water business comes to mind….. and others perhaps as sure has a lot of plates being spun at once.
https://smallcaps.com.au/battery-revolution-apple-cobalt-tesla-lithium/
Battery revolution:
Will Apple do to cobalt, what Tesla did for lithium?
By Filip Karinja – February 27, 2018
Apple, one of the world’s leading electronics manufacturers could be in trouble.
The company sells over 100 million devices such as its iconic iPhone, iPad and iMac products every year and wields one of the largest software libraries including its very own marketplace for content-hungry users.
But to maintain its assertive position as a leading device manufacturer, Apple needs to secure ample amounts of key raw materials such as graphite, lithium, cobalt and other rare earth minerals.
By far the most worrisome commodities that have thrown multiple manufacturers into ethical dilemmas have been lithium and cobalt.
The largest reserves of these two commodities are located in regions with questionable mining practices and challenging operating conditions for Western miners.
Already this year, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) officials have set pulses racing amongst Western cobalt miners operating in the DRC after abolishing cornerstone tax exemptions, introducing a 50% “super-tax” on most productive miners and is considering raising its tax royalty rate from the current 2% to as high as 10%, if the government decides to label cobalt a strategic metal.
The two metals are rather different but are having a rather familiar effect on both consumers and producers. The price of both metals has risen exponentially over the past 2 years, with several analysts predicting that what we’ve seen so far is only the start of the so-called ‘lithium-ion battery boom’.
If we look at just how much cobalt and lithium go into the average modern battery, it’s clear that the future of Energy is largely dependent on a slew of commodities with unique properties.
However, booming sales of lithium-ion batteries and greater use of storage-energy championed so efficiently by Tesla, is causing supply-side bottlenecks due to a combination of poor management and poorly understood geology.
The lax approach to mining standards has seen several companies go public in their criticism of countries such as the DRC and Mozambique, with some companies flat out refusing to source their raw materials from suppliers that do not fit pre-set criteria.
It may come as no surprise that Apple is reportedly in talks with cobalt miners directly, with powerhouse names like Glencore and Eurasian Resources Group mentioned as producers capable of satiating Apple’s large demand schedule.
According to Daniel Ives, Chief Strategy Officer at GBH Insights, “Apple could potentially save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next two to three years if it secures cobalt supplies,” which could explain why the tech giant has entered into discussions to secure enough to forward-dated cobalt supply to meet its hefty requirements.
Bloomberg analyst Jack Farchy believes that several large miners are in the frame to assist Apple, as well as many other device manufacturers, with its growing appetite for raw materials.
With Apple now in talks to buy long-term cobalt supplies for the first time, market analysts are expecting cobalt price uncertainty to keep growing, with spot prices already trading at record highs of around $80,000 per tonne.
The price inflation seen in cobalt has also been reflected in other battery-enabling commodities such as graphite, zinc and possibly most famously of all, in lithium.
Tesla’s lithium story in Nevada
A great example of what Apple could potentially be on course to achieving is currently being exemplified by Tesla in Nevada.
Elon Musk, Tesla’s enigmatic CEO, has embarked on a gargantuan mission to produce around 35 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of power from Tesla’s “Gigafactory” in Nevada, in close proximity to large reserves of lithium scattered around its operational area.
Early-stage explorers have already begun to strike offtake deals with Tesla, to supply its rapidly growing demand for high-grade lithium, graphite, cobalt and other rare earth minerals.
Pure Energy announced an offtake deal with Tesla back in 2014, which in itself could set a precedent for Apple to follow with respects to its own raw materials requirement for cobalt.
Deals over deals
The signing of new offtake deals for both lithium and cobalt is ramping up alongside broad consumer awareness of cobalt and lithium.
Bacanora Minerals and Rare Earth Minerals are currently in a joint-venture partnership to develop the Sonora project in Mexico.
Bacanora has already signed a deal with Tesla and has recently added another battery manufacturer in the form of Japan-based Hanwa Corporation, that will see the company acquire up to 100% of its lithium output coming from Sonora.
In May 2016, Bacanora secured an $11 million investment from Blackrock on the back of a recently-completed pre-feasibility study that showed Sonora has at least 2.1 million tonnes of lithium carbonate.
Since it became known that lithium and cobalt would be likely candidates for strong offtake demand by battery manufacturers, an almost limitless troop of lithium explorers has entered the fray to explore for the strategic metal.
Likewise with cobalt, since forecasts for its impending demand schedule began to be analysed, its price has soared and persuaded dozens of explorers to switch their attention away from less commercially-viable base metals into rapidly emerging energy-storage enablers such as cobalt and lithium.Tesla doesn’t intend to stop with one Gigafactory. The carmaker is expected to build a series of factories in both the US and Europe and has started signing offtake deals with well-positioned producers.
By the end of this year, Tesla’s first Gigactory is expected to reach full capacity and be producing lithium-ion batteries for at least 500,000 new electric cars each year.
Tesla’s supply-side issues seem to be largely resolved as offtake deals from proven mining locations are estimated to meet its anticipated demand. For Apple, the challenge is far greater and its path towards securing its required cobalt supply is only just beginning.
As offtake deals continue to be signed, it’s not just Apple and Tesla that are feeling the supply-side pinch. Apple and Tesla are vying for the same commodities as other powerhouse manufacturers such as BMW, Samsung and Volkswagen as just a few examples.
If we include Chinese electric car markers such as Warren Buffett-backed BYD — it is clear that manufacturers across the world are embracing battery technology rather quickly; maybe even a bit too quickly for miners to adapt in such a short time.
The world’s top manufacturers are forming orderly queues to secure reliable lithium/cobalt supplies to meet their ambitious targets with the biggest side-effect being the sharp price inflation seen in both lithium and cobalt over the past 2 years.
Closer to home, Australian Mines (ASX: AUZ) is currently developing the Sconi mine in Queensland.
Just recently, the company agreed to a cobalt and nickel offtake deal with SK Innovation Co, South Korea’s top oil refiner, worth around A$5 billion.
In this particular deal, SK Innovation has agreed to buy all of the project’s planned output for seven years, with the option to extend for a further six years.
Apple setting an example in mining ethics
Apple is tackling the problem of poor mining standards by setting a high example and forcing any potential suitors for its steep demand schedule to follow it.
Apple calls it “mapping the supply chain,” a systematic method of weeding out undesirable producers while setting the example of what Apple expects from future suppliers.
Apple has reiterated on many occasions that “100% of our conflict minerals and cobalt smelter/refiner partners are now participating in independent third-party audits to ensure their own business practices are conducted responsibly.”
In a comprehensive “Supplier Responsibility” report published last year, Apple said that its “commitment to responsible sourcing will not waiver and we will continue to drive our standards deep in our supply chain.”
In 2010, Apple was the first large devices manufacturer to map its supply chain to the smelter level for tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold.
In contrast, about a fifth of the DRC’s cobalt production is mined by hand by informal miners including children, often in dangerous conditions, according to rights group Amnesty International.
Apple says that working with independent assessors is a way of making sure its suppliers adhere to strict due diligence requirements and reports it partnered with the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers & Exporters (“CCCMC”) in 2016, to develop a third-party audit program for cobalt.
Additionally, Apple conducts dozens of spot audits on production suppliers to assess their accordance with set guidelines. Despite its efforts to stamp out poor mining practices, especially within artisanal cobalt mining, Apple says that it removed 22 smelters from its supply chain in 2016 because they were “either unwilling or unable to comply with Apple’s standards.”
With respect to artisanal mines in particular, Apple says that “these mines will be allowed into our supply chain when we are confident that the appropriate protections are in place,” and adds that, “we have also partnered with numerous NGOs to drive change, including Pact, who are working to provide essential health and safety training to artisanal mining communities.”
$CLQ, #Co, #Sc 45 – What A fabulous idea #SecretSquirrel and $AAPL is able to utilize my coined word #iScanDiem… 🙂 #Best2YOU!
The meaning of the name Diem is Day. The origin of the name Diem is Latin. This is the culture in which the name originated, or in the case of a word, the language. Also a common Vietnamese name which means “pretty.”
$CLQ vow – #iScanDiem indeed #SecretSquirrel
Squirrel…with respect to company “personalities”, I think Apple-CLQ and Apple-BMW are good fits. I have a hard time imagining either one getting involved with a mining major or a conventional hard-rock junior developer.
No prediction ventured.
Meant to say ” I think Apple-CLQ and BMW=CLQ are good fits.”
Again no prediction ventured.
Could be a number of companies I guess, but I don’t believe for one minute that RF is not looking at all the options.
The part that is hard to figure out is what Friedland’s hot button is for take-off. To me he looks like he wants
equity or strategic partnerships that are worth more than sure cash.
He is not worried about selling the production. If he were desperate for more take-off, he would have it already.
He does not believe in a high percentage of production being spoken for in take-off, unless he is sure that the terms and pricing do not sacrifice windfall profit opportunities from spot prices.
He has already told Musk and the Germans, “Market prices.” He did not succumb to pressure to sell out early. No reason now to think he is operating differently.
Ironically, the CLQ-Easpring deal looks inferior to some people who think that 100% off-take is stronger than 20%.
I think such an interpretation is mistaken. The stronger party does not need to sell out their deposit four years before production.
I am not trying to re-kindle controversy on AUZ. But the terms of their off-take are unknown, and they needed 100% off-take to get financing. The needs, strategy, and objectives are different for CLQ than for AUZ. This is not to be critical of AUZ; it is just being objective about the known facts of the situation.
$AUD/$USD by Grant a Gr8Gummy!
Coming soon for USD bulls . Hehehehe.
https://twitter.com/GrantMBeasley/status/969864067681730560
Iceberg cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Truly looney tunes. #gold
ty https://twitter.com/GrantMBeasley/status/969941994196762625
Hendrixnuzzle’s Crystal Ball predicts:
CLQ-Easpring cathode factory JV in NSW.
Easpring-CLQ Life of Mine off-take agreement for nickel and cobalt.
Both coming soon.
Basis:
The 20% off-take was announced on August 31, 2017. At that time the subject of continuing negotiation for JV was stated; and later it has been stated that the LOM- for-JV capital barter has been a subject of discussion.
Well, here we are in March 2018. In the February 2018 CLQ investor presentation, it was stated that negotiations with Easpring for a cathode JV and LOM were still active.
Let me ask you: Do you think that CLQ and Easpring would be discussing such things for SIX MONTHS, without a pretty clear understanding that such a deal was
going to be possible, and on terms that were agreeable to both sides ?
Yes hn, far more exact summary than my speculation. We know something is coming and soon, once the details sorted. A large situation in positive Australia with the Chinese would be fantastic for the SP and our faith in this amazing company!!
Great year ahead….
Squirrel…it’s going to be a great ride…for sure.
SS…you can get a lot of details sorted out in six months.
There will be a blockbuster announcement, and it will not need to be retracted for typographical errors.
The Australians are going to have a lot to celebrate.
There is going to be a cathode plant being constructed in NSW.
Of course, I could be mistaken. There might be an announcement that simply says, “Clean Teq and Easpring have broken off discussions on further collaboration after six months, as agreement on terms could not be achieved.”
That would be a bummer. If it happens, will put my Crystal Ball up for sale in my spring garage sale. If the stupid thing doesn’t work, what do I need it for ?
hn I think your surmise is spot on, no doubt something or ratber lots is going on in the background and all will be revealed in due course. No leaks from this ship. Thinking about it, all the different parts of CLQ are ideal and bound for China. Any other territories are not even in the consideration loop imo.
RF has this well in hand, don’t see him sitting around in this hot sector, that’s a given, but he akso plays a cool hand,
Great year ahead for all holding as the onion layers unfold….
For a real virtuoso performance:
Announce the JV with Easpring,
the LOM off-take on nickel and cobalt,
PLUS an off-take on scandium with Chinalco…all on the same day !!
Another thread in the web: With a big battery guy on your team, wouldn’t it be nice to have a high-quality flake graphite source in your pocket for them to buy from ? You know, someone like SAMA or SRG ?
#Co The Cobalt Crisis Just Hit Overdrive
https://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/the-cobalt-crisis-just-hit-overdrive/6250?utm_source=email-article
Gr8Scott! 🙂
Well, it’s March 6 in Australia and AUZ.ASX is still not trading on the Sydney Exchange. I wonder what’s going on. Hot Copper is abuzz with concerned comments. Now, someone has said that there may be an announcement before 12noon Western Australia time. We’ll see.
AUZ – a term sheet!! Unbelievable after all that.
AUZ…great deposit. Decent deal. Management has a lot to do…
IMO they in over their heads going forward. They need to raise money within six or seven months.
The new details show that they gave away a lot; not that I blame them.
The deal is better for the Koreans, as might be expected given their strength. They got supply security, without putting in cash, and an option on 20% of the company…for nothing. Plus they deny a major deposit to the competition.
If they exercise for $65 mil, , they make an immediate profit and are paid back with product discounts.
Lots of intrinsic value in the ground, though.
AUZ…On the opening it looks like the market trusts the SKI option price. Makes sense, the Koreans know more about the company than anybody else.
But we have to put cash in at 11 or 12 cents; SKI does not have to.
Therefore current fair value is under the SK option value.
Opinions subject to change, of course.
$COB.asx Cobolt Blue fp – March ’18 Update:
https://www.asx.com.au/asx/share-price-research/company/COB
$NCZ np – “$NCZ An excellent video to understand just how large this is with all details covered.” ~ Tolga #Zinc #Lead Mine
http://bulk.reflections.com.au/downloads/nczn2prh6tez/New_Century_Zinc_201803_1920x1080p_7680kbps.mp4 …
ty https://twitter.com/KumovaTolga/status/970861236962209792
$COB.asx Cobolt Blue fp – March ’18 Update:
https://www.asx.com.au/asx/share-price-research/company/COB
$NCZ np – “$NCZ An excellent video to understand just how large this is with all details covered.” ~ Thank you, Tolga. 🙂 #Zinc #Lead #Silver Mine(s)
http://bulk.reflections.com.au/downloads/nczn2prh6tez/New_Century_Zinc_201803_1920x1080p_7680kbps.mp4 … 1st in MODERATION
We have now heard from Australian Mines (ASX.AUZ) in the form or a Term Sheet reaffirming its binding off-take agreement with SK Innovation for its Sconi project in Queensland.
https://australianmines.com.au/brochures/downloads/AUZ_reaffirms_binding_off-take_agreement_for_the_Sconi_Project.pdf
The original details of the agreement are essentially confirmed but with the addition that “SK Innovation will be entitled to a modest commercial-in-confidence buyer discount on the base price, provided it exercises an option to subscribe for up to 19.9% Australian Mines’ ordinary shares or equivalent level of asset investment for the Sconi Project within three (3) months following the release of the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) on the Sconi Project. (The BFS is now scheduled to be completed in June 2018).
There are also two references in the terms to the relative purity of the battery grade Cobalt and Nickel Sulphates to be supplied by AUZ to SK. The announcement concludes with “The binding Term Sheet with SK Innovation confirms the Sconi Project’s status as Australia’s most advanced project of its type and Australian Mines as a leader in the Australian cobalt sector.”
AUZ…hard to say what will happen. The last time there were two days trading, the price could not make new highs or even hold the price of the Korean option.
The news reconfirms the information already known.
A little is added: explanation in vague terms about the specific discounts.
A a little is taken away: No blustering about $5 billion.
So in the end I am not sure there will be a greater benefit to the shareholders than the last time the halt was lifted.
One wrinkle revealed: The option money going to AUZ on exercise will be paid to back via discounts to the future pricing to SK. So SK is still committing no cash
even if they exercise the option…they get the money via AUZ future discounts.
One could be snide about it and say that AUZ is giving an option on 20% of the equity company for a $65 million loan.
IONIC INDUSTRIES…private placements…I have spent some time investigating
how one might invest in Ionic Industries.
It can be done for about $20,000 USD, or $25,000 AUD.
I am pursuing it.
I am not promoting this investment, but I have arranged with Lynn at SG to give my email to anyone who is interested in getting information on how to do it.
Just mention “re: Hendrixnuzzles/Ionic Industries”.
$Ionic
HEY! Do you get a team jacket or ballcap with the deal?
I went thru the back door with SER:ASX
Thanks, Edski.
This is my first time knocking on the front door.
We’ll see what happens.
No premiums or promotions.
It cost me $66 just to send the application to Melbourne.
Well good luck HN, Investing is investing, and if you follow your gut there isn’t much more that you can do. If you are able to try it, why not? I would ASSume that this is a much better position to be in with the company.
Bring home the Bacon!
I haven’t been around here much, kept away by life’s little games. Good to see things are running smoothly…………….
Re: #Ionic pp > HendrixNuzzles, Did you consider going through InteractiveBrokers.com or contact them concerning handling the traansaction? TIA #Best2YOU and all!
No. It is not a publicly listed security, that I know of; so IB did not occur to me.
Ionic being a private company – with special tax privileges -only downside is when the time cames to sell, it could be difficult.
I think SER ASX owns approx. 18%, but cannot verify.
Also Ionic has impressive SC battery spec’s, from memory .173 Wh/ cm3, which is similar to a lithium ion battery.
Billville…as a long term position I would imagine at some point the original stakes will be converted on an IPO to more liquid instruments.
This is new to me, have never been involved in a PP.
I believe that previously Ionic attempted to list, but was rejected for whatever reasons.
Possibly had something to do with their ‘ Company structure ‘.
HN you’re correct in saying, in time, they may structure differently to satisfy the conditions of listing.
It would be a question to ask them.
Ionic listing…Assuming Ionic products are successful and CLQ goes through with a JV, that would be the easiest outcome, and it would be the first that comes to mind.
But it might never happen even with success.
For one thing, CLQ and Ionic could enter into a JV and THAT might be floated, with Ionic becoming a receptacle for royalties.
Or, CLQ might take it over and use CLQ stock for the payment.
Whatever.
The key is that there be viable commercial opportunities.
CLQ is already placing Ionic products through Multotec,
this is strong evidence that there will be commercial applications. The “CIF” water products beling to Ionic.
Also the graphene applications and targets are completely
complementary to CLQ Clean iX. Together they can solve more problems than either one individually.
Ionic battery..solid state ?
$IONIC from last quarterly report
SER owns 16%
IONIC INDUSTRIES UPDATE (SER 16%)
Building on the new patent filed in September 2017, Ionic has continued work on
development and testing of its printable, 3D-stacked micro supercapacitors –
“MICRENs”. The team are now in a testing phase that will last until February 2018.
The data from this testing will confirm the performance of these devices in the
configuration described in the patent material. Work is also continuing on
development of application-specific versions of the devices for use in medical
technology and remote sensing solutions.
Ionic’s water treatment work conducted under the CRC-P program Power Efficient
Waste Water Treatment Using Graphene Oxide Technology has reached the half
way mark and is on track to deliver waste water treatment technologies by late 2018.
Development of new methods for processing advanced graphene oxide (GO)
materials also continues with Ionic’s Korean partner Laminar. Lab work has been
completed and the next stage will see the team demonstrating the processes in a
scaled-up environment prior in preparation for industrial scale GO production.
On the research team, Ionic is please to inform that the research team leader,
Dr Mainak Majumder has been promoted to position of Professor and the leader of
our supercapacitor program Dr Parama Chakraborty Banerjee has been promoted to
Senior Lecturer in the Monash Chemical Engineering Department.
AUZ – 2 announcements.
Release Date: 07/03/18 09:38
Summary: High priority conductors detected at Thackaringa Project
Price Sensitive: Yes
The announcement content will be available in 14 minutes at 09:58
And of course trading resumes.
Release Date: 07/03/18 09:38
Summary: Reinstatement to Official Quotation
Price Sensitive: Yes
The announcement content will be available in 11 minutes at 09:58
Long $AUZ
$AUZ.asx – Whatever we build in Perth… https://australianmines.com.au/latest-news 🙂
$AUZ.asx fp – The High Priority Conductors; 13 pages: https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180307/pdf/43s7cfgjvc7s4c.pdf
AUZ…IMO any effort put into anything else besides getting Sconi financed and built is a misallocation of corporate time and energy.
The company faces potential disaster if Sconi is not financed and built on schedule.
Reading the tea leaves on the AUZ deal…looking at the announcement, the differences from the previous announcement tell us what the issues were.
Bottom line for me: AUZ is an OK speculation, not a great one. Upside is Flemington. I will watch and wait; AUZ has a lot of work to do.
In the new release and the “RIU” presentation, what is missing is the big “5 Billion dollar deal” headline, and the little footnotes at the bottom of the page showing how they were going to get 2.7 billion in nickel and 2.3 billion in cobalt.
1. What the ASX must have decided was that to claim $5 billion in revenue in these circumstances was misleading, because no one knows what the prices will be of the commodities, the terms of the discount/premia are not disclosed, and the deal is for METAL PRODUCTION amounts, not DOLLARS.
2. Also there are some additional vague clues given in the wording about the discounts…they are claimed to be “modest” discounts. A little subjective.
To me it “modest” indicates something between 1% and 12%. I do not consider 15% or 18% or 20% to be modest. But AUZ is not saying.
4. Details given about the 19.9% option were clarified. First it was stated that SKI has three months from the publication of the BFS to exercise.
On the current schedule that means end of September.
5. The pricing is based on previous quarter commodity prices. Good for SKI in a rising market; but AUZ loses profit potential, the prices they get will trail the market by one to six months, plus whatever confidential discounts they gave.
They will ship in Novembers and Decembers at prices that were in effect in Marches and Junes. Less a confidential “modest” discount.
6. It was revealed the the option price of $65 million is linked to further discounts in the off-take pricing. What this means is that AUZ may be getting nothing for the grant of a 19.9% equity position. Upside price potential is being sacrificed, and going towards
paying back to SKI the $65 mil by which SKI is acquiring 19.9% of the AUZ.
This is not good. Sure, AUZ gets $65 million on exercise…but they pay back the money to SKI in the form of price discounts when the off-take kicks in ! So if SKI exercises,
SKI gets to have their cake, and they get to eat it, too. AUZ takes lower prices and the difference from market goes into the pocket of SKI, in effect paying them back them for taking an equity position.
The deal is better for SKI than for AUZ. SKI has all upside, no risk.
AUZ needed the deal, and we are just starting to see the concessions
they had to make.
No position.
Correction: should have been “….but AUZ loses profit potential, the prices they get will trail the market by one day to 90 days, plus whatever confidential discounts they gave…”
The prices are determined by the previous 3 months, not the previous six months.
$AUZ.asx – Or gain profit potential if the price of the commodity was greater one to 90 days ago. 🙂
True. Had not considered cobalt prices declining on a quarterly basis. It could happen.