The head looks exactly like the purple roller but the colouring looks like a Lilac breasted roller. Perhaps a 2 roller combo? I found this web site with pictures of both.
I do not believe China have any primary vanadium producers either. Its vanadium is solely a by-product from steel slag so the point being that the Chinese don't make more or less vanadium as vanadium's price changes but will alter what they make according to the demand for steel.
As to your other point in the world of investing, normal people use book value as the best indication of an asset's value. You don't need to have a buyer to value an asset. That's like saying your home you bought is worth zero until you actually sell it.
Interesting read .... in the recent Investor Meet Craig said they were considering a Lemur sale for $100 and a promise of some future revenue stream. There was a net benefit in that there is a contingent $2.5m liability sitting on the balance sheet that would disappear.. but not anything like $5.7m valuation ... and it is fanciful right show to consider much value for Cellcube given the investment needed
Much of the SPR cash for 100% Vanchem will pay of creditiors of it giving them a debt free plant and non of the vast sums spent on refurb and upgrade is recognised.. It may well be a distressed sale to keep the lights on long enough for a Vanadium price rise to put Vametco into the black, but is a terrible deal for shareholders (at what alternative)
Because Cellcube require a great deal of capital to actually develop and get to a sself sustaining point. They make very little. Just look at the successive fund raises of IES and still not likely to be net positive C/F for a year (thats what they said last fund raise too). The typical turn around to cash in the door from a 'sale' is over 18 months if all winds flow well and well over 2 years if not. They need cash to keep going. If not, then selling Cellcube would have been a doddle and it is not.
As for a poor deal, well, SPR are handing over pretty well only what they promised and getting 100% not 50%. That coupled with the $13M+ of creditors due, means essentially, they pay off the creditors and get the asset debt free of debt - at least on the face of it.
And frankly, unless there is sufficient positive cash from the deal to keep the lights on well into next year (and the 'probable' vanadium price rise), frankly let it go into administration. They will loose the nearly $20 of W/C unsecured and have to buy the plant from the administrators .. then spend $20-$30m getting it back into production. Not to mention the losses Orion and Acacia will make. If, as CC said in the IM, they all see the cyclic picture, then this is just an opportunistic asset strip
On the face of it, the deal looks terrible for shareholders and you yourself calculate the fire-sale disposal value at 3-4X the current SP.
Extrapolating IES' experience may or may not be relevant to Cellcube. I do notice IES raised £50m at zero discount last week, so there is support for VRFB manufacturers isn't there, and so that's very positive for Cellcube, isn't it? Cellcube is of a similar scale to IES but not valued as richly as IES as I point out in my article.
Also as I pointed out in my article, disposing of an asset at or near its book value to solve a cashflow issue, so yes I do see the sale of Vanchem as good.
Your reply is quite hard to follow but you appear to be advocating instead of a sale of Vanchem to seek to force BMN into administration. It is my opinion such a move would not provide a good outcome for shareholders. Do you know of any example anywhere where a company successfully took that course of action and its shareholders were not wiped out?
No .. I am not .. just pointing out how much the current large holders have to loose if it does go into administration ...... the fact they all agree the Vanadium price is historically very low and set to rise, as CC said in last weeks IM, he would pout money in if it were him as the case is very strong
Alas with respect to the first author, Olli Schmidt is not really up on VRFB's his last datapoint for VRFB pricing was 2016 about 2 years ago. With respect to the second they systematically quote 9,890 Tonnes of V2O5 per GWh of energy storage. Since V2O5 is only 56% Vanadium by content this equates to 5540 MT of contained Vanadium per GWh of storage. 100x times this is 554,000 Tonnes for 100GWh. I quoted the lowest value that I believe has been quoted (4,500 MTV per GWh) that I have seen in the last few years, just to be on the conservative side.
Am not an ornithologist, but the South African bird looks like a purple roller..? 🤔
Hi Mark
Thanks for this.
The head looks exactly like the purple roller but the colouring looks like a Lilac breasted roller. Perhaps a 2 roller combo? I found this web site with pictures of both.
https://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_lilac_breasted_roller.html
https://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_purple_roller.html
What do you think?
Chinese brought on a crazy amount of new low cost vanadium production in the last year.
Doesn't matter what steel demand looks like.
On another note who actually thinks that this is enough cash to keep either plant running.
Belco, Cellcube, Lemur aint worth a dime. Book value only means something if there is a buyer.
What is your source for this "crazy amount" you say they brought on?
According to this source Vanadium production in China in 2023 was lower than in 2021 so your statement appears to be.... inaccurate.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/battery-metals-investing/vanadium-investing/vanadium-producing-countries/
I do not believe China have any primary vanadium producers either. Its vanadium is solely a by-product from steel slag so the point being that the Chinese don't make more or less vanadium as vanadium's price changes but will alter what they make according to the demand for steel.
As to your other point in the world of investing, normal people use book value as the best indication of an asset's value. You don't need to have a buyer to value an asset. That's like saying your home you bought is worth zero until you actually sell it.
Interesting read .... in the recent Investor Meet Craig said they were considering a Lemur sale for $100 and a promise of some future revenue stream. There was a net benefit in that there is a contingent $2.5m liability sitting on the balance sheet that would disappear.. but not anything like $5.7m valuation ... and it is fanciful right show to consider much value for Cellcube given the investment needed
Much of the SPR cash for 100% Vanchem will pay of creditiors of it giving them a debt free plant and non of the vast sums spent on refurb and upgrade is recognised.. It may well be a distressed sale to keep the lights on long enough for a Vanadium price rise to put Vametco into the black, but is a terrible deal for shareholders (at what alternative)
Hi Faramog,
Thanks for your comments.
What investment do you believe Cellcube requires and do you have any evidence to this?
What is your reasoning for considering the sale of Vanchem "a terrible deal"?
Because Cellcube require a great deal of capital to actually develop and get to a sself sustaining point. They make very little. Just look at the successive fund raises of IES and still not likely to be net positive C/F for a year (thats what they said last fund raise too). The typical turn around to cash in the door from a 'sale' is over 18 months if all winds flow well and well over 2 years if not. They need cash to keep going. If not, then selling Cellcube would have been a doddle and it is not.
As for a poor deal, well, SPR are handing over pretty well only what they promised and getting 100% not 50%. That coupled with the $13M+ of creditors due, means essentially, they pay off the creditors and get the asset debt free of debt - at least on the face of it.
And frankly, unless there is sufficient positive cash from the deal to keep the lights on well into next year (and the 'probable' vanadium price rise), frankly let it go into administration. They will loose the nearly $20 of W/C unsecured and have to buy the plant from the administrators .. then spend $20-$30m getting it back into production. Not to mention the losses Orion and Acacia will make. If, as CC said in the IM, they all see the cyclic picture, then this is just an opportunistic asset strip
On the face of it, the deal looks terrible for shareholders and you yourself calculate the fire-sale disposal value at 3-4X the current SP.
Really .. do you see this as good ?
Extrapolating IES' experience may or may not be relevant to Cellcube. I do notice IES raised £50m at zero discount last week, so there is support for VRFB manufacturers isn't there, and so that's very positive for Cellcube, isn't it? Cellcube is of a similar scale to IES but not valued as richly as IES as I point out in my article.
Also as I pointed out in my article, disposing of an asset at or near its book value to solve a cashflow issue, so yes I do see the sale of Vanchem as good.
Your reply is quite hard to follow but you appear to be advocating instead of a sale of Vanchem to seek to force BMN into administration. It is my opinion such a move would not provide a good outcome for shareholders. Do you know of any example anywhere where a company successfully took that course of action and its shareholders were not wiped out?
Oak
No .. I am not .. just pointing out how much the current large holders have to loose if it does go into administration ...... the fact they all agree the Vanadium price is historically very low and set to rise, as CC said in last weeks IM, he would pout money in if it were him as the case is very strong
100GWh of VRFB energy storage will need around 450,000 Tonnes of Vanadium
Hi Steve,
Where do you get your 4500mtV per GWH calculation from?
This source suggests 3,333 mtV per GWH - 10,000 mtV per GWH:
https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780192888174.pdf
This source suggests 7,777mtv per GWH:
https://www.australianvanadium.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Futue-Facing-Commodities-AVL-Presentation.pdf
Alas with respect to the first author, Olli Schmidt is not really up on VRFB's his last datapoint for VRFB pricing was 2016 about 2 years ago. With respect to the second they systematically quote 9,890 Tonnes of V2O5 per GWh of energy storage. Since V2O5 is only 56% Vanadium by content this equates to 5540 MT of contained Vanadium per GWh of storage. 100x times this is 554,000 Tonnes for 100GWh. I quoted the lowest value that I believe has been quoted (4,500 MTV per GWh) that I have seen in the last few years, just to be on the conservative side.