TLG Ann: Talga Investor Webinar - 9th Feb 2023, 12:53pm

[TentCity]

I agree about Japan and Mitsui. I have always wondered what they would bring to the table outside of funding and potential relationships with Japanese OEMs/battery manufacturers. The situation has materially changed with the funding options now available to Talga and the focus on Europe so they're likely no longer required. I think it also made sense while Talga were refining their technology as I believe they were working closely with Japanese companies for the Talnode C and Talnode Si testing. Mark also mentioned that some of the manufacturing equipment suppliers were Japanese.

I also agree that Hong Kong is likely for the LTT/Foxconn relationship and maybe some chinese battery manufactuers. Hong Kong makes sense as a location for a corporate presence close to these partners. Purely speculation but as these chinese manufacturers scale globally, Talnode Si could easily be a drop in solution for their anode. With EU and US "green new deal" regulations I believe there are requirements for a certain percentage of the material to be sourced domestically. Talga could be a way for them to meet these requirements.

The Gen 3 comment was interesting and something I'll need to do some further research into. As I understand the graphite in Talnode Si is still used for lithiation. Mark made a comment about them investigating options for the graphite to be used as a "framework" for the silicon rather than for lithiation. I wonder if that's the gen 3 he's referring to and how it could revolutionise the the industry. I haven't got my head around it yet but will do some digging.

As usual - I agree with everything you have written here CatDog!

Last but not least, this is the first time I’ve heard MT state the revised capex of the project of up to $500m - i assume that’s USD for consistency.

Based on current exchange rate from Euro to USD, the 300m Euro loan from the EIB converts to US$320m. I’m also going to assume TLG is well placed to get the full amount now given all the rhetoric from the EU Commission that they want to give more funding not less to critical raw material projects! Talga has been able to position itself beautifully by being one of a few select companies showcased by the Swedish Gov’t/EU Commission at recent events and MT stating in the webinar they have been ‘educating’ the legislators on graphite!

Then add in Nordic Investment Bank, Swedish & Swiss Export credit agencies and possible customer offtake finance with ACC, and conservatively, I reckon Talga could easily get over the US$400m mark (approx 80% of total financing amount) leaving $100m (20%) via equity financing.

The level of dilution to us shareholders is now significantly minimised and enables us to enjoy more of the upside when production kicks in. Will be really interesting to see how this equity component is structured - at the project level or parent level and who they deem to be the most compatible partner that aligns with Talga’s vision.

 

[scep]

Agreed, I interpreted Mark's comments as suggesting that Mitsui is out. He said that the slide demonstrated a "history" of working with top companies.

Additionally, I'm curious if anyone knows what he meant when he said that there could be some negative effects of the critical minerals legislation?

I read it that legislation could include a mandatory recycling clause which would be a challenge for coated graphite. It's the specific wording that is concerning. Recycling coated graphite into battery material again will have a negative impact on environment and cost, if technically feasible at all. But are legislators aware of this? Recycling into say, concrete additive or even graphene, is a better option, but still a distraction for Talga, which need to be proven economic. IMHO of course.

 

[brewm0re]

Having Japan/HK may also be symbolic to our potential/current NDA customers within the Asian market (which I believe we will enter eventually, particularly with the TalSi offering). Other factors mentioned in previous posts were not cutting off Mitsui especially whilst the MoU is still in place, and with the possible overlapping of permit decision vs lapsing of MoU date. It may also show how invaluable Dr Capiglio is to the team (yes that’s news, as I thought he was still based there too?), as well as ensuring we can scale up in the future when going ‘beyond Europe’. The time/effort/cost closing-up shop in Asia may be more detrimental to the company than any savings, plus it could be a weak signal to the share market in the short term (something which nobody wants), especially with the ~2quarters of cash on hand, where it could be misconstrued as cutting costs to survive, even though we know (to a certain extent) of what is brewing behind the scenes.

I thought that too with the 60:40 debt to equity, and believe this will be much higher now, and more to the 80:20 that TC mentioned (here’s hoping). Perhaps the USD $484m has just been rounded up. What’s another $16m?

Wrt the negative effects of the critical minerals legislation, I think MT was covering himself as he always does so well from the positive and negative. If the permitting process in Europe speeds up, that would be excellent for our expansion plans for obvious reasons. At a stretch, it could then accelerate competition in Europe within the graphite space for other companies: Beowulf (Finland); Mineral Commodities (Norway); Leading Edge (Sweden); GreenRoc (Greenland) even though they are very small players in comparison. Or, it may attract bigger traditional mining companies wanting to diversify ie merger/takeover (my biggest and only fear really), given it may be seen as open slather and heavily de-risked with permitting sped up. Or, OEMs could be more aggressive with the merger/takeover strategies. More graphite mining (from EU speeding up permitting process) will thus create greater supply, where the current price pressures trending upwards (esp from fine flake -100 mesh) may not be as exponential from what has been forecast. BUT that’s an extreme ‘risk’ and there’s enough cake to go around for all the graphite players with the current/future demand and undersupply. Perhaps also the EU funding from GIP may not go entirely our way (or what TLG anticipate/need), given the EU may need to distribute funding to other member states in a certain way, and/or the graphite space may get ‘less’ proportion than other critical minerals/metals (eg REE & Lithium). These are the only things I can speculate from MT’s possible thinking and these risks (besides any takeover) are not of any concern (IMO), based on how we are positioned. I believe the Net Zero; CRM and GIP funding regardless and all will work in our favour

 

[Diogenese]

Following on from the discussion about R&D expenses, some recent Talga patent applications from 2019 through to 2021: for anodes, cathodes and solid electrolyte

WO2022180554A1 SOLID-STATE BATTERY ANODE COMPOSITION AU2021900501A·2021-02-24

1. A solid-state battery anode composition comprising a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte material, wherein the graphitic material is provided in the form of ground primary graphite particles.

2. The anode composition of claim 1 , wherein the ground primary graphite particles have a Dso of:

(i) less than about 15 microns;

(ii) less than about 10 microns; or

(iii) in the range of about 4 to 6 microns.

3. The anode composition of claim 1 or 2, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have a surface area of: (i) about 2 to 9 m 2 /g; or

(ii) 7 to 9 m 2 /g.

4. The anode composition of any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of one or more of a d002 of ⟩ 3.35 A, an Lc of ⟩1000 A and an La of ⟩1000 A.

5. The anode composition of any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of each of a d002 of ⟩ 3.35 A, an Lc of ⟩1000 A and an La of ⟩1000 A, and a purity of ⟩ 99.9%.

6. The anode composition of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the solid electrolyte material comprises a sulphide-based glass.

7. The anode composition of claim 6, wherein the sulphide-based glass:

(i) is chosen from the group of Li2S-SiS2, U2S-P2S5 and U2S-B2S3; or

(ii) comprises U2S-P2S5.

8. The anode composition of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the anode composition comprises a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte material in the following proportions:

(i) Graphitic material 70 to 90 wt%; and

(ii) Solid-electrolyte material 10 to 30 wt%.



WO2020261194A1 SILICON AND GRAPHITE CONTAINING COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME AU2019902306A·2019-06-28 CAPIGLIA CLAUDIO [JP]

1. A silicon and graphite containing composite material comprising a plurality of silicon nanoparticles, graphite particles, a carbon matrix, and an external shell, wherein the silicon nanoparticles and graphite particles are held within the carbon matrix.

2. The composite material of claim 1 , wherein the carbon matrix is provided in the form of:

(i) an amorphous carbon matrix;

(ii) a crystalline carbon matrix; or

(iii) a combination of both an amorphous carbon matrix and a crystalline carbon matrix.

3. The composite material of claim 1 or 2, wherein the silicon nanoparticles are coated in the graphite particles.

4. The composite material of any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the graphite particles are in the form of graphene-like nano-sheets.

5. The composite material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the composite material further comprises a plurality of few-layer graphene particles.

6. The composite material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the composite material further comprises graphite particles at greater than nanoparticle scale.

7. The composite material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the external shell comprises amorphous carbon.

8. The composite material of claim 7, wherein the external shell of amorphous carbon may further comprise:

(i) one or more oxides; or (ii) one or more oxides present in the form of AI2O3, T1O2, ZrC , BaTi03, MgO, CuO, ZnO, Fe2C⟩3, Ge02, U2O, MnO, NiO, or zeolite, or any combination thereof.




WO2021059171A1 ANODE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME U2019903561A·2019-09-24; AU2020902246A·2020-07-01

1. An anode material comprising secondary graphite particles that predominantly have a form that approximates an oblate spheroid and have a Dso of less than about 5 microns.

2. The anode material of claim 1 , wherein the secondary graphite particles have a Dso of:

(i) between about 3 to 5 microns; or

(ii) about 3.5 microns.

3. The anode material of claim 1 or 2, wherein the secondary graphite particles have a surface area of:

(i) about 2 to 9 m 2 /g; or

(ii) about 2 to 6 m 2 /g.

4. The anode material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the compression density of the secondary graphite particles at 75kf/cm 2 is in the range of about 1.0 to 1.5 g/cc.

5. The anode material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the conductivity of the secondary graphite particles is in the range of:

(i) about 25 to 37 S/cm; or

(ii) about 31 S/cm.

6. The anode material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the anode material further comprises a thickening agent.

7. The anode material of claim 6, wherein the thickening agent is carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC).

8. The anode material of claim 6 or 7, wherein the anode material further comprises an aqueous binder.

9. The anode material of claim 8, wherein the aqueous binder is styrene- butadiene rubber (SBR).

10. The anode material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the anode material has a capacity retention of greater than 91% at 2C rate discharge.

11. The anode material of claim 9 or 10, wherein the anode material comprises about 97.5% wt/wt secondary graphite particles, about 1.5% wt/wt SBR and about 1 % wt/wt CMC.



WO2023275810A2 CATHODE COMPOSITION AU2021901988A·2021-06-30

1 . A cathode composition, the cathode comprising a graphitic material additive, wherein the graphitic material additive comprises graphitic particles having a generally non-spheroidal form and a D50 of less than about 15 pm.

2. The cathode composition of claim 1 , wherein the graphitic particles have a D50 of less than about 10 pm.

3. The cathode composition of claim 1 or 2, wherein the non-spheroidal form of the graphitic particles encompasses a form that approximates either an oblate spheroid or a flake form.

4. The cathode composition of any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the graphitic particles have a carbon content of:

(i) greater than 99.9% wt/wt; or

(ii) greater than 99.92% wt/wt.

5. The cathode composition of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the graphitic particles comprise either an agglomerated fines product or a high surface area (HSA) product.

6. The cathode composition of claim 5, wherein the agglomerated fines product comprises secondary graphite particles that predominantly have a form that approximates an oblate spheroid.

7. The cathode composition of claim 6, wherein the secondary graphite particles have a D50 of:

(i) less than about 5 pm; or

(ii) less than about 2 pm. 8. The cathode composition of claim 6 or 7, wherein the secondary graphite particles have a surface area of:

(i) about 2 to 60 m 2 /g; or

(ii) about 2 to 6 m 2 /g.

9. The cathode composition of any one of claims 6 to 8, wherein the compression density of the secondary graphite particles at 75 kf/cm2 is in the range of about 1 .0 to 1 .5 g/cc.

10.The cathode composition of any one of claims 6 to 9, wherein the conductivity of the secondary graphite particles is:

(i) in the range of about 25 to 37 S/cm; or

(ii) about 31 S/cm.

11 .The cathode composition of any one of claims 6 to 10, wherein the secondary graphite particles comprise ground primary graphite particles.



Patents are a winner- take-all, first-in-best-dressed competition, and there are plenty of others working in the tech. Standing still is not an option.