cosors
👀
We are now doubly under the support of the EU Commission:
"The Important Projects of Common European Interest ( IPCEI ), formerly Project of Common Interest ( PCI ), are strategic funding projects of the European Commission under the umbrella of the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) for innovation in resource-intensive core market segments."
DG GROW will surely tell you something. The representative was in the conference with Talga and the EU Commission, which is why the European Investment Bank is presumably now prepared to co-finance the project if the necessary approval is granted. We will have to wait until the end of Q1/23 or the beginning of Q2/23 for a financing commitment I think.
But I would like to point out the double support why the EU Commission stands protectively behind everything:
"Automotive Cells Company SE (ACC) is a European manufacturer of batteries for electromobility with a focus on France and Germany. The head office is in Bruges (France).
It is planned to produce 1 million battery packs for the automotive industry annually by 2030, or more than 120 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. According to the company, the goal is to become an "Airbus of the battery industry".
Since 2018, the consortium has been supported by the Federal Ministry of Economics and by France and Germany as part of the Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI)."
So now the EU Commission and France and Germany are all about securing the raw materials. Of course, everything is so interwoven in Brussels that it is probably hard to find out where the EU's initiative for us started. Whether it was Talga's own initiative or the big players who lobbied for the small applicant ~ "take care of them, we need them". Of course, this is just my imagination, but it is not unrealistic.
My thoughts on the good conversation here. I can't contribute much because, strangely enough, my thoughts are not focused on this off-take or the adherence to time statements. I can't explain it to you but it leaves me cold and calm.
But of course I have thought about it with or because of you. And my approach would be that it is not an easy negotiating partner like a single party.
It is a consortium of three ACC shareholders:
You only need to do a little research on the supply of raw materials for each of the three players to realise that each of them has its own strategy. Of course, I can't say what that looks like within ACC. Nevertheless, it is interesting to take a closer look at these four groups incl. the EU.
And others are still on the sidelines. What is actually going on with the big silent one in the background NV? I think the game is already too big to stop it. Maybe that's why I don't think much about the off-take topic for now, because we small investors have no insight into it.
Perhaps the felt delay to the binding contract is also quite different. And it is not about MT's negotiating skills. Maybe he chose the most polite way to signal that the will of all involved is there, that a long way has already been taken, but that it still needs some time with the customer consortium. You don't decide something like that in a web meeting with a thumbs-up and afterwards clarify the details.
Originally, for MB, the specifications may have come from Farasis, who were to manufacture the batteries. Presumably they now come from MB directly. But how is this coordinated within ACC? How much does one group tell the other about its secret sauce in the ACC consortium? Or is it more like naked in the sauna so nothing to hide? I don't know.
And another thought: Who in this hungry consortium will get how much of the Talnode-C and foreseeable Si? Just imagine that. All three are on equal footing (1/3 shares). Of course, you could say that's why 60 and 20 for each, but is it really that simple?
After all, ACC's shareholders don't want anodes, they want batteries made to their specifications. Which brings me to the next thought. Was there only one setting or specification of ACC or are there three (MB, Saft, Stallantis) or more different ones that have to go through the qualification levels A to D?
Finally, I would like to mention that from my point of view LKAB now simply does not have the money for a project like Vittangi Graphite. The projects that have been decided on are simply far too big. And that was not foreseeable at the beginning of the partnership. One example is the derailment of raw material trains on the single-track line. A super gau and job stopper, which is why LKAB is reworking it at its own expense in order to also bring the material for the billion-euro new plant in the port of Lulea. I have posted about this many times. The answers are openly available in the Swedish press.
As always, all just my thoughts and therefore no warranty.
______
The source is Wiki Germany as I unfortunately could not find this in English. But it makes no difference.
"The Important Projects of Common European Interest ( IPCEI ), formerly Project of Common Interest ( PCI ), are strategic funding projects of the European Commission under the umbrella of the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) for innovation in resource-intensive core market segments."
DG GROW will surely tell you something. The representative was in the conference with Talga and the EU Commission, which is why the European Investment Bank is presumably now prepared to co-finance the project if the necessary approval is granted. We will have to wait until the end of Q1/23 or the beginning of Q2/23 for a financing commitment I think.
But I would like to point out the double support why the EU Commission stands protectively behind everything:
"Automotive Cells Company SE (ACC) is a European manufacturer of batteries for electromobility with a focus on France and Germany. The head office is in Bruges (France).
It is planned to produce 1 million battery packs for the automotive industry annually by 2030, or more than 120 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. According to the company, the goal is to become an "Airbus of the battery industry".
Since 2018, the consortium has been supported by the Federal Ministry of Economics and by France and Germany as part of the Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI)."
So now the EU Commission and France and Germany are all about securing the raw materials. Of course, everything is so interwoven in Brussels that it is probably hard to find out where the EU's initiative for us started. Whether it was Talga's own initiative or the big players who lobbied for the small applicant ~ "take care of them, we need them". Of course, this is just my imagination, but it is not unrealistic.
My thoughts on the good conversation here. I can't contribute much because, strangely enough, my thoughts are not focused on this off-take or the adherence to time statements. I can't explain it to you but it leaves me cold and calm.
But of course I have thought about it with or because of you. And my approach would be that it is not an easy negotiating partner like a single party.
It is a consortium of three ACC shareholders:
- Mercedes-Benz , 1/3 of the shares (third largest automotive group in the world)
- Saft, subsidiary of TotalEnergies , 1/3 stake (Total is the eighth largest company in the world)
- Stellantis together with subsidiary Opel , 1/3 of the shares (fourth largest automotive group in the world)
You only need to do a little research on the supply of raw materials for each of the three players to realise that each of them has its own strategy. Of course, I can't say what that looks like within ACC. Nevertheless, it is interesting to take a closer look at these four groups incl. the EU.
And others are still on the sidelines. What is actually going on with the big silent one in the background NV? I think the game is already too big to stop it. Maybe that's why I don't think much about the off-take topic for now, because we small investors have no insight into it.
Perhaps the felt delay to the binding contract is also quite different. And it is not about MT's negotiating skills. Maybe he chose the most polite way to signal that the will of all involved is there, that a long way has already been taken, but that it still needs some time with the customer consortium. You don't decide something like that in a web meeting with a thumbs-up and afterwards clarify the details.
Originally, for MB, the specifications may have come from Farasis, who were to manufacture the batteries. Presumably they now come from MB directly. But how is this coordinated within ACC? How much does one group tell the other about its secret sauce in the ACC consortium? Or is it more like naked in the sauna so nothing to hide? I don't know.
And another thought: Who in this hungry consortium will get how much of the Talnode-C and foreseeable Si? Just imagine that. All three are on equal footing (1/3 shares). Of course, you could say that's why 60 and 20 for each, but is it really that simple?
After all, ACC's shareholders don't want anodes, they want batteries made to their specifications. Which brings me to the next thought. Was there only one setting or specification of ACC or are there three (MB, Saft, Stallantis) or more different ones that have to go through the qualification levels A to D?
Finally, I would like to mention that from my point of view LKAB now simply does not have the money for a project like Vittangi Graphite. The projects that have been decided on are simply far too big. And that was not foreseeable at the beginning of the partnership. One example is the derailment of raw material trains on the single-track line. A super gau and job stopper, which is why LKAB is reworking it at its own expense in order to also bring the material for the billion-euro new plant in the port of Lulea. I have posted about this many times. The answers are openly available in the Swedish press.
As always, all just my thoughts and therefore no warranty.
______
The source is Wiki Germany as I unfortunately could not find this in English. But it makes no difference.
Last edited: