curiousmagpie
Regular
I can't be the only one that feels like this? Can we have some honesty here from anyone else? Save the spin for hot crapper
TLG Discussion 2022
- Thread starter zeeb0t
- Start date
Semmel
Regular
I agree with you, @curiousmagpie in the sense that the promised land is further away than we thought. For some time now, I am treating the Swedish system as hostile to business. I am hoping that Talga makes Talnode-Si independent of its graphite source, i.e. develop a synthetic version for it. I know its counter intuitive and it would not be as favorable to the CO2 expended, but what can they do? The delays by the court and Kiruna adminstation are openly hostile, thats why I want the Si product be independent of Sweden. I hope Talga goes that route. I am saying for a long time now that the 100ktpa Niska expansion is too small and I wanted Talga to go for 400ktpa instead. I am glad they are doing that because the court hurdles will be identical, no matter the size of the expansion. Which is the driving factor, not the complexity of the project it self.
I also think that Talga is kind of lucky that the EV market took some vacation recently, so they dont completely miss the growth curve. But really, speed is what matters and the Sweds dont have any of that. However, all that being said, its not really Talgas fault and naming Talga a "perth lifestyle company" is not true. They tried really really hard to make it happen. What Talga and all of us got wrong was the hostile home country. It may be a very secure region compared to Afrika, but its also idiotically burocratic.
Maybe we should turn the argument around. What could Talga do here? How could they have predicted this hostile burocracy or.. what could they have done to get going? Maybe they need to start bribing people like you do in other countries? No idea, but really, what could they have done?
I also think that Talga is kind of lucky that the EV market took some vacation recently, so they dont completely miss the growth curve. But really, speed is what matters and the Sweds dont have any of that. However, all that being said, its not really Talgas fault and naming Talga a "perth lifestyle company" is not true. They tried really really hard to make it happen. What Talga and all of us got wrong was the hostile home country. It may be a very secure region compared to Afrika, but its also idiotically burocratic.
Maybe we should turn the argument around. What could Talga do here? How could they have predicted this hostile burocracy or.. what could they have done to get going? Maybe they need to start bribing people like you do in other countries? No idea, but really, what could they have done?
Semmel
Regular
... with a little bit of graphene thrown in:Thats because Talnode-Si is 50% silicon, 50% graphite
WO2020261194A1 SILICON AND GRAPHITE CONTAINING COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
10. The composite material of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the
composite material possesses a level of elastic properties conferred by the presence of one or more of the graphite particles, graphene, few-layer graphene and graphite nanoparticles provided within the amorphous carbon matrix.
Yes. If we're not treading on reindeer toes, were being held hostage by land pirates or Jarndyced by the legal system.
Haven’t watched the presentation and not sure if this one will be accessible. I hope it will.Very little positivity to be gained from this new presentation deck.
1. Silicon plans dropped off the slide deck? Not even mentioned on the Technology opportunity page. Doesn't look promising at all
2. Giving away company equity in discussion (slide 10) when previously told project equity only
3. Capital raise roadshow clearly underway. Last time they did the Euroz forum (Jan 23) the raise happened 3 weeks later. Share price was around $1.70 at the time, heady days.
Meanwhile the founder has got himself another job.
Really struggling for anything good at all here. I know the supreme court tardiness has caused a lot of damage but how long can you take Mark Thompson's word for it that "she'll be right". Looks terminal sadly.
Last year when MT presented, I believe the Euroz was short, sharp and sweet and MT left me extremely optimistic (cannot remember if it was before/after the April 5th). That being said: the target market in Perth preso likely aimed at mining, where Silicon took a back seat. Slide 3 literally says: Emerging producer of greener battery materials including natural graphite anode, silicon anode and recycled anode for use in lithium-ion batteries…..Hard to unravel everything this company is doing with:
Mining (yes, it’s stalled); silicon anode; additives; graphene; recycling. You’d simply lose the audience going on different tangents.
Re: slide 10….Potential strategic equity partners at HeadCo and Project level in discussions. The wording needs clarifying here. That I agree with.
Re: cap raise. That could well be likely, but the timing of the presentation isn’t on their roster. Also, if MT didn’t present, one could think he’s not pitching in to promote the company he founded. Memory serves well that some were up in arms with the cap raise back then when the sp was $1 higher (than where we are now). But the TLG board had the foresight and diligence to raise to get through this never ending appeals process. Perhaps it needed to go extra, seeing the charade playing out longer than anticipated.
I wouldn’t call taking a seat at another company’s board another job. This could perhaps contain his sanity (& potentially expand his interests/ expertise/ knowledge/ contacts).. If I couldn’t operate what I’d personally built up from scratch more than 10 years ago at scale, due to bogus appeals, I’m sure the furniture in my place would be a little beaten up by now….Really dont think it is going to deviate his passion & commitment, let alone what he has risked financially or for his family (quite possibly his health).
If the appeals were denied overnight and you woke up tomorrow with that announcement, how would you see the company? Would red flags still appear or would they start to become green?
Another question is if the share price were sitting at $1.70 (as it was the case the days leading up to the court decision), which has been since granted and appeals rejected once, would you still hold large capital in the company? If all talga had was a mining operation, I could find actual plausibility of being terminal BUT it has “a less than 2% chance” (drawing on SC’s acceptance of appeal to be tried)….Still, this a mine to battery company….If we can’t mine our world class graphite, we’ll use our tech & know-how in a more conducive jurisdiction which won’t stuff around for years giving the tick of approval.
Despite the negative sentiment in the market and company being shat on, there’s more positives and green flags in my view.
Semmel
Regular
About time..
"Red flags everywhere and looks terminal sadly" - lucky you sold down most your position then @curiousmagpie
Honestly, you sound like a 3rd grader needing their backside wiped. Yeah fair enough it's a tough hold right now for most. But the points you make are weak IMO and I think disrespectful to MT too. I'll take his word (and the legislation guiding it) over your slide deck assumptions.
You bought in with what you've told us is a sizeable holding back in 2017. You've just commented you know all the goings on since and are over things... so what has changed fundamentally to make you want to exit? From where I sit the progress from TLG and the macro space it's playing in has only strengthened, BUT yes the sp is in the dumps and we're stuck waiting on an appeals process that's hard to fathom. It's a process that will end, and having lived in Sweden in a past life, EVERYTHING there is a tedious process.
So perhaps it's the latter here (sp and appeals) that has you feeling the heat. I can only assume you're a long term investor (if the investment is right of course), but you don't (or wont) hold. So what is it? You have raised issues with short term anode pricing or lack of demand for ESG (amongst others), but these types of concerns don't make you invest how you have and I don't think they make you exit either. What big picture issues does TLG that makes things terminal.
I've got a lot riding on TLG and I'm very much open to discussing the issues but I don't see what you've raised as genuine concerns. To me it suggests this is more on your side of the fence (than TLG's) and that's none of my business of course.
You're (or were) a good contributor, so why not bring the good discussion, as we're all thirsty to challenge our thinking and if nothing else, alleviate some of the boredom.
Cheers!
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
Semmel
Regular
So Talga issued an update to its expansion plans. I pushed the old and new PDF through a PDF comparison tool and it came out nearly empty handed. There were no material changes whatsoever and I dont really understand why there was a need to make an update in the first place. Maybe the original document got reviewed and was subsequently updated to answer the reviewers question. No idea, but it really comes down to this paragraph (additional text in green) and a few additional images:
Talga recognises that inferred resources are of a lower level of geological confidence and has prepared all three mine scheduling options to ensure that any inferred resources extracted in the early years of each LOM mine plan are minimised. Inferred Mineral Resources, included in the mine schedule stope resource, are predominantly located beneath the sill pillars. This has resulted in the majority of the inferred resources being scheduled in the later years. The Company confirms it does not consider the respective proportion of inferred mineral resources extracted under each LOM mine plan as the determining factor in the project's viability.
In addition to the changed text, we have a new figures: Figures 4, 6 and 8 in the new document. These accompany the previously posted figures and show the same data in a different color indicating another level of information, namely detailing the split in inferred and indicated resources.
There are some other minor changes like fixed typos but the green statement above is the only non-trivial change.
This indicates to me that someone with deep interest or knowledge in mining is looking at this document and requested these changes.
Talgarian
Emerged
Thankyou Semmel. I struggled to see the difference too but knew someone better positioned than I would be kind enough to enlighten us. Good news, the inferred mineral resources are not crucial to the projects viability, but ATM the only thing that matters is the permits announcement. Any other Talga notification buzzing across my phone screen is just a disappointment.
cosors
👀
Thank you for the work you have done and for sharing it with us!
Great sleuthing as usual Semmel.
This statement on the summary page drew my attention to the "Inferred" portion.
Mine plans supporting 0.6Mtpa, 1.0Mtpa and 2.0Mtpa Run of Mine (“RoM”) ore production from existing Indicated and Inferred* JORC resources of 35.0Mt at 23.8%Cg
* There is a low level of geological confidence associated with Inferred mineral resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of Indicated mineral resources or that the production target itself will be realised.
That's just a bit over one quarter of the total.
I would think that the geological confidence statement is par for the course in any feasibility study - it's just a guesstimate - caveat emptor.
Basically what they are saying is that the viability is supported by the indicated 26 Mt @ 24%. The rest is another layer of icing on the cake.
Attachments
Semmel
Regular
I am not an expert in mining but if I think I understand what these terms mean. Let me describe this situation in different words and let's hope some mining expert corrects me.
When drilling, or mining, you get something out of the ground and that is called "proven" because it's obviously there. Then indicated resources are the ones in between bore holes, i.e. I would call them 'interpolated'. Like you have a bunch of measurements and you draw a line in between them, then the line is an interpolation. Same here, just in 3D for the ore density in between bore holes. The term 'inferred' then means something like 'extrapolared'. In our example means you draw the line a bit further after the last measurement. Or in the mining.. the ore body doesn't suddenly stop after the last drill hole so you 'infer' that there is a bit more behind where it was measured. Following some natural geographic features for instance. Of course, inferred and indicated are higher risk than proven, but really, what else is there to do? It's not like the ore body has conspired with God to only exist where the bore holes are.
Anyway, that is how I understand the wording and I would be happy to be corrected by an expert!
When drilling, or mining, you get something out of the ground and that is called "proven" because it's obviously there. Then indicated resources are the ones in between bore holes, i.e. I would call them 'interpolated'. Like you have a bunch of measurements and you draw a line in between them, then the line is an interpolation. Same here, just in 3D for the ore density in between bore holes. The term 'inferred' then means something like 'extrapolared'. In our example means you draw the line a bit further after the last measurement. Or in the mining.. the ore body doesn't suddenly stop after the last drill hole so you 'infer' that there is a bit more behind where it was measured. Following some natural geographic features for instance. Of course, inferred and indicated are higher risk than proven, but really, what else is there to do? It's not like the ore body has conspired with God to only exist where the bore holes are.
Anyway, that is how I understand the wording and I would be happy to be corrected by an expert!
Yes. I think they can also use, eg, magnetic readings to build up the picture, and this can then involve a bit of interpretation by the geologists.I am not an expert in mining but if I think I understand what these terms mean. Let me describe this situation in different words and let's hope some mining expert corrects me.
When drilling, or mining, you get something out of the ground and that is called "proven" because it's obviously there. Then indicated resources are the ones in between bore holes, i.e. I would call them 'interpolated'. Like you have a bunch of measurements and you draw a line in between them, then the line is an interpolation. Same here, just in 3D for the ore density in between bore holes. The term 'inferred' then means something like 'extrapolared'. In our example means you draw the line a bit further after the last measurement. Or in the mining.. the ore body doesn't suddenly stop after the last drill hole so you 'infer' that there is a bit more behind where it was measured. Following some natural geographic features for instance. Of course, inferred and indicated are higher risk than proven, but really, what else is there to do? It's not like the ore body has conspired with God to only exist where the bore holes are.
Anyway, that is how I understand the wording and I would be happy to be corrected by an expert!
Folks,
These are specific terms that are all very well defined to enable the mining industry (and investment) to discuss these things.
https://stockhead.com.au/primers/primers-asx-mining-stocks-jargon-explained/
Geological data = RESOURCE
Resource + plan for profitable extraction = RESERVE
But you don't just do AAAALL the mine geological surveys and the AAALL the mine planning - the 2 develop somewhat in tandem:
Find something (1). Dig (2). First draft on if it's profitable to mine (3). If that's good, dig more (4). Create a new profitable mining plan with the additional data (5)
(1) Inferred RESOURCE (initial data)
v
(2) Indicated RESOURCE (first proper exploration)
v
(3) Probable RESERVE (first draft of profitable extraction)
v
(4) Measured RESOURCE (more exploration)
v
(5) Proven RESERVE (confident plan for profitable extraction)
It doesn't make sense to completely ignore portions of the resource that are still inferred. Instead they are only used to a limit portion to reflect the uncertainty ie probability.
How likely an inferred resource will turn out to be actually something varies widely depending on the geology - something that works in our favour.
These are specific terms that are all very well defined to enable the mining industry (and investment) to discuss these things.
https://stockhead.com.au/primers/primers-asx-mining-stocks-jargon-explained/
Geological data = RESOURCE
Resource + plan for profitable extraction = RESERVE
But you don't just do AAAALL the mine geological surveys and the AAALL the mine planning - the 2 develop somewhat in tandem:
Find something (1). Dig (2). First draft on if it's profitable to mine (3). If that's good, dig more (4). Create a new profitable mining plan with the additional data (5)
(1) Inferred RESOURCE (initial data)
v
(2) Indicated RESOURCE (first proper exploration)
v
(3) Probable RESERVE (first draft of profitable extraction)
v
(4) Measured RESOURCE (more exploration)
v
(5) Proven RESERVE (confident plan for profitable extraction)
It doesn't make sense to completely ignore portions of the resource that are still inferred. Instead they are only used to a limit portion to reflect the uncertainty ie probability.
How likely an inferred resource will turn out to be actually something varies widely depending on the geology - something that works in our favour.
Semmel
Regular
Thank you, and of course you are right. However, I sometimes need to rephrase terms to something more familiar with my education to get a deeper understanding of what we are talking about. Of course the mining industry has its own definition of terms. Though that doesnt mean my interpretation is necessarily wrong. maybe it is equivalent, which would vastly help my personal frame of reference. If my view is incorrect for some reason, then it is also helpful to me because it highlights a misconception that I carry with me. Unfortunately, from your answer, I cannot decide which one it is in terms of inferred and indicated. I do have the 'proven' term wrong obviously. That is good to be clarified.
In my professional job, I have that situation a lot where I talk to mechanical engineers or optical engineers which talk totally different vocabulary than me, even though its all english. And the best way to understand each other is to find equivalent statements in each others respective vocabulary. This clears up a lot of misconceptions over time. Sometimes we hit the nail on the head, sometimes we the starting point is quite inconsistent. But in the end, we can come to a description that makes sense for everyone. Of course that takes some effort.
The post wasn't about clarifying not correcting.
Anyone invested in an explorer/ early-stage miner should make themselves familiar with these terms.
Yes, they are stupidly worded and that can make it confusing. I still sometimes have to double-check to remind myself which one is which.
But important to at least recognise that they are not just adjectives, but specifically defined categories within the JORC system.
Semmel
Regular
I sincerely hope for someone correcting my statements if they are wrong! I WANT to be corrected. Your clarification did a very good step in that direction
Similar threads
- Article
