TLG Discussion 2022
- Thread starter zeeb0t
- Start date
cosors
👀
That is indeed interesting.
That reminds me of:
Completion of Vittangi Anode Project FEED
Study delivers strong results
"Optimised equipment and process design reduces the number of purification and anode production
lines required at the Refinery, reducing the building footprint and improving energy needs.
...
The updated design and refinements of the project package have led to a reduction in the Refinery building
footprint and 23% less energy requirements across the Project."
and the others:
"Furthermore, the administrator highlights the Chinese company Putailai, which has been in bad weather recently as the company is to build a factory for Northvolt in Torsboda outside Timrå. According to information, Putailai has deliberately concealed the fact that it has a subsidiary in a region of China where a genocide is taking place, which is why, among other things, the United States has banned all trade in Chinese goods from the region.
The manager instead highlights a number of companies in the portfolio that produce the same type of battery material, but which are instead based on natural graphite, which creates much less carbon dioxide emissions. These companies are Nextsource Materials, Northern Graphite, Noveau Monde Graphite and Talga."
The Talga Bar
I was reading yesterday that Russia had a record year for oil sales despite sanctions by selling to China. You're probably not far off the truth. China currently accounts for 60% of EV sales worldwide, I'm not sure their demand for petrol is exploding. Unless they're stockpiling for a rainy day...
thestockexchange.com.au
and:
Their plan in Finnland
Note the nice prison fences.
To me, it looks more like the idea is to prevent anyone from breaking out. But I'd better keep quiet now.
The Talga Bar
Yeah I know....................but why would they take more than 3 months on a decision that a lower court judge said lacked merit A quicker decision on Thursday 21 or Friday 22 December gives them the cover of Christmas and a great excuse not to answer that complaint line telephone until the...
thestockexchange.com.au
vs
Last edited:
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
LOL
Now we plunge down the rabbit hole of Synthetic v Natural
Why don’t you post your arguments over at HC ?
A bit scared are you ?
I think we here are a bit tired of arguments settled years ago
There is a market for both synthetic and natural
Go over to HC
Last edited:
curiousmagpie
Regular
Appears to be a reframing of this recent article
China's subsidies create, not destroy, value - Asia Times
Cash rules everything around me C.R.E.A.M., get the money Dollar dollar bill, y'all – Wu-Tang Clan A common narrative bandied about by the Western
asiatimes.com
Interesting post and interesting article. I wqs actually just listening t9 a podcast yesterday on a very similar discussion. The article talks about the Chinese system not extracting value the whole way along the process, and I think its worth adding to that that Chinese companies are more likely to be vertically integrated; another reason they're not pushed to extract value /add cost at every single step. I've heard people argue BYD - which started in batteries before moving to cars - is one of the most vertically integrated companies in the world. Compare that to Boeing falling to pieces (pun not intended) after selling off core parts of the business.Appears to be a reframing of this recent article
China's subsidies create, not destroy, value - Asia Times
Cash rules everything around me C.R.E.A.M., get the money Dollar dollar bill, y'all – Wu-Tang Clan A common narrative bandied about by the Western
I think both things are true:
- China has provided subsidies that by international standards are market-distorting
- China does things differently and in a lot of ways has just generally proven to be more effective.
The West has traditionally loved the refrain of 'oh its only cheaper in China because no human rights and stealing IP' -lots of truth to that.
It eventually moved to 'oh well its basically a command economy so the government can force companies to do things' - well so can western governments if they have the balls.
Now it was very interesting to read something that actually looks at it from the perspective of the market dynamics within China and role of capital.
curiousmagpie
Regular
Thanks to my lackluster performance for investing I crystalized my big loss at 70c.
Share price is down over 33% since then. Anyone else wish they executed the same lackluster performance?
The only lacklustre performance and embarrassment here is from the lack of execution by Talga.
Stock is in freefall and you're all in denial. Where does this end?
Haha! Well it "ends" in 10 years when we're all enjoying dividends, laughing at some the BS artists on forums trying to weasel unsuspecting rookies out of their shares.
Selfishly I'm grateful for the cheap shares and more to come no doubt.
Back to work for you tt2000, or is it Blacks...
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
This is from Rythm34 over at HC
By Chris Heron, Julia Poliscanova and Kinga Timaru-Kast
Est. 5min
Jul 16, 2024
Content-Type:
Opinion
The Commission’s support to battery cell manufacturers should already reward local supply chains. Priority should be given to companies that demonstrate a commitment to sourcing from EU-based midstream and upstream suppliers.
Europe is still running behind in the global scramble to secure the green supply chains of the future. China’s decades’ long planning and investment, and the US’s more recent surge of support, risk leaving our continent in the dust.
Chris Heron is Communication and Public Affairs Director at Eurometaux; Julia Poliscanova is Senior Director at Transport & Environment; Kinga Timaru-Kast is Public Affairs and Communication Director at Recharge
The European Commission’s new Battery Fund is a critical first step to catch up by bridging the finance gap to scale up production of EU batteries, their components and the whole supply chain. It must be designed well from the start to really deliver the push that Europe’s investing companies need to compete.
Today’s €3 billion funding pot needs to be used wisely to bring an exponential effect on EU battery value chain investment.
Let’s also be clear that this mechanism must be the first step of many. It will need expanding substantially during the next legislature to secure final investment decisions across the battery value chain, and to really compete with the US Inflation Reduction Act and the overcapacities built up in China.
We’re calling for the European Commission to design a smart and future-proof mechanism that delivers on four keys for success: simplicity, speed, supply chain vision, and sustainability.
As the Commission is putting in place the detailed framework for the new fund, the fund’s speed in becoming operational and the simplicity of its design are the first two keys to success.
Europe will not win the battery race by overwhelming its companies with complex templates and questions that require input from whole teams of experts – as required for some of the grants under the Innovation Fund today.
Instead, the first call should come no later than late 2024. Support could be based on the actual output that will be produced in Europe, i.e. the volume of cells or battery materials.
The fund should partially cover the operational costs as well, such as energy and labour which in Europe are amongst the highest globally.
Our third key for success is a supply chain focus. We’re calling for the EU’s new battery fund to also address materials manufacturing as a major bottleneck to Europe’s resilience.
Today, Europe’s supply chain investment simply isn’t keeping pace with its battery needs, particularly for cathode and anode active materials, and battery material refining and recycling.
While potential exists, turning it into commercial projects won’t be easy. The EU Battery Fund could be one of the enablers. According to T&E’s forecast, by the end of this decade, the region could in fact fulfil all its processed lithium needs and secure between 8% and 27% of battery minerals from recycling in Europe.
The EU has the potential to manufacture 56% of its demand for cathodes by 2030, but only two plants have started commercial operations so far. No commercial operations have started in Europe for anodes.
But these promising ambitions need to be turned into final investment decisions.
Here the Commission’s initial support to battery cell manufacturers should already reward local supply chains. Priority should be given to companies that demonstrate a commitment to sourcing from EU-based midstream and upstream suppliers.
So, the new fund should also plan to directly support strategic EU cathode and anode manufacturing, refining, and recycling projects; at the same time as keeping a focus on cell manufacturing especially in initial funding rounds.
Our final key for success is sustainability.
Europe’s project choice should be guided by simple selection criteria, rewarding best-in-class projects with the lowest carbon footprint in their supply chain. This is Europe’s unique selling point, with our companies across the battery supply chain basing their business case on manufacturing with a much lower footprint than global competition.
Member States should ensure the right investments are made locally and that access to renewables is facilitated to build on this competitive advantage. Since batteries and their components are already regulated under the EU Battery Regulation, no additional sustainability criteria is necessary.
The new EU Battery Fund is not a holy grail solution, but its financial support is critical to build the green blocks of the EU energy transition. If designed simply, with the entire local supply chain in mind, and with a focus on sustainability, it can put Europe on the global battery map.
How the new EU Battery Fund can put Europe on the battery map
DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of Euractiv Media network.By Chris Heron, Julia Poliscanova and Kinga Timaru-Kast
Est. 5min
Jul 16, 2024
Content-Type:
Opinion
The Commission’s support to battery cell manufacturers should already reward local supply chains. Priority should be given to companies that demonstrate a commitment to sourcing from EU-based midstream and upstream suppliers.
Europe is still running behind in the global scramble to secure the green supply chains of the future. China’s decades’ long planning and investment, and the US’s more recent surge of support, risk leaving our continent in the dust.
Chris Heron is Communication and Public Affairs Director at Eurometaux; Julia Poliscanova is Senior Director at Transport & Environment; Kinga Timaru-Kast is Public Affairs and Communication Director at Recharge
The European Commission’s new Battery Fund is a critical first step to catch up by bridging the finance gap to scale up production of EU batteries, their components and the whole supply chain. It must be designed well from the start to really deliver the push that Europe’s investing companies need to compete.
Today’s €3 billion funding pot needs to be used wisely to bring an exponential effect on EU battery value chain investment.
Let’s also be clear that this mechanism must be the first step of many. It will need expanding substantially during the next legislature to secure final investment decisions across the battery value chain, and to really compete with the US Inflation Reduction Act and the overcapacities built up in China.
We’re calling for the European Commission to design a smart and future-proof mechanism that delivers on four keys for success: simplicity, speed, supply chain vision, and sustainability.
As the Commission is putting in place the detailed framework for the new fund, the fund’s speed in becoming operational and the simplicity of its design are the first two keys to success.
Europe will not win the battery race by overwhelming its companies with complex templates and questions that require input from whole teams of experts – as required for some of the grants under the Innovation Fund today.
Instead, the first call should come no later than late 2024. Support could be based on the actual output that will be produced in Europe, i.e. the volume of cells or battery materials.
The fund should partially cover the operational costs as well, such as energy and labour which in Europe are amongst the highest globally.
Our third key for success is a supply chain focus. We’re calling for the EU’s new battery fund to also address materials manufacturing as a major bottleneck to Europe’s resilience.
Today, Europe’s supply chain investment simply isn’t keeping pace with its battery needs, particularly for cathode and anode active materials, and battery material refining and recycling.
While potential exists, turning it into commercial projects won’t be easy. The EU Battery Fund could be one of the enablers. According to T&E’s forecast, by the end of this decade, the region could in fact fulfil all its processed lithium needs and secure between 8% and 27% of battery minerals from recycling in Europe.
The EU has the potential to manufacture 56% of its demand for cathodes by 2030, but only two plants have started commercial operations so far. No commercial operations have started in Europe for anodes.
But these promising ambitions need to be turned into final investment decisions.
Here the Commission’s initial support to battery cell manufacturers should already reward local supply chains. Priority should be given to companies that demonstrate a commitment to sourcing from EU-based midstream and upstream suppliers.
So, the new fund should also plan to directly support strategic EU cathode and anode manufacturing, refining, and recycling projects; at the same time as keeping a focus on cell manufacturing especially in initial funding rounds.
Our final key for success is sustainability.
Europe’s project choice should be guided by simple selection criteria, rewarding best-in-class projects with the lowest carbon footprint in their supply chain. This is Europe’s unique selling point, with our companies across the battery supply chain basing their business case on manufacturing with a much lower footprint than global competition.
Member States should ensure the right investments are made locally and that access to renewables is facilitated to build on this competitive advantage. Since batteries and their components are already regulated under the EU Battery Regulation, no additional sustainability criteria is necessary.
The new EU Battery Fund is not a holy grail solution, but its financial support is critical to build the green blocks of the EU energy transition. If designed simply, with the entire local supply chain in mind, and with a focus on sustainability, it can put Europe on the global battery map.
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
Next Quarterly is due out Wednesday 31 July...................and in it they will need to answer the following questions at the bottom of the Cash Statement. What with the rather large decline today I expect a CR this week............leaky ship
8.7 Estimated quarters of funding available (item 8.6 divided by item 8.3) 2.38
Note: if the entity has reported positive relevant outgoings (ie a net cash inflow) in item 8.3, answer item 8.7 as “N/A”. Otherwise, a figure for the estimated quarters of funding available must be included in item 8.7.
8.8 If item 8.7 is less than 2 quarters, please provide answers to the following questions:
8.8.1 Does the entity expect that it will continue to have the current level of net operating cash flows for the time being and, if not, why not?
8.8.2 Has the entity taken any steps, or does it propose to take any steps, to raise further cash to fund its operations and, if so, what are those steps and how likely does it believe that they will be successful?
8.8.3 Does the entity expect to be able to continue its operations and to meet its business objectives and, if so, on what basis?
Note: where item 8.7 is less than 2 quarters, all of questions 8.8.1, 8.8.2 and 8.8.3 above must be answered.
8.7 Estimated quarters of funding available (item 8.6 divided by item 8.3) 2.38
Note: if the entity has reported positive relevant outgoings (ie a net cash inflow) in item 8.3, answer item 8.7 as “N/A”. Otherwise, a figure for the estimated quarters of funding available must be included in item 8.7.
8.8 If item 8.7 is less than 2 quarters, please provide answers to the following questions:
8.8.1 Does the entity expect that it will continue to have the current level of net operating cash flows for the time being and, if not, why not?
8.8.2 Has the entity taken any steps, or does it propose to take any steps, to raise further cash to fund its operations and, if so, what are those steps and how likely does it believe that they will be successful?
8.8.3 Does the entity expect to be able to continue its operations and to meet its business objectives and, if so, on what basis?
Note: where item 8.7 is less than 2 quarters, all of questions 8.8.1, 8.8.2 and 8.8.3 above must be answered.
Last edited:
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
So at the end of March they had 2.38 Qtrs of cash left. Now MT said they could stretch that. So let's say they stretch it to 3 quarters. That takes us until 31 December roughly. But by end of June (this Qtr) they'll be around 2 quarters or less so they will need to answer the above questions
IMO the opinions that are all doom & the opinions that its all going to be roses, are both kinda unhelpful in their own ways (the company isn't dead, success isn't guaranteed).
I hope they don't need to raise much at the next CR because the amount of dilution we're facing is concerning.
I hope they don't need to raise much at the next CR because the amount of dilution we're facing is concerning.
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
My understanding is that the next CR is limited to around $14M due to the annual 15% constraint for current shareholders unless they do a placement. But I think we need a combo of both for say a total of $22M (50 odd million shares dilution)
That should have us in a temporary SP dive but then we should see some stability forward
Last edited:
Are you in all seriousness finished rubbing yourself yet? Do you want a gold star like a child begging one from a teacher? There’s none here to give out. So, you sold most of your half a million shares at around 70c (possibly looking to re-enter should a CR eventuate in the future which still bemuses me Curious). Well, at least you have a nice chunky capital loss to offset any future gains you might happen to make on Whitehaven or wherever you see your fantastic investment returns in the future. What sort of thinking is this? It’s child play day-trading at best. The timeframe should be many many years for this speculative pre-revenue company to play out. Whilst you fly over your cuckows nest, mulling over Whitehaven, I’ll sit back and let you gleam how you only shit your pants a little bit and not a lot over the ‘stock’ price dropping, as that’s really how you see the company. Go back to your nest
curiousmagpie
Regular
Congratulations to you I guess? personally I’d save the celebrations until the share price goes back up way over 70c. Because at the moment it looks that this is only going lower, and I’m well in front. I did give it years, but sometimes you have to take the loss to preserve the remaining capital before you’re left with nothing, and wishing that you took what you could while there was something still left to take.
Good luck with the do-nothing strategy. The wasteland of ASX hopeful developers with good projects and best intentions will always collect more members.
Semmel
Top 20
Interesting about the progress of Teslas 4680 Battery using dry battery electrode:
x.com
Its a long post and its worth reading in full. However, for us only some snippet is relevant:
Even if not an ideal customer.. Tesla would be quite good for us if we retain good enough margin. Maybe for Talnode-Si. Talnode-C will probably have enough other customers in Europe.
x.com
x.com
Its a long post and its worth reading in full. However, for us only some snippet is relevant:
[...]
Even if not an ideal customer.. Tesla would be quite good for us if we retain good enough margin. Maybe for Talnode-Si. Talnode-C will probably have enough other customers in Europe.
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
Anyone else betting on a Trading Halt on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week for a Capital Raise ?
Otherwise they will need to provide answers to the compulsory funding questions in the Cash Statement of the Quarterly the following Wednesday
If they don't go into a Trading Halt early next week that would point heavily towards TLG being aware of an SC decision being imminent and giving the opportunity to do a raise at a higher SP level
Otherwise they will need to provide answers to the compulsory funding questions in the Cash Statement of the Quarterly the following Wednesday
If they don't go into a Trading Halt early next week that would point heavily towards TLG being aware of an SC decision being imminent and giving the opportunity to do a raise at a higher SP level
This is pure speculation but I would expect to see a bit of movement on the court log before there's a ruling. Maybe an item saying that the case has progressed to a certain unit or administrative judge. As of yesterday - the log stayed the same.
I'm also eager to see the cash statement to ascertain the runway before a capital raise. If all work stopped and the only outgoing was employees salaries - how long is the runway ?
I'm also eager to see the cash statement to ascertain the runway before a capital raise. If all work stopped and the only outgoing was employees salaries - how long is the runway ?
| 27 | 2023-12-08 | The target is reallocated from Unit 2, R 23 to Special 3, JS 36 | ||
| 28 | 2023-12-08 | The target is reallocated from Unit 2, R 23, Special 3, JS 36 to Unit 2, R 23 | ||
| 29 | 2023-12-08 | The target is reallocated from Unit 2, R 23 to Special 3, JS |
| 35 | |||
| 30 | 2023-12-13 | 21 | Power of attorney with original signature for lawyers Kenneth Lewis and Deniz Ünal (Gabna Sami village) |
| 31 | 2024-05-02 | 22 | Request for an explanation from Advocate Joel Mårtensson and lawyer Nils Lundahl |
| 32 | 2024-05-03 | The request for priority has been handled administratively (not granted). The decision has been sent to the representative of Talga AB by e-mail. | |
| /OSPE |
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
If it was 2.38 Qtrs at the end of March then by the end of June I reckon at best it would be 1.6 to 1.7 if they really have cut back on expenditure. But if it is under 2 Quarters as it almost certainly will be they still have to disclose where the future funding is coming from anyway
Last edited:
Again just a hypothesis or wishful thinking
2.38 quarters is assuming that the current spend of ~9m a quarter will carry over but if they halted all explorations and evaluation costs and qualification plant expenditure (big items last quarter) and reduced the cash burn to 5 mil this quarter then if there’s 16m left at 5 mil a quarter , then perhaps a capital raise is not imminent.
Regarding your other point,
‘The court has, as today, no further information of when the case Ö 6624-23 will be presented in front of the court.’
Similar threads
- Article
