Seeking Alpha

Gareth Hatch

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Gareth Hatch's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • REE/Strategic Minerals Concentrator, March 18, 2014 [View instapost]
    @optionsgirl: the VAT mentioned in my article refers only to products produced in China. It is charged to the purchaser of the raw materials, whether they are used internally or are directly exported. If the materials are used internally to make, for example, magnets or polishing powders, and those finished goods are then exported, the VAT paid by the end user on the raw materials is refunded back to them.

    My understanding is that because this rebate is available to all end users in China that export finished goods, whether or not they are domestic- or foreign-owned, then there is no issue because the approach is evenhanded. Such finished goods are not subject to export quotas.

    The issue of FOB vs. domestic pricing in the later paragraph that you quoted, concerns the price decks that are used by juniors, in determining the assumed future values of their products. The typical assumption has been that they will sell a mixed REO concentrate, without specifying to whom such material will be sold. Given the lack of excess capacity for separation outside of China, the implicit assumption is that maybe the Chinese will buy it.

    However, such purchases would have to compete with internally sourced materials, which are purchased internally at some discount to domestic, not FOB / export prices. So those juniors who are assuming that their material will be sold into China, should be using a domestic, not an FOB price deck, from which to then discount to establish the value of their concentrate.

    Of course that assumes that folks in China will want to buy such concentrate in the first place; some of the juniors are going to have a rude awakening in this regard, given the lack of interest in such materials.

    As for Lynas and Molycorp, their processing is done outside of China, so they have the advantage of needing to compete with the FOB prices, not the domestic prices, assuming their customers are based outside of China. In the case of Molycorp, which may be transferring a portion of its material to its magnetic-materials operations in China, different mechanisms may apply.
    Apr 5 09:27 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • REE/Strategic Minerals Concentrator, March 18, 2014 [View instapost]
    @motionstream: to what special interest are you referring? In case you didn't know, Jon is no longer with Byron Capital.
    Mar 30 10:01 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • REE/Strategic Minerals Concentrator, March 18, 2014 [View instapost]
    @tripleback: I agree that this by no means means China has to resume unrestricted mining. They have their production quotas in place which are holding steady at around 94,000 tonnes, and since they affect both domestic and foreign entities, wouldn't be subject to sanction via the WTO.

    If taxes and tariffs are eliminated, all other things being equal then we should see a decrease in prices for exported REEs and REE products, down towards current domestic China levels. For REEs like La and Ce where the price difference is fully accounted for by these taxes and tariffs, we should see price parity; but for others, where there is the mysterious "quota surcharge" on top, things are perhaps not so clear.

    Maybe the authorities will simply apply a uniform tax across all production…. or perhaps implement minimum price floors, across all sales, again to stay compliant with the WTO, but as a means of propping up the prices?
    Mar 27 01:34 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @aksika: because Graphite One's Graphite Creek project is an earlier-stage project. It has not announced efforts to produce battery-grade graphite (>99.9% purity + spheroidized + micronized), it does not yet have Demonstrated resources (Measured + Indicated) and has yet to complete a Preliminary Economic Assessment.
    Mar 26 10:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    To date, I have seen no indication that Zenyatta is working on the spheroidization and micronization necessary for the production of graphite for battery anodes.
    Mar 26 08:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    To date, I have seen no indication that Mason intends to produce the high-purity, spheroidal graphite required for Li-ion battery anodes.
    Mar 26 08:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @jaberwock: could you point me to somewhere online that details the Syrah operating costs?

    As for Mason and the other companies out there, I will be keeping an eye out for announcements, concerning new developments of relevance to the battery-grade and other graphite sub-sectors.

    On anode materials - science marches ever on, for sure. There has been recent work on silicon-based anodes and other materials, but for the time being, graphite is the material of choice. Perhaps in the long-term we'll even see graphene-based anodes, if the costs can be brought down….
    Mar 25 07:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @BenBminnesota: I don't have data on the energy cost to make Li metal, I'm afraid.
    Mar 25 07:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @HubbaBuba: my issue with Syrah Resources is the lack of data, even just a summary, from their 2013 Scoping Study. Big resources are all well and good, but we need to know the assumed economics for such projects. Bit of a pet peeve when comparing Australian- to Canadian-listed companies.

    Can you expand on your comment concerning Focus?

    As for Zenyatta - to my knowledge, they are not working on the production of high-purity, spheroidal graphite for batteries, nor are they working on a Feasibility Study at present, so do not meet the criteria established above.
    Mar 25 07:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @teddyg101: it's been quite some time since I've looked at the lithium sector, so I don't have a comment at this time.
    Mar 25 07:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    @JoshE: it's been quite some time since I've looked at the lithium sector, so I don't have a comment at this time.
    Mar 25 07:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    Thanks for the comment with respect to Car and Driver. The battery pack does weight 600 kg in total; however, I got hold of the Panasonic spec sheet for their 18650 batteries, and since each cell weighs 45 g, so 7,104 cells will weigh 320 kg (close to your figure above). I have submitted a correction to the original numbers to Seeking Alpha and they should be reflected shortly. Still requires over 125% of current world production, to service the proposed needs of the gigafactory.

    I think each of the three companies I mentioned, have been anticipating potential opportunities of the type that the gigafactory represents. It is easier to find the numbers for Focus and Northern, than it is for Syrah.
    Mar 25 04:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    The first slide at http://bit.ly/1gCWEcD makes it pretty clear that the 35 GWh / year is specifically for the projected 500,000 vehicles. They are talking about an additional 15 GWh / year of capacity, for other applications, perhaps including home-energy storage as you mentioned.
    Mar 25 02:59 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    At 18.6 mm in diameter and 65.2 mm in length, the 18650-model batteries used in the Telsa vehicles are actually slightly larger than AA batteries - 14.5 mm diameter x 50.5 mm in length - further reinforcing your point...
    Mar 25 02:53 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Going Natural: The Solution To Tesla's Graphite Problem [View article]
    The number comes from the math presented by Tesla on its Web site. Their stated goal of 500,000 vehicles / year in 2020, requiring 35 GWh / year of capacity in 2020, averages to 70 kWh per vehicle. That works out to multiples of the typical (non-Tesla) battery EV storage capacity, currently available, so the number was surprisingly high to me too.
    Mar 25 02:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
132 Comments
123 Likes