PILBARA MINERALS WKN: A0YGCV ISIN: AU000000PLS0 Forum: Aktien Thema: Hauptdiskussion

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-48961525?__twitter_impression=true

@Lithium Investor. Die genannten von PLS sind wirklich eine Enttäuschung. Das 3. Quartal wird genauso schlecht. Von diesen Zahlen her hat PLS auch keinen besseren Kurs verdient. Denke allzu viel wird das Posco JV am Kurs kurzfristig nicht ändern ( Produktion erst ab ca 2021 ). Spannender wird das Ergebnis und der Partner des Part-Sales. Beide Events sind nicht weit weg (innerhalb der nächsten8 Wochen)

Korrekt!

Wenn du die DFS bis zum Ende gelesen hättest, wüsstest du auch das die 207 Us $ abzüglich 70 $ Tantalit und ohne Lizenzgebühren sind. Es ist alles aufgeschlüsselt. Und dann kommt man nämlich auf ca 320$ ...Seite 12

Wenn du doch von dieser Überproduktion überzeugt bist, wieso vetkaufst du dann nicht????

Du reimst dir auch alles zusammen....

Daran siehst du doch, das aktuell keiner mit Gewissheit sagen kann wohin die Reise geht.... Es hat auch keiner gesagt, das PLS aktuell profitabel ist!

@Bull 👍

A busy quarter for Ganfeng saw them take a stake in and agree an offtake with AIM-listed Bacanora Lithium. The deal, pencilled in May and completed at the end of June, saw Ganfeng take a 30% share in Bacanora. The offtake agreement will see 50% of stage one production and 75% of stage two production going to Ganfeng from the company’s Sonora Lithium Project in Mexico. Benchmark doesn’t expect the project to bring significant volumes online until 2022 but this fits into Ganfeng’s forward-looking strategy to secure long-term supply. Looking south, Ganfeng *** a further investment into Lithium Americas and increased its investment by US$160 million, forming a 50/50 venture between the two companies. The Caucharí-Olaroz project in Argentina initially has plans for 25,000 tpa of carbonate production, but the recent announcement saw the two parties increase this to 40,000 tpa. Long-term supply concerns for downstream consumers were also were evident in the Chinese-based cathode producer Ningbo Shanshan’s move to take an 11.8% in Australia’s Altura Mining, which is looking to produce 220,000 tpa of spodumene concentrate.

Towards the end of the quarter there were signs of excess spodumene feedstock, as growing Australian exports and insufficient conversion capacity led to major quantities being stockpiled. This oversupply culminated in Galaxy Resources announcing in a press release on 26 June that having completed two shipments totalling 30,000 dry metric tonnes (dmt), its third shipment of 15,000 dmt would be delayed from the end of Q2 to part of its July shipment schedule. Only a week earlier Pilbara Minerals also took action to avert spodumene oversupply as they announced that having had discussions with Ganfeng Lithium and General Lithium the company would moderate production from the Pilgangoora mine until the end of July to allow processors time to ramp-up conversion capacity. There are concerns of lithium oversupply in the short-term. But looking to the medium and long-term a deficit is more of a concern to the industry’s stakeholders as producers continue to secure supply.

https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/membership/lithium-chemical-production-at-new-high/

Geduld :)

https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Benchmark%20Intelligence%20Lithium%20Research.pdf?token=AWwxijMkfdkAnUduV-Rsv3XDmXZSsDcFX5weoUMs9NnLxS7zbBarguBjDh3rf4PNcX2VHnG5MxrL6jU_Gj-0Izscg9pyU5tQhKRvxhrLH443bQRSMJT0ukDpo5YBix6qhXDPLiFniQfO2sWFeWoMEjhXj0hKZ2E54_URSpIFl1qbvCUi0sOtVtsNV2HD41BRsuJBzD_dr8nQKTHiGmwlsX1a

BENCHMARK MINERAL INTELLIGENCE LITHIUM RESEARCH NOTE Juli 2019

QUESTION OFTIMING The timing of the surge in lithium ion battery production continues to play a role in limiting the development of new lithium resources. While the development of a new mine can take 3-4 years when the money is in place, the development of new integrated battery-grade chemical conversion capacity is even longer. This makes the coming 12-18 months even more critical in addressing the bottlenecks lined up for 2023 and beyond. Money needs to start flowing into the lithium market quickly, or the road to electrification will be stunted by lithium supply, in even the most conservative of forecasts. In Benchmark Minerals’ models, lithium supply has to increase at a 19% CAGR over the next 6 years to meet 2025 demand. Even at the height of the market, the industry only managed to grow by 11% per year, on average, from 2015-2018. And even when this money does arrive and new projects are established, qualification of new material sources is not going to happen overnight. No new material is going to find its way into a Chevrolet Bolt,Tesla Model 3, or any other model charged with leading the cause of wide-spread electrification, without a significant lead time of contract negotiations, testing and qualifications. With all of this in mind, the financing of new projects needs to happen now, a process which the current industry pricing environment is prohibiting. It is prohibitive both in the literal, market dynamic sense, but also in the process of price transparency allowing investors to efficiently allocate capital. And the risk surrounding price transparency threatens to get worse before it gets better. Despite the positive potential for the introduction of derivative contracts into the market, the negative risks of derivate contracts with no liquidity could be far greater. As has been seen in the world of cobalt, a derivative contract can often add more confusion than clarity. Providing greater visibility on pricing has been central to Benchmark Minerals' business from day one. Working with the supply chain to develop an accurate and reflective price assessment mechanism that is useful to the industry, first and foremost. The development of other financial instruments in the market can only be effective if tied to an accepted industry price. Benchmark Minerals provides that price and the next stages for market evolution will be the integration of these prices as formal benchmarks in contracts. It is only when this integration occurs that a true spot market can emerge, and more visibility will give investors the confidence to address a growing problem for the entire battery supply chain. As of June 2019, the Benchmark Minerals Lithium ion Battery Megafactory Assessment stood just shy of 2TWh capacity by 2028.To put that in context, that would equate to 1.5m tonnes lithium demand just from these operations if they were to reach full capacity, compared to total lithium ion battery demand of 150,000 tonnes LCE in 2018. These new facilities will not all reach the market on time and at their expected capacity levels, but regardless this will see a step change in consumption rates. For those consumption rates to be met, the lithium market must overcome the disparity between the short and long-term realities in lithium pricing.

DISPELLING COST CURVE MYTHS A symptom of the emergence of new spodumene resources has been the question of which feedstock is the most economic source of lithium chemical production. For a generation the low-cost benefits of brine extraction, coupled with an industry dominated by lithium carbonate, saw South American projects cement themselves firmly at the low-end of the industry cost curve. The potential shift away from lithium carbonate as the primary chemical used in lithium ion battery cathodes, and changes to the Chilean royalty structure, have however put this position in doubt over recent years. The ability to produce lithium hydroxide directly from spodumene - rather than via lithium carbonate, as is required in the brine process – means the cost curve for lithium hydroxide production can take a distinctly different shape than that of carbonate. In turn, this challenges the previously held belief that brine is the more competitive source of production and could see spodumene prove the favoured feedstock of tomorrow’s lithium ion battery industry. Inherent in this hypothesis, however, is firstly that the battery market will rapidly adopt the high-nickel, hydroxide-dependent cathode chemistries (a proposition that looks increasingly unlikely in the near-term) and secondly, that all spodumene producers are integrated lithium chemical suppliers. Back in 2016 when Greenbushes was the only spodumene game in town, this of course was the case through Albemarle and Tianqi’s ownership. Fast forward to 2019, and none of the new spodumene assets are fully owned by chemical converters, although the vast majority of output is tied into offtake with leading chemical producers. These offtake arrangements have often been structured to allow for a return for spodumene producers, which in many cases are still operating at above their target cost levels. As a result, you are left with the cost of feedstock material proving prohibitive to China’s chemical converters taking hydroxide production costs below brine alternatives, even when bypassing the carbonate production route. While this makes for an interesting hypothetical exchange, it is largely irrelevant in the longer-term context of the demand side story. The question in the lithium market is no longer whether spodumene or brine resources will be developed – both are needed to take us anywhere near the growth estimates of the next 2-3 years.The new questions is what other channels of supply will be developed to take us close to the demand forecasts for 2025 and beyond.