Ann: Talga Signs Supply MOU with Nordic Battery Maker FREYR, page-299

No amount of talking about the global outlook can substitute for actual technical details that testify as to the veracity of the claims the Company has been making. There is no point in talking about how green the process is without tying it in with science and micro-economics of the production process. Nevertheless, the share price has been a spectacular performer. This is yet another an example of where promotion can initially override fundamentals and a paucity of technical detail, but eventually there will have to be delivery if the share price is going to be sustainable.

What are the technical specifications? How is the issue of expanding and contracting silicon anodes being addressed? What are the First Charge Efficiency figures and the numbers cycles that have been achieved? Does the Company have these figures and is not choosing to release them, for either commercial competitiveness or is it just avoiding scrutiny by analysts? There seems to be more questions than answers.

Talga advised that it had received a commitment for grant funding under the UK Government’s Automotive Transformation Fund to complete a preliminary feasibility study into the commercialisation of Talga’s silicon anode product in the UK. Twenty days later Talga announced an MoU with global technology leader ABB to support the development and construction of Talga’s Vittangi Anode Project in northern Sweden. Under the MoU, ABB will utilise its industrial automation and electrification expertise to develop and coordinate an extensive suite of production control and process solutions for Talga’s vertically integrated lithium-ion battery anode operations. It seemed like everyone wanted to part of the action, but is the plan to build in the UK or in Sweden?

If you read the announcement carefully you would have seen some inconstancies. Talga said it was “constructing a scalable battery anode production facility and integrated graphite mining operation”, but the reality is that it was still working on a DFS, with an “intent to execute binding agreements for construction and operations in future”. Remember that at this juncture the Company did not have a granted mining licence … a position that is still the case today.