It's an interesting question, prices of natural and synthetic graphite have converged in China and are almost at parity as we speak.
China has adapted to using high sulphur petroleum coke, a cheaper form of feedstock for synthetic graphite material but that is really destined for lower end EV and stationary applications where performance can be compromised to lower cost. This somewhat masks the trend which will be more obvious as EV sales start to pick up across western countries driven by subsidies (IRA etc). The ev story is China centric at the moment but that will change given the amount of investment going into the sector.
Synthetic is generally better performing, degrades slower due to a more uniform structure less susceptible to cracking with expansion.
Natural graphite was and probably will be cheaper going forward but comes with 10-20x the co2 footprint which is one of the major considerations for Western OEMs, noting graphite makes up ~50% of the battery. The biggest input for synthetic production is energy and with question marks around petroleum coke availability going forward as the world shifts away from fossil fuels the choice is pretty clear.
For now most are blending synthetic and natural which works well to get the right balance of cost, co2 and performance. Natural, ex China sourced graphite will see the highest growth going forward, part driven by geopolitics and part by desire to have a clear line of sight over co2 across the entire supply Chain. China is a black box as far as co2 goes and continues to rely heavily on thermal power for majority of its generation, including synthetic graphite production.
As far as bux goes, it is a small deposit sure, but the qualities set up a good platform for growth. They seem to be taking a methodical approach to derisking the project without burning through cash to get a large headline jorc resource which as said earlier may or may not be amenable for anodes.
The graphite market is incredibly complex and few really appreciate how difficult it is to get anode material qualified.
As far as the deposit goes, flake size is key, larger flake is more uniform has better properties but typically results in greater losses / lower yields to arrive at a suitable mesh size for battery anodes. It would be good to see bux flake distribution and yields. Somewhere closer to 100mesh would be a great start. With battery applications needing sub 100 mesh.
Some bux positives:
- tier 1 mining jurisdiction with material eligible for Ira funding if destined for the US. Funding will be easier, safe, stable jurisdiction with a transparent permitting framework and links into western markets. Eca funding is becoming more prevalent from US.
- shallow / low strip deposit
- high grade, twice of some competitors, twice the graphite for the same amount of ore mined
- de-risked execution, proving the product will work instead of sinking capital into exploration which may not warrant a mine
- testing done by leading companies in the space to prove a concept
- very low cash burn, leveraging others to fund instead of diluting shareholders
Reasons for pause
- very early stage, not without risk as is common with juniors in the space
- questionable communication which needs polishing but will come with time
- still a small resource but again, priorities have been in the right place, there is a risk the resource remains limited, whether it is / will be economical if it stays at the current size is largely a function of price. On balance it looks like there may be upside to resource size, whether that comes at cost of grade remains to be seen
Aimo
Expand
