thank you mondy! a few days ago i shared two graphics about ake on another platform.
it is very easy to see that it took longer to get to the yearly production rate than they originally thought. only in the last quarter they missed this rate (4.375t) by a few percent. it is difficult to estimate whether they would have reached this level of utilization sooner without the pandemic.
there are two points that are much more interesting to me. 1) the relationship between bg and technical grade. it is not mentioned in every quarterly report. in the past there were hardly any indications of the exact product mix. when they give percentages, they also mention in the same sentence that this production mix (usually ~60% technical grade and ~40% bg) was made on customer request.
2) as soon as a higher production rate was achieved in a quarter, opex costs fell as a result. if the production rate has fallen, the opex costs have risen. logical. in the last few quarters, opex has increased significantly despite the highest production rate to date.
this leads me back to gln. i give our team on the ground an advantage. i think they know exactly what to build and how to build it to ensure they reach their target production rate faster than ake. i don't want to imply ake that they had to play around for years to get the ratio between bg and technical quality close to 50/50 (which they haven't done until now). for gln this factor does not apply. we don't have to differentiate between bg and technical quality. we are selling one product that we can produce faster and more cost-effectively, as we are not currently planning downstream production.
@Mlc2318 in contrast to hard rock and other companies, our co2 footprint will be smaller. we will use less fresh water and produce less waste. less not none at all. sorry for the wrong wording in my other post.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
