to be clear: my last posts might give the impression that i'm becoming increasingly skeptical about this outstanding company. this is not the case. i'm just trying to find a rational solution to the very atypical evaluation.
@Smith71 - in my opinion, it is the wrong approach to deny management its abilities on red days and at the same time quote statements from management that are supposed to refute my theory. the statements you have kindly made available to me with regard to topography do not refute my theory.
i am increasingly convinced that the topography in combination with the presumably cost intensive procurement of energy have made the carbonate route uneconomical.
if you look at this drone shot of hmw from their recent investor presentation, you will notice that the first foothills on the right start almost immediately behind pond 1-1. in dfs stage two, only 3-22 is closer to the foothills on the right. from the angle of the drone shot, one can only assume that major earthworks will already be required on the left-hand side for ponds 3-15 to 3-21. fact is that jp stated with regard to topography that hmw and candelas offer enough space for ponds. this is correct in theory. at least up to stage 2, this has been proven by studies. with my contributions, i only wanted to provide a rational theory on the obvious reduction in value due to the market. for potential buyers pursuing a carbonate strategy, this could explain why an agreement between buyer and seller will not be reached. i think that the chloride route has created a significant advantage. the number of ponds has been significantly reduced. perhaps some people don't understand how valuable this change of route has been for all sh in retrospect.
my theory can easily be disproved by asking the right questions at the next investor conference:
1) were there interested buyers who wanted to buy all of hmw's plots, or was their interest limited to the front ones?
2) after the publication of the hmw pea and candelas pea, was there any doubt about the expansion of annual carbonate production rates beyond the rates quoted in the pea? if so, have these doubts arisen because of the lack of space for more ponds?
3) have you considered the possibility of a fixed power supply from high-voltage lines?
i am still of the opinion that the carbonate route was rejected because a) the properties do not allow a significant increase in the annual production rate due to their topography and b) the supply of energy would have put too much pressure on the economics of the project on the capex and opex side.
in an earlier article, mondy impressively demonstrated on the basis of the quarterly cash flow reports that this company is not a 'lifestyle' company that pays above average wages to their mgmt. we will hopefully all see how ingenious the chloride strategy is with its gradual development by 2025 at the latest. we still have a few hurdles to overcome. i am very confident that i will see many of you here in 2025 / 2026 after a huge increase in valuation.
(20min delay)