Where can investors turn when global quantitative easing and the Energizer Bunny of dollars is crushing commodity prices to within an inch of the junior miners’ lives? In this interview with The Mining Report, Disruptive Discoveries Journal writer Chris Berry suggests dedicating yourself to understanding the technologies and paradigm shifts that can lower costs, and participating in the growing electric car and energy storage battery markets. He names some of the innovative companies that are finding new ways to separate the most valuable resources and enter the supply chain before it is too late.
The Mining Report: You have talked in the past about the epic macroeconomic battle being waged between inflation and deflation. What are the indicators you are watching and where are we headed?
Chris Berry: Right now, the scales still appear to be tipped toward deflation, but that’s not uniform across the globe. It still appears that disinflation is the predominant force: There is evidence of economic growth, but productivity is stagnating and living standards are moderating as we haven’t seen the “escape velocity” growth necessary to start a new economic cycle. The excess supply in many commodities like iron ore is referred to as “good” deflation. However, savings rates are up and consumer demand is lagging. This is “bad” deflation. According to economist Gary Shilling, both of these are happening today. It appears that economic liftoff has been postponed. The secular stagnation thesis put forth by Larry Summers looks increasingly valid.
Disinflation is one of the reasons commodities, metals in particular, have been under pressure for the last couple of years. Globally, central banks have embarked on unprecedented measures, including quantitative easing (QE), to kick start their economies. The QE program in the U.S. has ended, but the results are mixed. Unemployment has fallen precipitously, but concerns over wage gains and the “types” of jobs created linger. The Federal Reserve, in particular Chairwoman Janet Yellen, seems intent on a Fed Funds rate increase, but precisely when is a moving target. Given the recent softness in economic data in the U.S., a rate hike could be pushed to the end of the year as opposed to June, which is when many were thinking it would happen.
The Eurozone has embarked on its own version of QE to the tune of about €60 billion a month, and Japan has been involved in its own QE program of unprecedented size. In short, no intervention of this type has generated the 2% inflation target that central banks are targeting. It appears that they are running out of tools to ignite escape velocity growth. If you think of debt as future consumption denied, then deleveraging obviously still has a long way to go before a new credit cycle can begin.
Around the world, inflation appears dormant for the moment. Rates in many parts of the world are actually negative, specifically in Europe. What this means is that you, as an investor, pay the government to lend it money, a phenomenon known as financial repression. This policy is intended to discourage saving and encourage consumption and spending. When we observe the beginning of the formation of a normal yield curve, we will have the first sign that the commodity cycle is indeed turning. It just doesn’t appear to be imminent right now. The problem is secular and not cyclical.
Additionally, U.S. dollar strength has put a lid on commodity prices. As you can see below, the U.S. dollar (shown in white) has gone parabolic since last year against other currencies. There really is no need for the Fed to tighten as the stronger dollar is in itself a tightening measure for the U.S. economy.
The U.S. dollar has taken a little bit of a breather, and that’s why we’ve seen a floor in some of the commodity prices, in particular gold (shown in orange). Copper seems to have bottomed nicely, which is a positive. But because many commodities are priced in U.S. dollars, they become more expensive in other currencies as the U.S. dollar strengthens.
U.S. Dollar and Gold
TMR: Will some commodities prices turn faster than others?
CB: The global economy is dealing with the excess capacity built up during the commodity supercycle in the last decade. This excess capacity will eventually be consumed, but it’s going to take time, and it’s going to vary from metal to metal.
Some of the energy metals—any metal or mineral used in the generation or storage of electricity—are growing well above global gross domestic product (GDP) and aren’t flooding their respective markets in the way that iron ore is. Examples include lithium, cobalt, vanadium, scandium, rare earth elements, uranium, and copper. I think this value chain is going to be an enormously profitable sector in the coming years. There is overcapacity in some energy metals today, but pricing, while soft, has seemed to stabilize.
In these smaller markets where many prices are negotiated from sale to sale, there is less elasticity than with other more liquid markets. Both lithium and cobalt are well supplied, just as base metals are. But lithium demand is growing at 8% and cobalt is growing at 6–7%. This has been fueled by a number of different catalysts including advances in technology and lifestyle changes that are pushing energy metals to the forefront. That said, it will likely be two or three more years before these markets equilibrate and we see stronger upward pricing pressure in these markets.
For any junior looking to be acquired, its financial metrics MUST match that of a major producer. For example, if a lithium junior is hoping to be taken out, it would need to show economics as strong as or stronger than anyone in the existing oligopoly. So if FMC Lithium Corp.’s (FMC:NYSE) EBIT margin on its lithium business is 10%, any lithium junior must show a margin of AT LEAST 10% to even be considered. With many of the juniors producing preliminary economic studies, it’s too early to tell which will be acquired and which will be forced to go it alone, as the economics in these studies can vary widely.
TMR: A lot of the energy metals growth is connected to electric vehicle (EV) batteries. You have been skeptical of Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA:NASDAQ), but the cars are so sleek and cool looking. What makes you think the demand for electric cars may not be as phenomenal as the headlines make them out to be?
CB: You’re correct when you say that much of the growth in energy metals demand comes from batteries. Outside of batteries, much of the energy metals growth is slower—tracking GDP. It’s very encouraging that battery costs are falling by 7% to 8% per year. Should this continue, it’s not that hard to see how vehicle electrification will become more ubiquitous in the coming years. With respect to Tesla, I’m really questioning the valuation. What troubles me most about Tesla is that it appears to be priced for perfection. Dozens of major automakers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, General Motors and Ford are entering the market with their own electric or hybrid vehicles and prices are bound to fall. That’s good for consumers, but a real challenge for automaker margins. Additionally, with mileage standards for internal combustion engine autos also increasing, EVs of all types are really going to have to enhance their overall economics to go mainstream.
Much of the value created so far in the battery supply chain hasn’t been in the automotive space. It’s been in the actual battery manufacturing niche. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (006400:KRX) purchased Magna International’s battery pack division and Asahi Kasei purchased Polypore International Inc. (PPO:NYSE) in recent weeks, all with the intention of fortifying their own battery businesses. I expect to see more consolidation like this higher up on the value chain.
We’ve also seen some interesting deals at a smaller scale with the British vacuum cleaner firm Dyson investing $15 million ($15M) in Sakti3, a small U.S.-based tech firm pioneering solid state lithium-ion batteries. This last point speaks to something that makes me somewhat nervous with the lithium-ion battery business as it exists today. As technology pushes forward and demand for smaller, more powerful devices increases, today’s technology may not be the optimal technology in five year’s time. Given this reality, the large battery factories currently under construction will need to be able to shift their production processes should technology shift. Ultimately, the question of raw material access will come front and center, but right now, major corporations haven’t publicly considered it to be a significant issue.
The real driver for battery growth won’t be vehicles—it will be energy storage. When we look at the rate of growth in solar power adoption, the costs are crashing through the floor—an example of good deflation. Over one third of new electricity capacity in the United States in 2014 came from solar and, since 2010, the average price of a photovoltaic module in the U.S. has dropped by 63%, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. As costs per watt continue to fall, photovoltaic installations are forecast to double in the U.S. in the next two years, to approximately 40 Gigawatts. The growth in other parts of the world is equally impressive. The natural step to get around the intermittency of renewable power is storage through batteries. I’m excited about the pace of innovation in the battery sector and think that this may ultimately be where Tesla has a substantial impact.
TMR: What are the mining companies that could supply the battery manufacturers with cobalt in the near- and medium-term future?
CB: I’ve previously discussed the leading junior cobalt players, which are Global Cobalt Corp. (GCO:TSX.V), Formation Metals Inc. (FCO:TSX) and Fortune Minerals Ltd. (FT:TSX). They each have a reasonable chance of integrating into global supply chains over the next few years. Right now, my focus is higher on the value chain. I pay particular attention to what a company like Glencore International Plc (GLEN:LSE), Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (FCX:NYSE), Vale S.A. (VALE:NYSE) or Sherritt International Corp. (S:TSX) is saying and doing. Is it working to increase supply and capacity or does it not view cobalt supply as something it needs to worry about? You don’t want to take your eye off of the juniors by any stretch of the imagination because in a few years they are going to be the next suppliers.
Another area to consider is recycling. I have long thought that cobalt could emerge as a pinch point for battery supply chains due to availability stemming from geopolitical issues and the fact that cobalt is mainly a byproduct. Should we see sustained higher cobalt prices, recycling could become more prevalent. It’s a remote possibility, but one worth considering.
A final note on cobalt: One of the real challenges with the energy metals space is that the pricing is opaque. A lot of it is determined based on handshake agreements and much of the publicly available pricing data is only indicative. Cobalt futures contracts are listed on the London Metals Exchange, so you can monitor what speculators and hedgers are thinking by studying the futures markets 12 to 18 months out. The cobalt futures curve is in backwardation right now, meaning that futures market participants are expecting higher cobalt prices in the future. There are a number of reasons for that, but the battery market growth really underpins it.
TMR: What are the sources outside of China that could supply lithium for battery manufacturing?
CB: The question is who can supply battery grade lithium—either carbonate or hydroxide—at a price competitive with the oligopoly? The majors such as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM:NYSE; SQM-B:SSX; SQM-A:SSX), FMC Lithium, Albemarle Corp. (ALB:NYSE), and the Chinese are able to supply the market and it appears that there is evidence of excess supply. Should lithium demand continue at its current pace, this excess will get mopped up over the next couple of years and therein is the window for new entrants. Orocobre Ltd.’s (ORL:TSX; ORE:ASX) performance this year should tell aspiring lithium juniors all they need to know about the state of the market and how easy or difficult it will be to integrate. Lithium is another one that I think has a positive future. It is oversupplied right now. It’s probably going to be a couple more years before that balance tips. The companies that I’m looking at right now are actively employing some sort of technology or strategy to lower costs and become more attractive, either as acquisition candidates or in order to raise financing.
I’ve discussed Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC:TSX; LHMAF:OTCQX) previously and its relationship with POSCO (PKX:NYSE). The demonstration plant POSCO has set up at Lithium America’s Cauchari salar in Argentina has met or exceeded expectations to date, having produced 6 tonnes of lithium compound last I heard. The material was sent back to POSCO in Korea for further testing and should be sent to potential end users to gauge suitability in end products. The technology POSCO is employing, as I understand it, is designed to enhance recovery rates, dramatically shorten the time it takes to produce lithium from brines, and do so with a dramatically smaller environmental footprint. If successful, this technology could upend the lithium market by reducing costs.
Lithium Americas and POSCO aren’t alone. Some of the other lithium juniors pursuing a low-cost production strategy through technology include Stria Lithium Inc. (SRA:TSX.V), Pure Energy Minerals Ltd. (PE:TSX.V), Nemaska Lithium Inc. (NMX:TSX.V; NMKEF:OTCQX) and two private entities I am aware of. Some of this technology is geared toward the hard rock production of lithium and, while details are sparse, I think it’s hugely important to watch each of these for success or failure. Of course, an unforeseen issue of technological success could be a flooding of lithium on the markets driving down the price. At this point, I’d say that’s a remote possibility, but one that can’t be dismissed out of hand.
TMR: Nemaska is focusing largely on lithium hydroxide and has its own pilot plant that it is building. Could that be a differentiator for the company?
CB: It definitely could. Some of the research I have done indicates that lithium hydroxide is preferable to lithium carbonate with respect to durability in the battery and that’s why we’re starting to hear more about it. Nemaska is forecasting production of both lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate to diversify supply somewhat. At current prices, lithium hydroxide allows for wider margins.
One other company that comes to mind for diversifying your product mix is Western Lithium USA Corp. (WLC:TSX; WLCDF:OTCQX). Its Hectatone business, which supplies what is known as organoclay to the oil and gas business, is ramping up, having sent its first shipment earlier this year to an end user. That production offers it a nice hedge and a separate revenue stream as it works toward getting its lithium business up and running. Western Lithium has also discussed recent success with continuous production of high purity lithium carbonate at a demonstration plant it has constructed in Germany. The company is also actively researching the lithium hydroxide processes and will continue pilot plant optimization to produce samples for potential customers.
A final company poised to benefit from the idea of optionality is Galaxy Resources Ltd. (GXY:ASX; GALXF:OTCMKTS). The company has recently closed on the sale of its Jiangsu lithium carbonate plant and now will have something in high demand in the mining business—cash in the amount of approximately AU$30M. Galaxy has also entered into a binding agreement with a company named General Mining Corp. to have it produce tantalum from the Mt Cattlin mine for a period of three years with the option to purchase the mine for AU$30M. Galaxy will generate cash—approximately AU$2.5M per year—plus a royalty from this agreement. There is more detail here, but I wanted to use it as an example of how optionality in the metals sector is a key strategy at this point in the cycle. Galaxy can go in a number of different directions.
TMR: What are the other energy metal raw materials that we should be watching?
CB: I’m particularly interested in scandium. While lithium and cobalt are the 800-pound gorillas in the space, scandium is much smaller and is misunderstood, I think. Though estimates vary, scandium is widely believed to be a 10 to 15 tonne per year market—that equates to about $40M. Once the potential for scandium is discovered, things will get very interesting and the market size could be multiples higher.
TMR: Scandium is used in advanced aircraft and metal halide lamps. What is the shape of the resource market and who are the promising players?
CB: In addition to my previous comments, there is no primary scandium mining anywhere on the globe right now. It’s produced as a byproduct in China and sourced from stockpiles in other parts of the world. Much has been written and published around the use of scandium in solid oxide fuel cells and also as an alloy with aluminum. A Google search for “Scandium patents” or something similar will validate this claim. So the issue isn’t potential demand; it’s security of supply. It’s a real chicken-and-egg quandary. Financing scandium projects will remain a challenge until people are convinced of a growing end market, but those end markets can’t grow until reliable supplies are on stream.
One of the companies I have focused on is Scandium International Mining Corp. (SCY:TSX), formerly EMC Metals Corp. The company recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and an offtake agreement for 7,500 kilograms per year of scandium starting in 2017 with a private Canadian company. If you assume a $2,000 per kilogram price for Scandia, which is what is assumed in Scandium International’s preliminary economic assessment (PEA), it’s not hard to see how it could become a powerful force in the global scandium market given its current size of approximately $40M.
TMR: Did the market recognize the importance of the MOU and the offtake agreement for Scandium International?
CB: No, I don’t think so. I think a lot of people are still learning about the scandium market and its potential. That’s one of the reasons why I’m so optimistic about it, because it’s not well understood. Again, a closer look at the potential math here tells an intriguing story.
Additionally, the company is working on optimizing its flow sheet, which should improve what are already strong economics at the PEA level. It does have $2.5M of convertible debt on its balance sheet. That comes due at the end of 2015 and needs to be addressed. The company can wipe the $2.5M in convertibles away and strengthen the balance sheet by raising $3M in equity.
TMR: The other metal needed for batteries is graphite. What are the prospects for that market and companies in that space?
CB: I’m following graphite, but I’m not as bullish on it as I am on some of these other resources that we’ve talked about. My sense is that too many juniors are focused on the EV market and would be better served by attending to some of the “less sexy” uses for graphite. The market is fragmented from a production perspective, which I think is a good thing if you’re a junior or an aspiring producer. But I’m much more focused right now on what a company like Imerys (NK:PA) or SGL Carbon SE (SGL:XETRA) is saying or doing in this space or AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group N.V. (AMVMF:OTC), a Dutch graphite producer. What is it saying? What is it looking at? Where is it going? Furthermore, what is happening with the long rumored closure of mines in China? AMG’s recent moves into Africa are a possible signal of expansion plans or opportunities in that part of the world. Some of the recent offtake agreements announced by aspiring Australian graphite juniors truly make your eyes pop out of your head and bear closer attention as the dust settles and we learn about them in more detail.
Graphite isn’t all that different from lithium in that I think the lowest-cost producers are best positioned to ride out the current malaise in the markets. I’ll be watching the performance of Flinders Resources Ltd. (FDR:TSX.V) closely, as the company has successfully achieved production. Going deeper into its financial performance can offer a valuable insight into what the market holds for the optimal North American juniors such as Northern Graphite Corporation (NGC:TSX.V; NGPHF:OTCQX) or Focus Graphite Inc. (FMS:TSX.V; FCSMF:OTCQX; FKC:FSE). In graphite, you need to be able to produce a product to the exact specifications of a given customer and do so profitably. A unique strategy may also be creating a company’s own high-tech supply chain, which Focus is aiming to do through a private subsidiary. This way, a company is not just subject to the cyclicality of the mining business and can enter higher margin businesses.
TMR: Rare earth elements (REEs) are used in a lot of new technologies, including batteries. Will non-Chinese REE companies start to come into their own as China begins to focus on its environmental challenges?
CB: That’s the thinking in the investing community. I’m inclined to agree with that with one major caveat. One of the things we’ve learned in the last five years as REEs have come to the forefront is that all deposits aren’t created equally. It seems that every time I turn around, there’s a new acronym to describe a deposit and what differentiates it. First, it was light versus heavy REEs, then it was critical REEs. Soon, it will be something else.
We have learned over the last five years that the technology used to extract, separate and purify the oxides is critical. As rare earth prices crashed, this became and remains painfully evident. In the same way that the right lithium production process can lower lithium extraction and production costs, a number of emerging technologies in the REE space can perhaps do the same thing. At the end of the day, we will still need to compete with China on price.
TMR: What are some of the companies that could benefit from these changing demand structures and the development of affordable separation and refinement technology?
CB: One that comes to mind is Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (UCU:TSX.V; UURAF:OTCQX). The company has been active in researching different extraction technologies in recent years, and it has recently acquired the rights to a process known as Molecular Recognition Technology (MRT). This technology was developed by a private company called IBC Advanced Technologies and through a joint venture with Ucore will allow it to pursue the separation of REEs on a molecular level. Ucore has been able to separate REEs at Bokan Mountain, as the company recently reported that it had separated the entire suite of REEs at high purity utilizing this separation procedure. MRT is currently used in copper refining by ASARCO LLC (AR:NYSE), so the technology is not new at all. Ucore’s next challenge will be scaling this process up and proving out superior economics.
One other one to watch is Commerce Resources Corp. (CCE:TSX.V; D7H:FSE; CMRZF:OTCQX), which is home to niobium and tantalum in the Blue River project in British Columbia and REEs in the Ashram project in Quebec. As the company ramps toward the feasibility stage, it has been focused mainly on optimizing the flow sheet at Ashram and has recently been able to significantly reduce consumption of primary flotation reagents at bench scale. This is important as it will help drive down costs and enhance economics. The tantalum is sort of a secret weapon and dovetails nicely with the theme of optionality I spoke about earlier. It gets overlooked and isn’t really factored into the current valuation of the company, but it could pay off in the long run.
TMR: We have covered a lot in the energy metals space. Some of our investor readers have been very stressed watching some of the prices lately. What words of hope and wisdom do you have for them?
CB: I have been stressed, too, so know that you are not alone. During the first decade of this century, we all benefitted from the commodity supercycle, the likes of which many of us had never seen before. Now that growth has slowed, it’s forcing us all to adapt and re-examine our expectations and approach. But even while some of the macro headwinds I talked about at the beginning of the interview are still visible, there is cause for optimism. The global economy is still growing overall and technology is advancing at an ever faster pace. I don’t think investors should throw the baby out with the bath water and disregard commodities out of hand because this cycle will turn eventually. What we’re experiencing now calls for a more innovative or creative approach to investing in metals.
It is more important than ever to find the low-cost, sustainable opportunities. Right now, a lot of them are leveraging technology to lower costs and enhance returns. I would temper your expectations for short-term exponential gains. You have to have patience to be in the junior space right now, but ultimately it will be vindicated.
TMR: Thank you for your time, Chris.
Chris Berry is a writer, speaker and analyst who is focused on the dynamism of energy metals—those metals or minerals used in the generation or storage of energy. He is a student of the theory of Convergence and believes it will have profound effects across the globe in the coming years as urbanization, innovation, and technology create multiple opportunities. Active on the speaking circuit throughout the world and frequently quoted in the press, Berry spent 15 years working across various roles in sales and brokerage on Wall Street before shifting focus and taking control of his financial destiny. He is the co-author of The Disruptive Discoveries Journal. Berry holds a Master of Business Administration in finance with an international focus from Fordham University, and a Bachelor of Art in international studies from The Virginia Military Institute.
Want to read more Mining Report articles like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you’ll learn when new articles have been published. To see recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit The Mining Report home page.
Source: JT Long of The Mining Report
1) JT Long conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report, The Life Sciences Report and The Mining Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee. She owns, or her family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: Commerce Resource Corp., Focus Graphite Inc., Galaxy Resources Ltd. and Nemaska Lithium Inc. The companies mentioned in this interview were not involved in any aspect of the interview preparation or post-interview editing so the expert could speak independently about the sector. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.
3) Chris Berry: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Scandium International Mining. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I determined and had final say over which companies would be included in the interview based on my research, understanding of the sector and interview theme. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
4) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts’ statements without their consent.
6) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.
Streetwise – The Gold Report is Copyright © 2014 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.
Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.
Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.
Participating companies provide the logos used in The Gold Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.