Media

[curiousmagpie]

everyone still happy with management and only the swedish bureaucracy to blame?

no missteps from the team?

MT wasn't joking when he told you to sell if you want the price to go up any time in the next 5 years was he?

 

[Gvan]

everyone still happy with management and only the swedish bureaucracy to blame?

no missteps from the team?

MT wasn't joking when he told you to sell if you want the price to go up any time in the next 5 years was he?

Is waiting for substantial free money due in the next quarter a misstep? Must they charge ahead with FID before further grant funding? Should they attempt to finance the mine before the ResourceEU picture becomes clear?

The grant they're expecting is $180m AUD, which is equivalent to 450m new shares, roughly 50% dilution, taking the share count to just under 1 billion. I think I’d rather wait a couple more months.

 

[curiousmagpie]

Is waiting for substantial free money due in the next quarter a misstep? Must they charge ahead with FID before further grant funding? Should they attempt to finance the mine before the ResourceEU picture becomes clear?

The grant they're expecting is $180m AUD, which is equivalent to 450m new shares, roughly 50% dilution, taking the share count to just under 1 billion. I think I’d rather wait a couple more months.

is the $180MM grant similar to the first one where it is paid into Talga's account within months? because the €70MM grant did nothing, one would assume because there are too many conditions and it takes too long to access it. people are understandably skeptical that another grant will make the share price go up

when do you think the resourceEU picture becomes clear and how do you rate Talga's chances of being in the first round and receicing money? is the EU going to include Talga when there are still possibilities of year(s) of appeals against the mine?


i do appreciate your responses so thank you

 

[Chieftain02]

Is waiting for substantial free money due in the next quarter a misstep? Must they charge ahead with FID before further grant funding? Should they attempt to finance the mine before the ResourceEU picture becomes clear?

The grant they're expecting is $180m AUD, which is equivalent to 450m new shares, roughly 50% dilution, taking the share count to just under 1 billion. I think I’d rather wait a couple more months.

The grant they are expecting but don't even know when it will be announced, "Talga has applied for a transformative 1.1 billion SEK (~A$180 million) ‘Industrial Leap’ grant from the Swedish Energy Agency (“Industriklivet 2”), with the outcome expected in Q1 CY2026". Then after diluting shareholders some more and delaying this forever project some more, the POTENTIAL grant funding decision is also pushed back a whole quarter. You would think a management team that is just sitting on their asses at the moment destroying shareholder value, would at least know when to expect the grant outcome. Looks like 2026 the year of "harvesting" is another year of delay, dilution and disregard. The quite a lot of commercial progress that Mark said we should expect to see something coming out over the quarter in the public eye? I certainly have not seen anything, just a new set of fancy slides that pushed back the project even further. Every broker in Australia knows Talga is a company of inaction, just look at the level of institutional ownership and the share price. Hardly screams EUs flagship anode project.

 

[Gvan]

is the $180MM grant similar to the first one where it is paid into Talga's account within months? because the €70MM grant did nothing, one would assume because there are too many conditions and it takes too long to access it. people are understandably skeptical that another grant will make the share price go up

when do you think the resourceEU picture becomes clear and how do you rate Talga's chances of being in the first round and receicing money? is the EU going to include Talga when there are still possibilities of year(s) of appeals against the mine?


i do appreciate your responses so thank you

The $180m grant will come from the Industrial Leap program, which is the same program as the previous small grant. This suggests the company could receive funds relatively promptly, though in practice it may not make much difference if FID is planned for midway next year after engineering completes.

I wouldn't say the €70m grant is doing nothing. It’s fully approved for the refinery build, and the company will draw down on it once the remainder of the refinery’s financing is in place. Your concerns about the Innovation Fund aren’t unfounded: the main complexity comes from the grant application process itself. I saw that recent news reports indicate up to 3,000 hours of work can be involved in preparing the application. However, once the grant is approved, continued funding only requires milestone reporting.

The ResourceEU picture will become clearer over the next 12 months, when 25 out of 60 strategic projects are expected to be selected and €3b allocated. The EU clearly recognises Talga’s importance, looking back at the Innovation Fund, fewer than 20% of applications are successful.

I believe Talga’s chances of receiving further ResourceEU financing are high. Graphite anode production is a top priority for the EU, probably only behind rare earths. Talga is already engaged with the defence sector, and geopolitical tensions make securing strategic materials increasingly important. It would be illogical to fund the refinery but not the high-grade resource that fuels it. Within the EU, there are very few advanced anode projects and Talga is clearly among the leading ones.

Regarding permitting: if the EU were to take an ultra-cautious approach and avoid projects with possible appeals, most strategic projects would be ruled out. Talga’s stage 1 permitting is effectively complete: land allocation and building permits can be appealed, but compared to other projects, it’s largely a done deal. For example, GreenRoc Minerals recently received their exploitation concession but still requires environmental permits... by that logic, they wouldn’t qualify either. The same can be said about many other strategic projects. They're behind Talga in terms of permitting.

Additionally, like the refinery, ResourceEU funds will likely only be drawable once construction starts at the mine site. Talga is aiming for 2029, which essentially mitigates the impact of any remaining appeals.

 

[curiousmagpie]

The $180m grant will come from the Industrial Leap program, which is the same program as the previous small grant. This suggests the company could receive funds relatively promptly, though in practice it may not make much difference if FID is planned for midway next year after engineering completes.

I wouldn't say the €70m grant is doing nothing. It’s fully approved for the refinery build, and the company will draw down on it once the remainder of the refinery’s financing is in place. Your concerns about the Innovation Fund aren’t unfounded: the main complexity comes from the grant application process itself. I saw that recent news reports indicate up to 3,000 hours of work can be involved in preparing the application. However, once the grant is approved, continued funding only requires milestone reporting.

The ResourceEU picture will become clearer over the next 12 months, when 25 out of 60 strategic projects are expected to be selected and €3b allocated. The EU clearly recognises Talga’s importance, looking back at the Innovation Fund, fewer than 20% of applications are successful.

I believe Talga’s chances of receiving further ResourceEU financing are high. Graphite anode production is a top priority for the EU, probably only behind rare earths. Talga is already engaged with the defence sector, and geopolitical tensions make securing strategic materials increasingly important. It would be illogical to fund the refinery but not the high-grade resource that fuels it. Within the EU, there are very few advanced anode projects and Talga is clearly among the leading ones.

Regarding permitting: if the EU were to take an ultra-cautious approach and avoid projects with possible appeals, most strategic projects would be ruled out. Talga’s stage 1 permitting is effectively complete: land allocation and building permits can be appealed, but compared to other projects, it’s largely a done deal. For example, GreenRoc Minerals recently received their exploitation concession but still requires environmental permits... by that logic, they wouldn’t qualify either. The same can be said about many other strategic projects. They're behind Talga in terms of permitting.

Additionally, like the refinery, ResourceEU funds will likely only be drawable once construction starts at the mine site. Talga is aiming for 2029, which essentially mitigates the impact of any remaining appeals.

thanks for the detail response as always. yes it's a good point about the permitting status of all other projects, it seems nothing in the EU goes ahead without objection.

are you expecting 2029 for start of construction of the mine?
and what in your opinion is the range of how much resourceEU funding would be available to Talga, and is there potential for the EU to pre-pay for strategic stockpiling of offtakes

 

[Gvan]

The grant they are expecting but don't even know when it will be announced, "Talga has applied for a transformative 1.1 billion SEK (~A$180 million) ‘Industrial Leap’ grant from the Swedish Energy Agency (“Industriklivet 2”), with the outcome expected in Q1 CY2026". Then after diluting shareholders some more and delaying this forever project some more, the POTENTIAL grant funding decision is also pushed back a whole quarter. You would think a management team that is just sitting on their asses at the moment destroying shareholder value, would at least know when to expect the grant outcome. Looks like 2026 the year of "harvesting" is another year of delay, dilution and disregard. The quite a lot of commercial progress that Mark said we should expect to see something coming out over the quarter in the public eye? I certainly have not seen anything, just a new set of fancy slides that pushed back the project even further. Every broker in Australia knows Talga is a company of inaction, just look at the level of institutional ownership and the share price. Hardly screams EUs flagship anode project.

View attachment 93705 View attachment 93704

That's just how the Swedish system works. Very rarely are their timelines set in stone.

From the same presentation you're quoting:

Industriklivet (Industrial Leap) Grant 2: €100m
Proposed to fund first 5,000 tpa anode production line and infrastructure, significantly reducing incremental funding requirements for ramp-up to 24,5000tpa
DECISION DUE Q1 2026

It may be that it is announced in Q1 (previous announcement said Feb-March), but only officially approved in Q2, which matches the previous small grant from the same program (about a month between announcement and actually receiving the funds).

What would you prefer the company do in this situation? Go ahead with FID before exploring substantial grant options that they are likely to receive? You mention dilution and destroying shareholder value, but how exactly would that workout?

 

[Gvan]

thanks for the detail response as always. yes it's a good point about the permitting status of all other projects, it seems nothing in the EU goes ahead without objection.

are you expecting 2029 for start of construction of the mine?
and what in your opinion is the range of how much resourceEU funding would be available to Talga, and is there potential for the EU to pre-pay for strategic stockpiling of offtakes

Talga have gone with a modular approach, utilising their already available feedstock/ability to use recycled graphite and are only aiming for the mine to be operational by 2029 at the earliest. You can see their timeline has become more clear in their recent presentation. Sweden is slow, but that’s more than enough time for all appeals to have run their course, while still allowing construction time etc.

As an example, pre-CRMA selection, initial permit approval to final Supreme Court dismissal of all appeals: 1 year, 6 months, 25 days. I highly doubt any appeals against the building permit and land allocation will last anywhere near this, especially after strategic selection.

From DI: “Talga’s ambition is to open the Vittangi mine about a year after the factory, but this may take longer because the company can also rely on recycled graphite, partly from Northvolt’s closed recycling plant, Revolt.”

I believe this could change drastically depending on demand (keep an eye on local content requirements, January 28 next year).

I’d be heavily speculating to answer your last two questions. The mine’s Capex is within the scale of what a single project could attract under ResourceEU, though it would likely be combined with strategic partner investment.

 

[curiousmagpie]

Talga have gone with a modular approach, utilising their already available feedstock/ability to use recycled graphite and are only aiming for the mine to be operational by 2029 at the earliest. You can see their timeline has become more clear in their recent presentation. Sweden is slow, but that’s more than enough time for all appeals to have run their course, while still allowing construction time etc.

As an example, pre-CRMA selection, initial permit approval to final Supreme Court dismissal of all appeals: 1 year, 6 months, 25 days. I highly doubt any appeals against the building permit and land allocation will last anywhere near this, especially after strategic selection.

From DI: “Talga’s ambition is to open the Vittangi mine about a year after the factory, but this may take longer because the company can also rely on recycled graphite, partly from Northvolt’s closed recycling plant, Revolt.”

I believe this could change drastically depending on demand (keep an eye on local content requirements, January 28 next year).

I’d be heavily speculating to answer your last two questions. The mine’s Capex is within the scale of what a single project could attract under ResourceEU, though it would likely be combined with strategic partner investment.

one more for you to heavily speculate on - why do you think EcoGraf now has a similar market cap to Talga given what would seem to be an inferior proposition? why do you think investors are not buying the talga story and why are they not looking in advance to a grant that matches the whole market cap?

 

[Gvan]

one more for you to heavily speculate on - why do you think EcoGraf now has a similar market cap to Talga given what would seem to be an inferior proposition? why do you think investors are not buying the talga story and why are they not looking in advance to a grant that matches the whole market cap?

The market is not always rational. Anyone who repeats the line that “the market is always right” is incorrect. Markets are made up of people with emotions, different time horizons, and very different levels of understanding. You only have to look at how quickly panic or anger sets in when a share price drops 2%, or the insanity on display during the COVID period, to see that clearly. That irrationality is also what creates opportunity. If markets were always efficient and rational, money would be far harder to make.

I currently hold a Phase 3 biotech with a market cap of only ~$130m, despite the drug being used for over 60 years, having a long safety record, and potentially addressing a global unmet need with disease-modifying properties. Why is it valued so cheaply? Outside of the actual trial risk itself, the major issue is funding risk. Until that risk is removed, the market heavily discounts the company, regardless of its underlying merits.

I think Talga is being treated in much the same way. Despite the staged approach, the capex is large, and the market is currently assuming that a major equity raise at the parent level is inevitable. That fear, whether justified or not, suppresses valuation and stops investors from pricing in future upside, including grant funding.

Africa compared to the EU is probably another reason. Every time you look at Talga, they’re seemingly going through an appeal. Thats an unattractive event. Africa has the sovereign risk, but is certainly viewed as faster.

Talga also has a loyal shareholder base that is essentially boiled on and currently sitting on a large paper loss. This likely contributes to the share price pressure. Many holders have been worn down by the prolonged appeals process and, as a result, either have no further capital to allocate or are simply unwilling to do so after carrying a significant paper loss for several years.

Talga’s staged approach may be the correct option in terms of minimising dilution, reducing risk and actually achieving FID during a difficult time when supply chains are only now being transitioned away from China, but it has also pushed out the timeline, with nameplate only going to be reached beyond 2029. So, there is certainly some justification in a lower share price, too.

 

[curiousmagpie]

The market is not always rational. Anyone who repeats the line that “the market is always right” is incorrect. Markets are made up of people with emotions, different time horizons, and very different levels of understanding. You only have to look at how quickly panic or anger sets in when a share price drops 2%, or the insanity on display during the COVID period, to see that clearly. That irrationality is also what creates opportunity. If markets were always efficient and rational, money would be far harder to make.

I currently hold a Phase 3 biotech with a market cap of only ~$130m, despite the drug being used for over 60 years, having a long safety record, and potentially addressing a global unmet need with disease-modifying properties. Why is it valued so cheaply? Outside of the actual trial risk itself, the major issue is funding risk. Until that risk is removed, the market heavily discounts the company, regardless of its underlying merits.

I think Talga is being treated in much the same way. Despite the staged approach, the capex is large, and the market is currently assuming that a major equity raise at the parent level is inevitable. That fear, whether justified or not, suppresses valuation and stops investors from pricing in future upside, including grant funding.

Africa compared to the EU is probably another reason. Every time you look at Talga, they’re seemingly going through an appeal. Thats an unattractive event. Africa has the sovereign risk, but is certainly viewed as faster.

Talga also has a loyal shareholder base that is essentially boiled on and currently sitting on a large paper loss. This likely contributes to the share price pressure. Many holders have been worn down by the prolonged appeals process and, as a result, either have no further capital to allocate or are simply unwilling to do so after carrying a significant paper loss for several years.

Talga’s staged approach may be the correct option in terms of minimising dilution, reducing risk and actually achieving FID during a difficult time when supply chains are only now being transitioned away from China, but it has also pushed out the timeline, with nameplate only going to be reached beyond 2029. So, there is certainly some justification in a lower share price, too.

thanks, hard to disagree with any of that, although hard to see what will change the sentiment required as investors are clearly fatigued and there seems to be very little institutional interest on market

do you think Talga is fairly valued at 35-40c then? and if not what do you see as fair value now, and after the $180m grant?

 

[Gvan]

thanks, hard to disagree with any of that, although hard to see what will change the sentiment required as investors are clearly fatigued and there seems to be very little institutional interest on market

do you think Talga is fairly valued at 35-40c then? and if not what do you see as fair value now, and after the $180m grant?

No, I believe Talga is undervalued. Unlike the market, I have high conviction that the company won’t be heavily diluted. There are simply too many favourable financing options available, particularly for strategic projects. Talga would not announce that they have applied for the $180 m grant if they weren’t confident, let alone base their FID plans on it.

Industrial Leap is designed to support projects through the full value chain, so it would be counterproductive for them to fund engineering with the smaller initial grant but not the commercial plant. Sweden is actively encouraging investment. Delays like those reported by Talga or Northvolt's failure do not incentivise investment. That needs to change.

Even with supposedly negative news today (the 2035 ICE ban being watered down to 90%), the broader context is still positive, see the Battery Booster Package News:

"With €1.8 billion, the Battery Booster will accelerate the development of a fully EU-made battery value chain. As part of the Battery Booster, €1.5 billion will support European battery cell producers through interest-free loans. Additional targeted policy measures will support investments, create a European battery value chain, and foster innovation and coordination across Member States. These measures will enhance cost competitiveness, secure upstream supply chains, and support sustainable and resilient production in the EU, reducing reliance on dominant global market players."

I still expect Talga to have a strategic partner come in, but not on unfavourable terms, given the influx of supportive funding.

Mark Thompson has been cautious in giving timeline updates after failing to meet previously set ones, but Talga has now released multiple updates on their projected FID timeline. This further indicates confidence in completing a grant-led FID for their initial 5 ktpa line.

I also have further confidence because my investment thesis has so far played out as expected, albeit delayed: permitting has been overcome, municipal obstruction overruled, strategic selection achieved and increased geopolitical tension which has caused an acceleration in decoupling from China.

If the $180 m grant is approved, then theoretically it should increase the company’s fair value by a similar amount. Whether the market immediately reflects that is another question, because again, the market is not always right.

 

[TentCity]

The market is not always rational. Anyone who repeats the line that “the market is always right” is incorrect. Markets are made up of people with emotions, different time horizons, and very different levels of understanding. You only have to look at how quickly panic or anger sets in when a share price drops 2%, or the insanity on display during the COVID period, to see that clearly. That irrationality is also what creates opportunity. If markets were always efficient and rational, money would be far harder to make.

I currently hold a Phase 3 biotech with a market cap of only ~$130m, despite the drug being used for over 60 years, having a long safety record, and potentially addressing a global unmet need with disease-modifying properties. Why is it valued so cheaply? Outside of the actual trial risk itself, the major issue is funding risk. Until that risk is removed, the market heavily discounts the company, regardless of its underlying merits.

I think Talga is being treated in much the same way. Despite the staged approach, the capex is large, and the market is currently assuming that a major equity raise at the parent level is inevitable. That fear, whether justified or not, suppresses valuation and stops investors from pricing in future upside, including grant funding.

Africa compared to the EU is probably another reason. Every time you look at Talga, they’re seemingly going through an appeal. Thats an unattractive event. Africa has the sovereign risk, but is certainly viewed as faster.

Talga also has a loyal shareholder base that is essentially boiled on and currently sitting on a large paper loss. This likely contributes to the share price pressure. Many holders have been worn down by the prolonged appeals process and, as a result, either have no further capital to allocate or are simply unwilling to do so after carrying a significant paper loss for several years.

Talga’s staged approach may be the correct option in terms of minimising dilution, reducing risk and actually achieving FID during a difficult time when supply chains are only now being transitioned away from China, but it has also pushed out the timeline, with nameplate only going to be reached beyond 2029. So, there is certainly some justification in a lower share price, too.

Hi Gvan

If you don’t mind me asking - which biotech stock are you referring to?

I also invest in biotech and hold a significant stake in one particular company whereby the CEO is also the single largest shareholder and fortuitously avoids diluting shareholders into oblivion like many others in that space!

Given how much due diligence you undertake in Talga, I’m sure you apply the same level of consideration to your other investments, hence why I hope you and others on the thread don’t mind the slightly off topic question!!

As for Talga, I share your same level of conviction in their potential but like many never envisaged it getting back to COVID price levels, but will be holding long term and adding through the SPP.

 

[Gvan]

Hi Gvan

If you don’t mind me asking - which biotech stock are you referring to?

I also invest in biotech and hold a significant stake in one particular company whereby the CEO is also the single largest shareholder and fortuitously avoids diluting shareholders into oblivion like many others in that space!

Given how much due diligence you undertake in Talga, I’m sure you apply the same level of consideration to your other investments, hence why I hope you and others on the thread don’t mind the slightly off topic question!!

As for Talga, I share your same level of conviction in their potential but like many never envisaged it getting back to COVID price levels, but will be holding long term and adding through the SPP.

Hi TentCity,

Yes, off-topic for one moment so apologies to TLG holders:

Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, PAR

They’re repurposing Pentosan polysulfate sodium to treat osteoarthritis. It’s interesting because IPPS has a long history of successful treatment before PAR’s trials. Used by vets on dogs for many years prior, compounding chemists have also treated patients with it and it is available on the SAS within Australia now with 700+ patients already treated. This exceeds the Phase 3 trial, which is 450 patients.

Unlike many other biotechs, the actual drug and its effects are well known, with many investors actually having first-hand experience with a family member successfully treated etc.

The safety profile is also extremely good, most common side effect is ecchymosis at the injection site and it also acts as a mild anticoagulant. Comparatively to existing treatment for osteo, opioids and NSAIDS, those side effects are extremely mild.

It has also shown potential for disease-modifying properties. Bone-marrow lesions on the knee healing etc. Which is also exciting, because there is no widely approved disease-modifying OA drug (DMOAD) in routine use yet.