Power Australia: A flawed but welcome new law to fight climate change Down Under

Australia has a new environmental law of the land. It may not be perfect but it is consequential. Keep in mind that eight years ago, the previous Government repealed the nation’s environmental law which included a carbon pricing scheme.

Subsequent drastic climate events, including a punishing heat wave, huge fires which made international news and unprecedented strains on the power grid lent a sense of urgency to developing a new national environmental policy. Just as was the case in the United States, political change has turned a nation’s policy from climate denier to climate change combatant. Furthermore, and not coincidentally, the new law, officially called the Climate Change Bill 2022 but known as ‘Power Australia’, has been promulgated by Labor (loosely speaking, read Democrats in the US), with help from the Greens, and isn’t popular with Conservatives (read Republicans). But just as the Inflation Reduction Act miraculously passed both Houses in the US, so too did the Power Australia bill become law.

What does the Australian law do? Well, it aims to achieve a 43% reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030, and net-zero by 2050, partially by mandating that 82% of Australia’s electricity will be provided by a pantheon of renewables. It requires “climate benefits” to be measured annually but does not include stipulations for conducting such measurements. Nonetheless, the key objectives are broadly in line with other global commitments and the law puts Australia firmly back in the climate game.

According to press reports, “The law was broadly welcomed by business groups and the environmental movement.” Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said “Legislating these targets gives certainty to investors and participants in the energy market and will help stabilize our energy system.”

No law is ever perfect, of course, and therefore this one has its critics. The main complaint about the law is that it doesn’t include a “carbon count” mechanism. What does this mean? It refers to two important aspects not codified in the law, the first of which, as mentioned above, would be a version of a carbon credit scheme encouraging companies to offset their carbon discharge. These are in place in the US and Canadian climate laws, and play an important role in encouraging the energy industry in particular to invest in renewables to avoid gradually increasing “carbon fines” on their operations.

Perhaps more importantly, the law doesn’t deal with the so-called social cost of carbon emissions. This refers to a cost-benefit analysis conducted on proposed projects in which, if a project is deemed to result in increased carbon emissions, the social cost of carbon multiplied by the expected emissions is added to the cost of the project, while conversely, if the project reduces carbon emissions, the calculated carbon savings are deducted from the project cost. Particularly in public-private projects, this savings makes the project more attractive and reinforces carbon reduction market decisions.

In both the US and Canada, federally-funded infrastructure projects are required to perform the social carbon cost calculation, while in the US, 14 States, including California and New York, also use this measure. At the State level in California, the law also requires all privately funded infrastructure projects – including proposed mining activities – to apply the social calculus. The Biden Administration has set the social figure at $76/ton, applicable to all federal projects. A new study conducted by researchers at the University of California Berkeley and the NGO Resources For The Future, published in ‘Nature” this month, sets that cost at $185/ton.

So what makes up the “social cost” of carbon? The short answer, according to Stanford University: the main components are what happens to the climate and how these changes affect economic outcomes, including changes in agricultural productivity, damage caused by sea level rise, and declines in human health and labor productivity.  Although already hard enough to quantify, many economists and social activists argue that this doesn’t go far enough but should also include social justice factors – for instance, the human damage done by building highways through the heart of cities and isolating or destroying entire communities. The $185/ton cited in the ‘Nature’ study attempts to include these factors, as well as (inter alia) risks to insurance companies resulting from sea level rise and persistent flooding.

So, back to Australia, where environmentalists hope that the social cost of carbon will be included in the implementing legislation setting the standards for measuring carbon reduction progress or lack thereof. Reportedly the national Infrastructure and Transportation plan already incorporates social cost considerations and could serve as a template for a national measurement standard.

In any event, this is a strong step for Australia in the fight to save the planet.

When it comes to ESG, it’s Rule Brittania

The world is writing about the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, and indirectly so am I. What does her death have to do with ESG? I’ll answer that question in a moment, but here’s a clue: it has to do with policy and direct and indirect influence on corporate behavior.

First, let’s set the stage. A couple of recent surveys highlight disparities in ESG performance metrics among US companies and between US companies and the world, indicating that particularly US companies still have room to improve.

A 2021 study by Navex indicated strong ESG adoption across public and private companies, with 81% of participants saying their company had ESG programs in place while 63% of companies had increased focus and spending on ESG over 2020. But when asked to evaluate the effectiveness of corporate programs by focus, the results dropped precipitously. Only 50% of participants rated their corporate programs as very effective in the environmental arena, 39% highly effective in governance, and 37% effective in social matters. Despite these results (or perhaps due to them), 87% said their brand reputation was or is impacted by the company’s ESG performance.

European companies, however, are out-performing US counterparts both in voluntarily initiated ESG programs and in formal program implementation with 86% of French and German companies scoring well, 82% of UK companies and only 74% of US companies.

In additional to the operational level, European companies also lead in providing strategic guidance on ESG by forming dedicated Board committees to oversee policies and operations. Although the UK’s governance code, for instance, requires FTSE 100 companies to have audit, remuneration and nomination committees, there is no such stipulation for environmental, social and governance practices. Nonetheless, according to a recent Bloomberg article, 54% of FTSE 100 companies voluntarily have structured Board committees on ESG, while (according to Deloitte) only 13% of S&P 500 companies have done so. What this suggests is that European companies have embraced the strategic importance of ESG much more fulsomely than have US counterparts.

Or, as Maria Hughes, director at UK-based Mattison Public Relations said: “If you are a FTSE 100 company without an ESG committee at board level, then you are now in a shrinking minority.”

So, with all that said, what about the passing of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne of King Charles III? Well, as Prince of Wales, Charles was ahead of the global wave supporting and advocating for sustainable development and ESG principles. For over 50 years he developed and launched several important international initiatives, often in cooperation with organizations such as the United Nations. One such group, the Sustainable Market Initiative, has had broad but relatively shallow corporate support. According to their website 500+ CEOs pledged support for the so-called Terra Carta (a Bill of Rights for the Earth); 15+ CEO-led Task Forces have been established with 150+ global CEO members, and 47 global organizations have been awarded the Terra Carta Seal. Sadly, so far no mining companies are on that list.

Now that Charles is King, he is likely to redouble his efforts to advance sustainability and ESG, using one of the most important bully pits in the world – the British monarchy. And now that he is King, those efforts might attract broader and deeper support including – hopefully – from the global mining industry.

As for the US, companies have been improving but have a way to go. Particularly given new incentives from the USG and increasing scrutiny from investors and the public, US companies may rise to the challenge.

Florida’s Ron DeSantis declares war on ESG

So, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced last week that he was, via executive fiat through the State Board of Administration, ordering that “social, political or ideological interests” be banned from consideration when making decisions for the State’s pension fund. Now, this is noteworthy for several reasons, but before I get to those, let me just quote the astonishing insight behind this decision. Here it is:

“Corporate power has increasingly been utilized to impose an ideological agenda on the American people through the perversion of financial investment priorities under the euphemistic banners of environmental, social and corporate governance and diversity, inclusion and equity.” 

Some might say that other institutions, such as the Supreme Court, are doing a much more direct and vigorous job of imposing an ideological agenda on the American people than corporations – but, laying that aside, let’s take a look into a couple of aspects here.

At least the Governor knows his enemy, correctly spelling out what ESG and DEI stand for. But does he know what they represent?

E is for Environment. Increasingly fragile in the Southern Coastal States, where rising oceans, more deadly hurricanes and more prolonged and destructive rainfall are imposing billions of dollars in actual costs and threatening to create a tide of “climate refugees” forced to relocate from formerly prime real estate. Seems like a responsible political leader would laud corporate efforts to reduce the climate impact of operations, especially if your state has 1,350 miles of coastline.

S is for Social, i.e., people (otherwise known as voters or constituents, in this context). To save time, and because they flow together, let’s also discuss diversity, inclusivity and equity (DEI) in this space. Aside from the human impacts mentioned above under environment, all these elements taken together represent important decisions by businesses to try, within reasonable constraints, to ensure that their workforces more closely resemble the faces seen in America – and other countries – in all their varied skin hues, genders and philosophies. In other words, to value and respect each human individual for what they contribute to advancing the business. Funny – seems like a politician or a political leader should be very interested in a bigger tent filled with more – and more diverse – supporters.

G is for governance. Following laws, doing the right thing, having clear procedures, and being bound by ethics and morality… seems like those all are good things. Or maybe not, for some.

If nothing else, however, Governor DeSantis also may be threatening the well-being of State retirees with this decision, by reducing the return on the State’s investment portfolio. Why? Studies have shown a positive relationship between ESG and financial performance. In other words, ESG-conscious companies earn more returns for investors.

One such study, conducted in 2021 by the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business and Rockefeller Asset Management, looked at performance metrics from 2015-2020 and found a 58% positive relationship between ESG and financial performance. This study also notes: “In addition, in a recent study by Rockefeller, top quintile ESG improvers (based on Rockefellers’ proprietary ESG Improvers Score) outperformed bottom quintile ESG decliners by 3.8% annualized from 2010 to 2020.”

Large institutional investment houses such as Schwab also recently have developed ESG investment portfolio recommendations for their clients, as well as establishing its own ESG ETF. This is unlikely to happen unless ESG investing is at least potentially profitable and provides individual as well as institutional investors the option of allocating investments in a way aligned with their personal or corporate values. Nothing about that seems to smack of “corporate imposition” to me.

But then, what can you expect from a man who has gone to war with Mickey Mouse?

dynaCERT puts its carbon emission reduction technology to the test

Getting companies to adopt climate change initiatives is no easy task. Many economists believe that carbon pricing – either through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs – is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon taxes provide a financial incentive for businesses and households to reduce their energy use and switch to cleaner fuels.

Carbon pricing provides across-the-board incentives to reduce energy use and shift to cleaner fuels and is an essential price signal for redirecting new investment to clean technologies. The carbon emissions and credit game is tricky, but pricing carbon is critical in deterring fossil fuel use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Technology is going to play a vital role in the facilitation of climate change initiatives. There is an enormous opportunity for companies with climate change and carbon credit technologies. McKinsey reported that the carbon credit market could be worth $50 billion by 2050.

One company that has been involved in carbon credits and carbon reduction is dynaCERT Inc. (TSX: DYA | OTCQX: DYFSF). dynaCERT was one of the first companies to focus on carbon credits, and they have been working with Verra, the largest governing body for carbon credits, for over two years. dynaCERT’s Carbon Emission Reduction Technology (CERT) creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand through a unique electrolysis system and supplies these gases to engines to enhance combustion, resulting in lower carbon emissions and greater fuel efficiency.

Verra “announced to dynaCERT that it’s Methodology in respect of its Carbon Credit Certification has reached a new important stage.” This technology can be a significant benefit for companies looking to offset their carbon emissions, and dynaCERT is at the forefront of this rapidly growing industry.

InvestorIntel interviewed dynaCERT’s President, CEO, and Director Jim Payne about its recent efforts and technology to reduce carbon emissions and generate carbon credits. Payne is excited about the commercial prospects for his company’s innovative technology. He noted that several large corporations have expressed interest in using dynaCERT’s products to reduce their emissions. These companies are attracted by the potential for significant reductions in emissions – up to 50 percent – as well as the carbon credits that will be generated.

On August 22nd, dynaCERT announced a new customer as both a showcase of their technology and one that could further their long-term prospects. The city of Timmins in Ontario, Canada, is committed to conducting a comprehensive pilot program to determine the city’s economic, social, and governance (ESG) objectives. As part of this program, the city has installed ten of dynaCERT’s HydraGEN™ units on various diesel-powered city vehicles. The units are expected to reduce fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions footprint, and carbon and NOx emission. Significantly, the pilot project will run and test the technology well into the Canadian winter months.

The program is planned to begin in September 2022, where equipped municipal vehicles will be analyzed to determine the impact of dynaCERT’s technology on emission reductions and fuel savings. The city expects to install HydraGEN™ Technology on buses, landfill equipment, garbage trucks, and other diesel-powered equipment. The results of the pilot program will be closely monitored to assess the potential benefits of dynaCERT’s technology for the City of Timmins, as well as a test case for other municipalities and potential commercial customers, which will be closely monitoring the results of the program in Timmins, which is considered a hub of the progressive mining and forestry community.

Although dynaCERT also recently announced the departure of two directors and a change of auditors, at publication date the company’s stock has seen a steady increase over the past two weeks from $0.10 to about $0.22. There is clearly a growing appetite at many levels for carbon emission reduction technologies.

Mining our way to the Green Revolution

The widespread commitment to living “greener” has never been greater. The ecological movement was a fringe concept in the 1960s when some scientists and futurists began to make dire predictions about limits to growth and pending ecological disasters. Sixty years on, with increasingly wild weather, droughts, and melting polar ice, the ecological fringe has become mainstream, not just in popular culture but also in boardrooms.

Paradoxically, communist China has proven to be a vivid example of the perils of capitalism in a hurry. While the industrial revolution in the West took place over two and a half centuries, China’s industrial revolution compressed its rush to catch up and join 21st century affluence into the last two or three decades. The result has been the ability to observe their ecological disaster unfold at ten times the speed. Willing to sacrifice the environment for industrial dominance and general prosperity – as the West did for centuries – China rapidly polluted their rivers with toxins, the land with heavy metals, and their air with thick, sulfur-laden smog.

Some business leaders in the West see this as the “China advantage” and continue to advocate for the loosening of environmental and other regulations here to “stay competitive,” even as China itself is realizing that its polluting ways are not sustainable in the long run as they poison their country.

China is in the very early stages of balancing prosperity and sustainability. In 2021 China’s own carbon market became fully operational. Many other developing countries in Africa, South America and Asia are facing the same conundrum and represent many points along the long road to economic advancement. Politicians there are often too willing to allow foreign companies to create ecological and social disasters to line their own pockets. Before we get too smug, the same battles have occurred here in the not too distant past and even continue today with “cut the red tape” politicians who push back against environmental regulations, motivated by either ideology or their donor lists.

For many, getting to a greener tomorrow is portrayed as an assault on our lifestyle and standard of living. While we have a long way to go before we make the shift away from oil, it has become widely accepted that oil will eventually have to go if we are to get to a carbon-neutral world. Oil production and consumption have increased with world population, but the search for new energy technologies and materials alternatives has never been more serious.

And therein lies the problem.

Electric vehicles rely on rare earths and other battery materials. These critical minerals are mined and processed, but for years there has been a concerted and sustained opposition to mining as an industry. This opposition has been on the basis of both disruption of local populations and the potential for ecological disaster. Someone once observed the truth that mining is the destructive use of land, although in the past few decades there have been added additional layers of regulatory oversight and restrictions. There are still jurisdictions around the world that turn a blind eye (for a price) to environmental sloppiness by local or international miners, but western countries are increasingly extending strict environmental (and anti-corruption) rules to overseas operations. Securities regulations require environmental assessments and investors and auditors expect regular and glowing ESG disclosure.

Experts have been warning that there are significant shortages coming of the necessary critical minerals required for green, carbon-neutral energy sources and technology. Even ignoring geopolitical supply issues, the world simply does not currently produce enough basic materials like nickel and copper to supply the near-term electric vehicle demands, let alone more exotic materials like rare earths for EV magnets, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and the consumer electronics we cannot live without.

The bottom line is the green revolution is going to take a lot more mining and mineral processing. The only way we will ever reach a greener, carbon-neutral future will be through the mining and processing of critical minerals. It has to be done responsibly and intelligently, but it has to be done, and it has to be done quickly to meet the coming demand. China learned that sacrificing the environment for speed results in disaster, but a balance has to be found if we are going to have the materials needed to get to a green future before it is too late.

Sometimes the only way out is through.

Greenwashing – It’s not easy pretending to be green

Today’s mining industry is not the mining industry of your grandfather – but you wouldn’t know it judging by popular (mis)conceptions and perceptions. The vast majority of companies have invested extensively in technologies allowing cleaner and more profitable operations, and in programs promoting durable economic development in communities near mine sites.

So, if this is the case, why are there so often accusations of “greenwashing” and what the heck is greenwashing anyway?

Simply stated, greenwashing is when a company which isn’t doing very much to transform its operations to a more sustainable and equitable footing wants to pretend otherwise. Greenwashing often is characterized by vague and sweeping statements of intent rather than concrete and specific examples of programs and practices. It is an attempt to convince investors and the public that a company is doing more than it is in the domain of “green.”

Now, there are a couple of important caveats. First, the degree of specificity for a company depends on its stage of development. A junior exploration company, for instance, clearly has far fewer specifics to cite and therefore statements of intent, coupled with the specific examples possible (often involving reduced drill waste and improved post-drilling restoration, for example) are perfectly acceptable. Not so, however, for mature production companies. Second (and applicable throughout the industry) there is an understandable confusion about what is regarded as acceptable investments and program performance to merit the designation of “sustainable green production.”

Some international and regional organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union are diligently working on sustainable mining standards, as do some individual countries. In the US, for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission is actively working on developing standards which reportedly may resemble those of the EU while incorporating some of the principles of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Within the UN SDGS, item #12, Responsible Consumption and Production, is of particular relevance to the extractive industries.

Fundamentally, the concept of responsible stewardship is at the heart of sustainable mining, and applies equally to all three elements of ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance.

One possible format for concretely reporting on activities related to being or becoming sustainable has five areas, including:

  1. Reduce, Reuse and Rethink mining waste (tailings and beyond);
  2. Water (same three R’s as above and incredibly key);
  3. Lower CO2 emissions by transitioning to renewable energy supporting operations. Some companies also are exploring carbon credits by, among other options, maintaining more forested areas within concessions;
  4. Ensure communities thrive both during and after the life of the mine. This involves extensive consultations and cooperation with expert implementing bodies; and,
  5. Restore the land to its natural state at the conclusion of the mine cycle. One useful source working on global standards is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in Geneva.

In addition to working on developing standards for producers, governments such as the UK have produced guides for investors to try and determine whether a company is green or is simply greenwashing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed similar investor guidelines in June of this year, but so far these apply only to advisors and funds, not extractive companies.

However, the probable intention of the SEC, that such funds and investors in turn will pressure mining companies to be more specific and transparent in their ESG disclosures, apparently is paying off, potentially allowing their goal to be achieved without the need to produce prescriptive and controversial guidelines. Rumors continue to abound, however, that such specific guidance may yet be forthcoming.

The bottom line? To be green in practice likely also is to be green in profit, as investors increasingly will choose true green over greenwashed.

The Inflation Reduction Act delivers a mixed bag of successes and failures for EVs and the green economy

Did anyone besides me hear happy hollering last week? Probably so – the Democrats in the U.S.A. unexpectedly delivered a piece of legislation which, in the current conflicted context, can reasonably be called a win for the so-called green economy.

Also known as Build Back Better’s Baby Brother in disguise, the bill does contain some important, and even some surprisingly positive provisions, such as: tax credits to encourage further deployment of wind and solar power, as well as development of geothermal (one of the surprises); tax credits to encourage businesses to source more of their energy needs from renewables; tax credits for carbon capture technology; and tax credits for the nuclear industry, with special reference to the new generation “mini-nukes,” but also including older reactors, some of which would have been retired either this year or next (another surprise). So, big wins for the energy industry.

Now, some of the hollerings might not have been as happy as some of the provisions are markedly less positive. Most spectacularly, excluding both Tesla and Lucid Motors’ high-value (and pricey) cars from the consumer tax credit. Although not explicitly named, GM’s EV division also might find itself in difficulty, since the tax incentives are for cars made using inputs which do NOT come from “unfriendly” countries. Given China’s 80% market share, that makes it pretty hard to qualify a made-in-America EV for the credit. This definitely is going to solidify Elon Musk’s conviction that the US government is out to get him, and could throw a spanner into Tesla’s reported plan to source its rare earths and other materials from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country not on the official “friends” list (at least not yet…?) despite the recent visit by the Secretary of State.

Following along the same line, Congress missed yet again what is arguably the most important link in the green supply chain, and certainly the most fundamental, i.e., actual mining of rare earths and other critical materials such as lithium in the domestic US.

While there are various incentives already in place from prior legislation such as the Defense Production Act to spur research and development in separation and production technologies, and even funding for construction of a full-cycle separation/refining plant in the US, the failure to address the hostile climate toward actually MINING the materials needed for the refining plant continues to undermine the achievability of a viable US green economy. (Yes, those puns are intended).

Obviously, miners – senior as well as junior – would welcome financial incentives and/or government-sponsored assistance in attracting private investment to support development of new mines. But even more, companies would welcome recognition by Washington that without actually producing primary materials such as rare earths and lithium in the US, the separation and production facilities in the US are going mostly to process materials sourced elsewhere. Kind of defeats the purposes of shortening supply chains and securing reliable supply, doesn’t it?

Of course, with mid-term elections approaching and seeming more up for grabs than usually is the case, the Democrats don’t want to risk alienating a core constituency (young “greens” and environmentalists) by appearing to promote digging actual holes in the ground. But – and especially if they manage to pull larger majorities out of these midterms (thanks more to errors by the Republicans than any genius on their part) – one has to hope that in the final two years of this Administration someone will courageously decide to tackle streamlining the regulatory process, providing clarity to companies and investors on a reasonably short development timeline and even, perhaps, incentivizing investment into the primary mining production segment of the “green” US economy.

Optimistic, you say? Agreed – but pragmatically speaking, without even such relatively minimal changes, it’s far from clear that the US will arrive where it says it wants to go.

Announcing the Launch of the Critical Minerals Institute for Companies and Experts Focused on Electric Vehicles, Green Energy and Secure Supply Chains

Toronto, August 14, 2022 – It is with great pleasure that the Critical Minerals Institute (CMI) announces its founding as an international organization for critical mineral companies and professionals designed to address relevant issues relating to the establishment of secure supply chains from mine to manufacturing in not just rare earths but all 50 vitally important critical minerals.

Focused on battery materials and electric vehicles, along with the use of critical minerals for energy and green energy production, CMI Founder Tracy Weslosky explains: “With uncertainties in Russia and China escalating concerns around secure supply chains, governments have been offering sizable incentives for everything from facilitating faster production timelines to advancing extraction technology processes. Unfortunately, the required infrastructure or expertise is often lacking. CMI was created to offer education, collaboration and an online platform designed to solve these issues through both online and in-person networking events.”

“There has already been incredible interest in the Critical Minerals Institute,” Founder and Executive Chairman Jack Lifton said. “From the first time we mentioned it to our extensive network of industry contacts, we have literally been inundated with calls from government, public companies and industry experts wanting to support and participate in this important initiative.”

 Jack is the Editor in Chief, Critical Minerals for InvestorIntel Corp., and is a recognized international critical minerals expert, who coined the term “technology metals” over a decade ago. He is joined by President and Director, Alastair Neill, who has more than 25 years of experience managing all facets of rare earths and critical minerals.

With over 250,000 combined hours of professional experience in the critical minerals sector, Executive Chairman Jack Lifton and President Alastair Neill are joined by the following industry experts on the CMI Board: Peter Clausi, Christopher Ecclestone, Byron W. King, Stephen Lautens, Alister Macdonald, Melissa Sanderson and Tracy Weslosky.

The Critical Minerals Institute is planning to hold its first summit on November 9th in Toronto, bringing together international industry leaders, governments and companies at the historic National Club to discuss emerging trends in battery materials, technology metals, defense metals, ESG technologies, the general EV market, and the use of critical minerals for energy and green  energy production. The Critical Minerals Summit (CMS) has confirmed that Geoff Atkins of Vital Metals Ltd. (ASX: VML | OTCQB: VTMXF) and Constantine Karayannopoulos of Neo Performance Materials Inc. (TSX: NEO) will be the keynote speakers. The CMS will also have as a guest speaker Charlie Angus, MP, author of “Cobalt: The Making of a Mining Superpower.” For more information, go to www.CriticalMineralsInstitute.com or to request a delegate pass, click here

About the Critical Minerals Institute:

The Critical Mineral Institute (CMI) is an international organization for companies and professionals focused on battery materials, technology metals, defense metals, ESG technologies and practices, the general EV market, and the use of critical minerals for energy and alternative energy production. Offering an online site that features job opportunities that range from consulting roles to Advisory Board position, the CMI offer a wide range of B2B service solutions. Accompanied by online and in-person events, the CMI is designed for education, collaboration, and to provide professional opportunities to meet the critical minerals supply chain challenges.

For more information, go to CriticalMineralsInstitute.com or contact info@criticalmineralsinstitute.com or +1 416 792 8228. TwitterLinkedIn

Jim Payne of dynaCERT talks about creating fuel efficiency and generating carbon credits

In this InvestorIntel interview with host Tracy Weslosky, dynaCERT Inc.‘s (TSX: DYA | OTCQX: DYFSF) President, CEO, and Director Jim Payne talks about its patented technology for carbon emission reduction to meet ESG goals.

In the interview, which can also be viewed in full on the InvestorIntel YouTube channel (click here to access InvestorChannel.com), Jim tells Tracy that “dynaCERT was going to be at the forefront of the carbon credit world long before even carbon credit was something anybody was talking about.” He explains how dynaCERT’s Carbon Emission Reduction Technology (CERT)  creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand through a unique electrolysis system and supplies these gases to engines to enhance combustion, resulting in lower carbon emissions and greater fuel efficiency. Jim says that dynaCERT has been working with Verra, the largest governing body to approve and register carbon credits, for over two years.

Talking about commercializing and expanding dynaCERT’s customer base, Jim continued, “we have some of the largest companies in North America that have been talking to me for quite some time. They want they want the carbon credits, they want the bragging rights, they want to be able to say that they have adopted our technology for the carbon credits.” These include municipalities in Canada and in Europe and some of the largest power supply companies in Canada, and also fleets of diesel vehicles. “We improve the fuel economy, more importantly we reduce the emissions right at the source, right at the combustion and we reduce the emissions north of 50 percent,” he says. “By adopting our technology they meet and exceed  their goals for the emission reductions, so there’s a lot of excitement there.”

To access the full InvestorIntel interview, click here.

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here.

About dynaCERT Inc.

dynaCERT Inc. manufactures and distributes Carbon Emission Reduction Technology for use with internal combustion engines. As part of the growing global hydrogen economy, our patented technology creates hydrogen and oxygen on-demand through a unique electrolysis system and supplies these gases through the air intake to enhance combustion, resulting in lower carbon emissions and greater fuel efficiency. Our technology is designed for use with many types and sizes of diesel engines used in on-road vehicles, refrigerated trailers, off-road construction, power generation, mining and forestry equipment, marine vessels and railroad locomotives.

To know more about dynaCERT Inc., click here

Disclaimer: dynaCERT Inc. is an advertorial member of InvestorIntel Corp.

This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp., (IIC), does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the “Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken, as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please contact us at +1 416 792 8228 and/or email us direct at info@investorintel.com.

Nano One’s cathode materials are inventing the zero-emission battery future

Every once in a while, something that you have been working on, seemingly forever, starts to come together and that momentum starts to snowball. Today we are going to discuss a company that recently announced Q2 results with several exciting highlights that are the result of many years of hard work and determination. And although this article isn’t part of the critical minerals series, this company is inextricably linked to EV batteries, the processing of critical minerals and has already received funding from the Canadian Federal Government as well as the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program and is engaged in the Mines-to-Mobility initiative. And if that isn’t enough of a teaser for you, their stock price has rallied over 140% since hitting its 52-week low in mid-May. It has been a solid couple of months, to say the least.

The company that has been on a pretty good roll of late is Nano One Materials Corp. (TSX: NANO), a clean technology company with a patented, scalable and low carbon intensity industrial process for the low-cost production of high-performance lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The technology is applicable to electric vehicle, energy storage, consumer electronic and next generation batteries in the global push for a zero-emission future. Nano One’s One-Pot process, its coated nanocrystal materials and its Metal to Cathode Active Material (M2CAM) technologies addresses fundamental performance needs and supply chain constraints while reducing costs and carbon footprint.

The second quarter news flow began in late May with the acquisition of 100% of the shares of Johnson Matthey Battery Materials Ltd. located in Candiac, Québec. The acquisition included the team, facilities, equipment, land and other assets, with highlights of the deal being:

  • A team with more than 360 years of scale-up and commercial production know-how
  • Team and facilities proven in supplying tier 1 cell manufacturers for automotive
  • LFP facility and land strategically located near Montréal and operational since 2012
  • Facility and equipment that can serve Nano One’s process needs with room to expand
  • Expedites Nano One business strategy for LFP and other battery materials

The fully funded C$10.25 million deal is strategically located and has the benefit of access to a North American ecosystem that will serve the broader global community with cost-effective, resilient, and environmentally sustainable cathode materials. If you’ve been following my critical minerals series you’ll recognize that this is an opportunistic deal that is the right asset in the right location at the right time.

Nano One quickly followed up with another, even more important (in my opinion), corporate announcement less than a week later by signing a joint development agreement (JDA) for lithium-ion battery materials with industry giant BASF. The JDA will see the companies co-develop a process with reduced by-products for commercial production of next-generation cathode active materials (CAM), based on BASF’s HEDTM-family of advanced CAM and using Nano One’s patented One-Pot process and metal direct to CAM (M2CAM®) technologies. The multi-phase agreement includes a detailed commercialization study for pre-pilot, pilot and scaled up production. BASF, a global leader in chemistry and high-performance lithium-ion battery cathode materials, has recognized Nano One’s advanced technology that has the potential to improve the product performance of BASF’s high-performance CAM and further simplify the synthesis of battery materials.

And if all the above wasn’t validation enough that Nano One has finally made it to the big leagues, less than 2 weeks after the BASF news the company announced a US$10 million equity investment by one of the world’s largest mining companies, Rio Tinto. In addition to the investment, Rio Tinto has agreed to enter into a strategic partnership to provide iron and lithium products, all of which will accelerate Nano One’s multi-cathode (multi-CAM) commercialization strategy and support cathode active materials (CAM) manufacturing in Canada for a cleaner and more efficient battery supply chain for North American and overseas markets. The collaboration agreement includes a study of Rio Tinto’s battery metal products, including iron powders from the Rio Tinto Fer et Titane facility in Sorel-Tracy, Québec, as feedstock for the production of Nano One’s cathode materials, which dovetails nicely with the first deal noted above.

Nano One finished Q2 with cash and cash equivalents of C$48 million, which represents roughly 14% of their C$343 million market cap. With abundant capital to deploy, plenty of tailwinds for the industry as a whole, and a team with ample experience in financing, capital growth, technology management, chemistry, engineering, materials science, batteries, and intellectual property, it seems the company is really hitting its stride. I dare say, based on the recent news flow, there could be a lot more to come from Nano One.