ADN 3.57% 27.0¢ andromeda metals limited

Hi mate, can't comment for the exact academic differences...

  1. 865 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 645
    Hi mate, can't comment for the exact academic differences between zeolite/halloysite but I can tell you a bit about research and the process that it goes through. I will try to keep it contextual in ADN's case also.

    Universities typically partner with industry bodies or businesses in order to conduct research to prove a hypothesis/theory (depending on the type of project) that is usually in response to a real world problem.

    An example would be conducting a study on men doing exercise during cancer treatment and seeing whether exercise can help with body markers. This is relatively straight forward as you have a population (men), intervention (exercise) comparison (with/without exercise) and outcome (improvement in body markers or nil).

    In ADN's case, the research is a bit different. It's not as straight forward as above because they are in part designing the hypothesis/theory. Researchers are trying to work out if halloysite nanotube material is able to help in particular contexts. They are proving whether it is a viable solution.

    In the first example, we know that exercise is beneficial but we are seeing if it works in the context, and the research, depending on the strength of the findings will back that hypothesis.

    In ADN's case, we haven't exactly proven that halloysite nanotube material is a solution to a real world problem. We know that it works, but in what capacity, in what application, and to what strength or degree of confidence? (More below).

    Therein is the basis for the PHD students both working for ADN and for GICAN. They are trying to prove that the solution works with a larger confidence interval ("which are able to deliver experimental findings to substantiate by theoretical calculations and simulations").

    You can post as much research as you like but research is never really taken seriously unless it is a) posted in a reputable journal, b) peer-reviewed, c) dated within the last 5 years and d) of high quality/strength which is to say there is high sample sizes, it can be repeated and validated by an external party and they can reproduce the results.

    This is the biggest barrier for research. If you can't prove what you are saying, it's very, very, very hard to attract funding to continue the research.

    Now, luckily in our case, ADN / MEP have a 50:50 JV creating NNPL who in partnership with GICAN have developed what they believe to be a solution to capturing carbon material from the atmosphere and producing a byproduct that can then be converted into methanol.

    Their theory/hypothesis then becomes "Can activated / functioned halloysite nanotube material (mesoporous material) be used in carbon capture AND conversion and processed into fuel"

    Luckily for us they are the ones funding the project and have already proven this in the past by creating this material through their smaller scale pilot plant.

    So it becomes less a case of having to try and prove the solution to try and attract more funding (and then commercializing the process) but rather a commercial exercise itself. We are in the unique advantageous position of being able to sole-fund the project and not rely on others. I can assure you getting funding for research is a straight up nightmare and pretty much the biggest barrier to anything ever becoming a streamlined commercial project.

    What ADN / MEP > NNPL are now currently doing with GICAN is upgrading that pilot plant to create larger sample sizes that are no longer theoretical in nature as they have a real world application that actually works (submarines, for example). They have an established market and are now able to produce the material for test work at the end user.

    This is why it's so exciting. We can skip a lot of the painful part of research by being the researchers ourselves, and funding it ourselves. Uniquely and luckily for us the CC project is not so theoretical. Other applications like water remediation, hydrogen storage etc are more theoretical. If the team can actually use the "upgraded" material that the halloysite has unlocked to achieve the performance improvements that the customer wants, and then will ultimately pay for, you then have NNPL as a cash-generating enterprise.

    The question then becomes how the hell do you value it, who gets the money, how is it distributed etc.

    Say they sell the fullerene material and it achieves as James says a few $m/pt - I would want to see near all this money go back into scaling the research. Why? Well, just as above. Money is what makes research go around. Hire more staff. Increase the scale of the test work. Involve more people. Collaborate, innovate, etc.

    ADN / MEP is undervalued in my personal opinion due to NNPL - this is fair enough as it is impossible to put a figure on it. But so far the research is pretty good, they have a pretty good sales network and it's looking as though they can commercialize the opportunity. I don't quite think people understand just how much this is typically a failure and how rarely things like this actually happen in the real world.
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add ADN (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
Mkt cap ! $602.7M
Open High Low Value Volume
28.0¢ 28.0¢ 26.0¢ $1.504M 5.579M

Buyers (Bids)

No. Vol. Price($)
16 145282 26.5¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($) Vol. No.
27.0¢ 550420 8
View Market Depth
Last trade - 15.28pm 18/01/2021 (20 minute delay) ?
-0.010 ( 4.46 %)
Open High Low Volume
28.0¢ 28.0¢ 26.0¢ 2814798
Last updated 15.48pm 18/01/2021 (live) ?
ADN (ASX) Chart
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.