2 Comments

Thanks for the thesis.

The TAM should be adjusted IMO. Instead of calculating the total amount of mines, better to ask, how many of the total mines are eligible to use their solutions? E.g. is it all type of mines that are potential candidates, including coal, metal, nonmetal, stone and sand&gravel? These should then be excluded. Then one should also consider how large the miners should be in order for their solutions to be cost-effective for the miners, instead of just getting rid of the water in some other way.

The next thing that should be adjusted IMO, is the revenue per captured project. If we assume they capture 4 miners per year, but only 15% of these become projects, then I get the following calculation:

4 proj/yr * 20yr * ($1.5M*5yr+0.15* ($1.5M * 15 yr + $0.2M*10yr)) = $894M. I.e., roughly $1B in recurring revenue for 20 yrs. They captured 3 projects in 2022 and 2 projects 2023. Assuming they capture 2-3 per year instead we get $500-750M instead. Still good, considering they have $16.6M TTM of revenue today so a 30-60 bagger in 20 years (12-15%CAGR), assuming same multiples and magins as today, IF nobody else is able to develop a better solution during these years or if they go private/aquired.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the feedback. 4 proj/yr comes from the CEO. For my model I calculate with a 50% revenue increase / year.

Expand full comment