Almonty's Investment Case Rests on Two Very Different Ledgers

Almonty shareholders are being asked to weigh two unrelated sets of numbers against each other. One is operational and sits in a Korean valley: a filter press running at half its design rate, and a replacement unit bought in from Korea to fix it. The other is legal and sits in a Canadian court: roughly USD 67 million in claims filed by Deutsche Rohstoff, set against counterclaims from Almonty that carry plenty of allegations but, for the most part, no price tag.

Neither ledger is settled. Together they frame the central question for anyone holding the stock — whether the company can turn a tight Western tungsten market into dependable production before its legal exposure hardens into an actual obligation.

What the price signal does and does not say

Start with the market, because that is where the opportunity supposedly lies. In his Sunday newsletter, Almonty chief executive Lewis Black cited an industry consultant's view that Western tungsten prices had eased only marginally over the preceding two weeks. Chinese export licensing restrictions, meanwhile, continue to crimp the supply of intermediate products reaching the Western spot market.

Read those two statements together and the picture sharpens. A modest price pullback on its own tells you very little. The more useful signal is the persistent bottleneck in intermediates, which is precisely the gap additional suppliers could fill. For Almonty, that is the opening — but only a potential one. A constrained market creates the chance to sell; it does not guarantee anyone can deliver.

Sangdong is where the thesis gets tested

That distinction lands squarely at Sangdong, where Black reported on Sunday that commissioning is still underway. A filter press has been processing 40 tonnes per hour against a design capacity of 80 tonnes per hour. The company's response was to purchase a replacement press in Korea.

Should investors sell immediately? Or is it worth buying Almonty?

Buying the equipment is the straightforward part. Making it work is the part that decides whether the market opportunity converts into revenue. Investors should treat the purchase as evidence that management has identified the constraint, not as proof that it has removed it. The reliable operation of the plant remains the economically decisive test, and it is the number to watch as commissioning continues.

Montana sits in a separate category

Gentung in Montana belongs in the same conversation but not the same column. Black described the site as a dormant tungsten project under development, with Almonty intending to proceed in line with whatever the permitting situation allows.

That makes Gentung a permitting story rather than an operating one, and it should be valued on that basis. Sangdong represents execution; Montana represents optionality contingent on approvals. Lumping the two together overstates how much of the pipeline is currently actionable.

The Canadian claim carries a real number

Against that operational backdrop sits the dispute with Deutsche Rohstoff, which has put a figure on its demands. The company is seeking approximately USD 67 million in Canada, comprising claims on 3.5 million conversion shares and the repayment of liabilities. According to Deutsche Rohstoff, around EUR 10 million is due and the performance deadline has passed.

The composition matters as much as the total. A claim for conversion shares is satisfied in equity; a claim for repayment is satisfied in cash. Those are different obligations with different consequences for the balance sheet, and investors should weigh them separately rather than treating the headline sum as a single exposure. If Almonty successfully defends the claims, the financial burden is smaller — but the risk of a repayment obligation is real to the extent Deutsche Rohstoff prevails on the liabilities it asserts.

Almonty's counterclaims lack a number

Almonty's own demands concern the return of shares tied to the 2014 sale of the Wolfram Camp Mine in Australia. The proceedings have been consolidated. Deutsche Rohstoff has dismissed Almonty's allegations as unfounded and largely time-barred — an assessment that comes, it should be noted, from the opposing party.

Almonty at a turning point? This analysis reveals what investors need to know now.

Almonty's claims could carry economic weight if they succeed, but their significance is hard to gauge while the damages remain largely unquantified. That asymmetry is the crux: one side has priced its demands, the other has not. Investors therefore have to assess both the legal merits and the economic scale of the counterclaims, and only one of those two variables currently comes with a figure attached.

What would actually settle the question

The valuation question that matters is what concrete obligation could emerge for Almonty from the dispute. A transparent quantification of the counterclaims — one that also makes their basis clear — would go a long way toward resolving it.

Relief would come either from defeating the claims or from prevailing on its own. A hit would come from enforced repayments or the delivery of the conversion shares sought. Until a court clarifies matters, the sensible approach is to hold the quantified demands and the unquantified counterclaims in separate mental accounts, and to judge Sangdong's ramp-up on its own terms rather than as a hedge against either outcome.

Ad

Almonty Stock: New Analysis - 12 November

Fresh Almonty information released. What's the impact for investors? Our latest independent report examines recent figures and market trends.

Read our updated Almonty analysis...