Great read about EMH, page-32

@Fingers xed ,
Mate, I feel you are deep... deep, deep, deep into EMH. Sometimes when you get so engrossed in things its hard to gain perspective. I think what others are trying to say is that there are significant discrepancies without proper explanation and your retorts although encouraging, don't explain it.

The updated cost savings announced were not provided by Cobre or Lepidico, so I dont know how that would explain the blow out. In my opinion, EMH should be very thankful to Cobre. Cobre came to EMH who were on their death bed with a very ordinary scoping study for tin tungsten and suggested their lithium waste was worth something before lithium was hot. The rest is history.

@juk is right. The cost of Lepidico concentrate purchase is, if anything, inflated. Saying you spoke to Lepidico should not be perceived to give your argument credit. Do not claim what you cannot prove-Nothing you said indicated you spoke to Lepidico. You say Lepidico strung along EMH. I would say it was the other way - with EMH portraying the use and costs of Lmax, all whilst using the more expensive route. For me the proof is in the the PFS comparisons.

Unfortunately the IRR is not encouraging enough to draw the right sort of investment. 70 billion worth of lithium in the ground isnt worth squat if you cant build a plant and recover if efficiently. I am bullish on EMH, but the recent costs are not as good as they could be. The current remedy is, lets double production... still this is not the answer. Sure the OPEX $/t will be lower but the CaPEX will be even worse. That is not even digging into the whole problem of market disruption by adding 40kt LCE (or 20% of global production!)