Top twenty shareholders, page-198

Good post vmp.
I'm interested to see the UG details as well as this will be the first of it's kind so it's very interesting.

Among the things you have listed which will bolster the NPV i'd also like to see them;
-use revised spod pricing. the Roskill arms length assumed 690USD/T where as current pricing is much lower 500USD/T. They based the NPV from 2024 so i'm assuming that's when they were targeting production. So it probably doesn't effect LTR too much as not planning to be producing in the next couple years.

IMV 690USD/T probably still a bit high long term, but do expect demand to increase significantly over next couple years so the current price of 500USD/T shouldn't stay in play too long. Positively if LTR produces a product of higher grade it should receive better than the SC6 price. usually 10-15USD for every .1% so maybe an extra 50-100USD if they can supply 6.5-7% Spod Conc.

-Use a reasonable exchange rate. 0.8USD was just wrong. There's conflicted info in the PFS presentation where is says 0.8 USD exchange rate in the sensitivity slide and then 0.72 in the assumption slide at the back of the pack.

Also on grade.
The PFS was based on 50.4mT @ 1.18% grade. (reserves). This was when the MRE was 75mT and 1.3%.
In case people are wondering why the PFS grade is less than the MRE this is because the PFS is constructed around mine study. So you may have higher grade zones but are not part of the economically mined part. I assume from the announcements read that a portion of the 25mT left over was the higher grade zone at depth which was excluded.

In this case the grade of the reserves may actually be higher as the underground mining aspect will be targeting high grade zones and so investors might actually see a reserves category quite close the the MRE grade of 1.4%. Also i'm assuming it was a typo stated 126mT as its actually 156mT.

I think the study will show promising economics and as stated personally am intrinsically interested in the underground aspect as well as the WOF so see how this stacks up economically. I'm aligned with scarpa in term of valuation i think LTR fairly valued on KV and exploration upside at Julimar. Ultimately the drills need to return results. Assays and rock chip sampling imv can be difficult to quantify economic importance. You see rock chip sampling of gold 1000g/t but then there's nothing economic.

In the thread, 'Further outstanding results from Moora Project' a holder in
Post #:45816539 asked a question I did get a little laugh out of. "what are good grades?" and not a single person answered. I'm assuming because people didn't know. But then there are posts getting 30 likes which just say "these grades are amazing!" Well are they? compared to what. One might actually want to know what a good or bad result looks like so that when an announcement is released you can formulate an opinion for yourself as opposed to taking the views of other people operating from confirmation bias and little knowledge. @68stang the below might be of help.

I was also a little shocked that .9g/t Au was the best someone has seen in 35years of geology. For context a pure gold mine - 1g AU is economic. (depends on mineralisation, how widespread, by-product etc etc.). But .9g in an assay/auger isn't anything to write home about.

Anyways given the mineralogy is gold-PGE-nickel typically you have a drilling economic element in the deposit and then the other becomes profitable by-products. btw PGE is platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), osmium (Os), rhodium (Rh) and ruthenium (Ru)

For comparison heres results by CHN;
Note JD002 isn't a great reference for drilling and they drilled in line with mineralogy. Sometimes you'll see dodgey companies do these in an attempt to show better results than they are. Why? This returns high results but typically you drilling laterally across the ore body to determine widths as can be seen by the other drill holes. CHN was not being dodgey, but attempting to determining the orientation of the ore-body. However, hole 1 is better reference for what good looks like.

Regardless you can see that hole 1 has 20-30m's at surface
5-10g/t Pd
1g Pt
2-3% Ni
0.1% Co

remembering 1g/t is 1000ppb - so converting to same format as the LTR assays
5000-10000 ppb Pd (1000 times more)
1000 ppb Pt (LTR reported Pt and Pd)
20000 ppm Ni (40 times more)
1000 ppm Co (not reported by LTR)

For reminder the below is what LTR reported.
Individual assays up to 925ppb gold (0.92g/t Au),
75ppb palladium + platinum(Pd+Pt),
492ppm nickel (Ni)
and 884ppm copper (Cu);
and Multiple, plus-100ppb gold (0.1g/t Au) zones.

So the assay imv are meaningless tbh. i'll use an example of this with a lithium explorer. I'll use lithium as assuming most holder's understand lithium grades given LTR's KV project. 4CE was a nearology play to a major lithium deposit. They took rock chip samples and assays which proved pretty promising. They had rock chip samples of 2% lithium and even done some RC drilling which had 1-2% intersections. All looked so goo... 2 years later the project was disbanded because it was not economical. intercepts were thin and grades weren't great and mineralisation had lepidolite through it.



I should state that there is absolutely nothing comparable between these companies and i'm only using this as an example where rock chip, assay's can look good but doesn't always correlate to economical.

In short, The drill will do they talking, but given the directors here already have an intimate understanding of the geology LTR is well placed to have decent success with the drill program in the future. IMO. It's also important that they intercept decent widths as this increased likelihood of economic viability. LTR has a couple of decent projects now across a few decent assets in my view and are well placed to capitalise on some hopefully decent results at moora and then in the background ride an improving lithium outlook over the next 1-3 years.

Wishing holders all the best with the study in q4 along with the exploration at Moora.

*disclosure - Never bought or sold LTR. I like the management and the projects appears economical.
why am i not invested? previously was due to professional circumstances. Post #:39675025.

Why not now;
I typically like to invest in exploration stages free-carry in the development stage so as to de-risk capital.
or invest in stable producers in improving sectors.

Also I have investments in other nearologies to the julimar complex so I do like the area and hence genuinely hope LTR find something decent.

I don't post often on stocks i don't hold but only do if i feel i can add value, people can check my post history and see that i'm quite unbiased, even more conservative on stocks i hold.

There are a lot of non-holding pot stirrers, hopefully the forum can determine that i don't sit in that category.

SF2TH