At today's spod price, AVZ would be marginal as would a number of prospective grennfields deposits, noting whilst AVZ has a longer transport leg its strip ratio is very very very very very low. At today's prices going forward it would mean that the road to 2000 GWh in 2030 or more that will drive price growth and need for new greenfields depsoits would not happen, hence the development plans of all prospective greenfields deposits would be delayed. The key is getting to US$550 per tonne to US$650 per tonne average price, because that means demand has increased, there is a supply shortage, existing producers cannot fill the gap and new greenfields projects are required. Pretty basic economics. And the DFS shows viability, as does my own modelling but the key variable obviously is spodumene price. Note: AVZ is still viable at US$500 per tonne - US$550 per tonne based on DFS and my own modelling, and that is because of low mining costs (i.e. read strip ratio a key as well as high grade and process despite transport costs), but that doesn't mean much as well because US$500 per tonne is also an indication to me that spodumene demand (read EV demand) is not growing to the extent assumed in achieving 2000 GWh in 2030, meaning it is pushed to the right further as is development of greenfields projects caused by lower than this expected demand.
Yet here you are not understanding the same points I make above for AVZ that are fundamentally also relevant to MLL who will have a plus 500km road element (which is more inefficient) than a rail element btw, and also have a more costlier process because it is based on 100% floatation (compared to a AVZ DMS/flotation option). So price assumption also impacts economics - how viable is MLL at US$400 per tonne btw.
Been consistent in posting is a key is my point.
All IMO IMO IMO
AVZ Price at posting:
6.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
