How many times do you need to be told that the initial 3mtpa feedstock is achieved in 12 months from first production. It is not hard to understand even reading the website. The expansion to 4mtpa is independent to what they are building now - it is 3 mtpa, That 4 mtpa doesn't happen on day 1, end of story.
You might want to also post the actual full extract with the 42% tantulum recovery in it as well.
I would be more concerned about your graphite play than LTR btw - posted there only once but may decide to visit a lot more often given China can play with graphite prices given its use of synthetic graphite-
Post #:
72921618
My estimates are 6% grade equivalent. If you go back to their WOF they have been talking about producing more than 6% grade spodumene. Or another way to put it, if it is 500,000tpa then one possibility is higher grade than 6%. Recovery rate is 78% as per website, i.e. not dis-similar to the DFS - so theoretically can produce 577,0000 tonnes 6% grade spodumene equivalence. Either four things are happening here:
1. They are leaving spare capacity to play the spot market - very similar to PLS - extent of product tied in long term contracts is not contracted to full nameplate; or
2. They are producing above 6% grade spodumene which the WOF shows they can do - which then means you have less tonnes spodumene produced but higher grade; or
3. The website is lazy -
Kathleen Valley - Liontown Resources Ltd (ltresources.com.au); or
4. They are not operating at nameplate and never intended to (and I doubt it is this one btw)
The deposit isn't grading 1.25% Li20. And the DFS talks about ore average been 1.56% Li20 first 5 years. It thenfalls from year 6 - 10 to around 1.35% in the DFS (i.e. high grading). It is why I made comments in my previous post around what is teh grade they are now assuming in those years given what they have done since the DFS.
The other explanation is I note their website links the DFS and here is an extract in the DFS -
Kathleen Valley - Liontown Resources Ltd (ltresources.com.au)
The above is actually in the link they post when making the statement just pasted by JRS in his post -
02450567.pdf (ltresources.com.au)
Notice how the numbers in the DFS extract align to what is in the website, and it is 6% grade btw - accept they probably haven't updated them for a 3mtpa operation. Could also just be lazy website management as well,
but agree LTR does need to explain itself here.
If you go back to the January 2023 Ann, one of the reasons they cited for increase capex was the move from 2.5mtpa - 3mtpa (which they said increased throughput by 20% -
Post #:
65787025
). So why would you increase nameplate without increases in spodumene tonnages, whilst the recovery rate remains unchanged in a 2.5 mtpa configuration versus a 3 mtpa configuration.
But yes LTR need to explain the discrepancy, because the recovery rate has not changed.
JRS is still confusing capex for 3 mtpa with the extra capex for 4 mtpa - that is just strange.
All IMO
(20min delay)