$5 stock !, page-364

I think most people need to understand what the SC6% China spod price actually is. Yes Greenbushes is the only entity producing 6% grade spodumene. That entity is owned by Albermale and Tianqi/IGO. Tianqi sell their spodumene into their own facilities in China to convert to carbonate/hydroxide. You would have to question that price because you may want to low ball your export price out of Australia for other reasons.

The real gauge for pricing is sale of spodumene by producers who do not have downstream facilities. And in terms of that well I would expect prices to be above these tailored benchmarks most quote on here. Look at PLS when it was selling - its prices were well above those quoted prices. I wonder why??? And they are not even selling 6% grade.

Lithium pricing is opaque and China dominates downstream processing as well, so needing to break China's dominance is a key. What China is doing in Africa is a concern for producers who are a long way from production because getting access to resources there IMO will allow further price manipulation, so establishing yourself in the market like PLS has in the interim is a key - meaning been in production now or about to be in production. And better still, having contracts to supplying non-Chinese entities not operating in China is even better.

Opaque indices can be manipulated - just ask Glencore who got fined on how it manipulated the Platts index - Office of Public Affairs | Glencore Entered Guilty Pleas to Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes | United States Department of Justice

All IMO

Waiting for your answer to Post #: 74143016 and specifically this question since you have raised it here where is the 'financing' again.

A specific condition of the term sheet, which IMO IMO IMO, is a key before funding can be formally concluded is the meeting of specific Project milestones and the delivery of an independent expert report (presumably on the project itself) by 31 July 2024. Now IMO IMO IMO, why hasn't funding been finalised yet - well IMO it is because the plant has yet to be commissioned, because that is IMO IMO a month away and a key condition above IMO IMO before funding can be secured (i.e. a Project milestone condition IMO above). Why do I say that - well why would there be a condition around Project Milestones in a March 2024 agreement (which I presume was about commissioning btw) if the independent review to financing needed to be done by 31 July 2024. If I have interpreted these facts/assumptions correctly, one must assume that LTR are confident they will be in production before 31 July 2024. Question 3: Do posters who disagree with this interpretation please explain why as this is a sharing forum, and do you think the Agreement is written in a way that means funding can be given before commissioning?

All IMO

To others, I am comfortable that my previously moderated post has had the reason changed to something else for having it deleted from the board.

All IMO