Galaxy... GXY... Chart..., page-1339

Apologies if I offended you @number61.
I agree that we can agree to disagree and still do it calmly and courteously.
But - yeah. I'm conscious of the some of the ridiculous down-ramping
and the guys who have followed you in saying "Yeah - what he said".
None of them took the time to read anything about this stock except what you wrote, and accept it as the truth.
We have broker reports that have done a methodical analysis. They have never been shy about identifying issues and down-grading us before. So forgive me if I find their take on our positive financial situation as more thorough than your own.
When I sat down and worked out payments over time, I ended up very close to their analysis - but also finding that they have missed a few things that were not known to them prior to the last announcements.
ie Recovery rate improvement.

I'm certainly no leader. I'm just pointing out that there is a lot of commentary on HC about GXY that is incorrect and yet, so entirely sure of itself and immediately dismissive.
You may have now read enough to see how wrong a lot of those posts are about low grade and high mica content.

Right or wrong - $905 is now plugged into every lithium stock's future
and that may be more of a mistake to consider this price as an industry standard, when it is the result of AT's specific negotiations, the product and the clients.
I think demand will still be high enough for GXY 's $905 price to persist for at least another couple of years. Perhaps even higher for next contract.
I don't see enough supply coming online quick enough to fill all the order books of the independent sector. NMT aren't even supplying the independents.
Long term it may settle down to that $750 range - but that's just a guess. The lucky thing is that it comes at the right time for Galaxy - setting us up with building capital and the ability to pay down debt quickly. And this next period of the next 2 years is what we're all most interested in.

@balt
I got recovery rate effect on plant output from reading Canaccord reports.
Improvement in recovery is absolutely consistent with increase in annual production.
Their August report went into a bit of detail about the plant upgrades to 1.6MT
Canaccord gave the 50% recovery at 160kt and 70% recovery rate at 230kt.

(my maths makes it more logical to assume the 70% result is 224kt - so there is a little modifier in there somewhere that I can't work out - perhaps based in this case on rounding up in this case as it's likely never a perfect exercise in mathematics).
My formula is double plant capacity and then apply recovery percentage for output.
This is consistent across all the other planned lithium hard rock plants - the final output is very close to that figure, rounded up or down a little.

Recovery is a measure of the efficiency of the flow sheet of a plant - how well it turns the raw ore into processed spodumene.
Each plant has a throughput rate based on the size of it's circuits.
That is how much ore can run through its circuits over the year.
Recovery rate is how well it all works. No plant starts at it's name plate recovery rate.
Recovery rate is something that improves over time as the plant is commissioned and then "tuned up".
Specific circuits can add more (ie flotation) but also bring cost, enviro and maintenance issues.
Some plants never arrive at their nominal name plate despite being bashed away for years. Others even pass nameplate over time.