Running discussion on SP, page-5064

I have no issues with anyone using my post for any reason. It is in the pubic sphere that I have posted it so what people do with it is up to them as what I have posted is IMO anyway.

Regarding tin and tantulum, your assessment of my views are correct. I posted these here:
Post #: 31669795

If we look at PLS they are starting at 2mtpa but already are proposing to expand to 4 mtpa ore feed. Given the distance of AVZ to port - i.e. transport costs - and the need for tin/tantulum credits, scale and size is the key here (and to be frank 2 mtpa ore feed facility IMO will not cut the mustard if that is all they intend building, which I doubt). As a start up facility for AVZ 2mtpa for a year or two maximum is fine but like PLS (noting AVZ is a longer way to port) expansion plans are needed and ramp up to 5mtpa would need to come quicker IMO to drive project economics and any credits available. (Note: PLS will start at 2mtpa but will be at 4mtp probably a year or two after first production IMO).

I dealt with this issue a while back when the Ivanhoe transport costs were put up in this thread and we went through AVZ's scale and size to show what will happen here as Ivanhoe was a smaller operation hence why Ivanhoe had high transport costs per tonne - i.e. economies of scale in transport costs requires more tonnages and that is what AVZ needs to do to lower transport costs per tonne (and treat tailings to get your credits to reduce transport csts). Without scale and size the project economics can be adversely affected, unless of course they decide to have dedicated tin/tantulum pits as well, on top of their 2 mtpa ore feed facility at project start up. Post #: 30646252.

In any event my post is around what management is currently thinking around expansion plans and whether they should be advising the market. Some transparency IMO is required but all IMO.

All IMO