I often wonder why investors place so much emphasis on Sal De Vida, especially when only 2 months or so have passed since they said the below in a 'letter' to us all on the 18th April.
As part of the Company’s continuous product validation and process optimization strategy, the project team has embarked on two
concurrent test work programs. The first is focused on process optimization and product qualification based on the existing flow sheet
incorporating conventional evaporation pond and processing technology. A semi-continuous pilot operation is underway at site, focused
on maximizing process efficiencies at each individual stage of the flow sheet. Fifteen hectares of evaporation ponds are under construction
with earthworks now complete and the subsequent lining of the ponds to commence upon contract award. To facilitate the integration of
the pond with the semi-continuous pilot plant, some further equipment installations will be made to better match pond outflows to the pilot
plant capacity.
The second test work program is focused on testing a limited number of alternative, unconventional processing technologies, and
assessing the viability of such technologies for implementation in the process flow sheet. These technologies may be adopted on a stand
alone basis or integrated with the current base flow sheet. Early laboratory results regarding lithium extraction have been encouraging in
terms of the potential to improve process efficiency.
I think it's pretty well explained what is going on at Sal De Vida, although one thing that might change is the need for the pond liners.
Ponds are used for dehydration and removal of impurities/magnesium.
Skipping pond dehydration can bring production forward, from 12-18 months down to 24 hours.
And once one instance works, Bob's your aunty. Go forth and multiply.
My complaint along with many of you was the shipping. The company have shown us they have 2 ships, both worth around $20 million.
The only issue I have now is that there is BS analysis being presented to the market within news articles, and that doesn't include the AFR, I think they do a good job of investigative reporting... So other than us having a bit of fake news aimed our way, we also have institution's making statements that are not factual also.
Suggestions have been made over the past few months that the company address these erroneous commentary. - as for how that is done, I am not sure if it should come from announcements, otherwise it's like jumping at ghosts, or should come from legal representation.
It's a tough call, and not as easy as me saying we need to keep shipping.
Any suggestions?
