AVZ Peer Transparency, page-80

I put my calcs in this post Post #: 40028107 and Post #: 40032042: especially first one linked

In terms of some of the other discussion, the reason why the other players have outcomes lower than there DFS IMO is based on the fact the i.) higher strip ratios did not come in at the opex cost they thought and ii.) obviously recoveries are nowhere near what they forecast as well which has led to cost overruns. For PLS they have not dealt with their deleterious elements and that is best evidenced by the fact they haven't reported any technical grade lithium sales. If you go back to the PLS DFS for 2 mtpa the spodumene price was US$550 per tonne in that DFS. So it was about not meeting assumptions that was they key, and maybe that has a lot to do with the strip ratios involved and lower quality resource say compared to Greenbushes and the fact they may not have put in the right capex (noting PLS is doing some retrofitting) which means others can learn from their mistakes (like LTR is saying and I suspect what AVZ is also doing).

In terms of AVZ, ultimately it has a good strip to ore ratio and good recovery rates. It ultimately boils down to those factors coming in. Greenbushes seems to be doing fine - key reason, grade is king and low waste to ore ratios.

Ultimately for AVZ it boils down to transport costs. Also if the product produced by AVZ is not low in deleterious elements then buyers would probably continue to source from Australia, so for AVZ to come onstream its product must be better than its competitors., because if it is not then AVZ will not come onstream this side of 2025.

Now I think AVZ should put in place floatation in the process flowsheet, but if itdoesn't it ultimately boils down whether lower recovery rates and impact on DFS is neutralised/reduced by lower capex costs.

They are the risks in investing this side of teh market. Time will tell.

All IMO