No worries, the diagram below provides the basis of the comments which I posted here a while ago in this post - Post #:
40269530 In a PFS/DFS/bankable study you move Measured and Indicated resources to Proven and Probable (you don't assess Inferred resources in a bankable study)
@JM12, this post by @20Time10 makes some sense as well.
My personal view is they are adhering to timelines though as they see them in their own minds. I don't think they are after a TO - they are doing what they think needs to be done to get to mining, but if there is speculation maybe they are thinking more around equity for Offtake Areements in a JV arrangement IMO (since they seem to want to take this to mining and appear disinterested in TO talk, given what has been posted here from the AGM itself is management want to take this to mining).
Obviously, if a good offer came in now I suspect management would be happy to sell, but where they are currently at it would appear they would be disinterested in the likely TO price they may be offered at this exact point in time based on the PFS itself (noting hypothetically TO price would be a %, say 40% - 50% of the post tax NPV in that PFS for example).
I still think given the two year timeline from FID to construction as per the PFS that there is upside here of an earlier start update as quite a bit of fat inbuilt in that timeline IMO. And given the DFS is likely to be on a higher configuration, attached possibly to a hydroxide plant, this would lead to a higher post tax NPV and likely higher TO price btw, because the DFS would imply the market can take more product from LTR.
A TO price is predominantly a function of the profit you can make by selling product, noting how
discounting works, and not what is in the ground, because as I posted the other day I don't believe in EV as a source of valuations, as valuations are based on what the market can take from you in product sales only in a discounted cash flow basis.
@vmp, to be quite frank I don't really care what you think of me. But if you really want to know, back in May 2019, I invested my spare cash into ADN. At the time I did not want to put money into another lithium stock btw. Just because you are a non-holder doesn't mean anything on sharing forum.
BTW, for those who got in at 2.5c in LTR that is great, but what about those who got into LTR in the teens (i.e. I am sure the latter would not appreciate some of the commentary from some who got in early). I mean you would know I invested in ADN back then as you were invested in ADN at the time too. We can't invest in every stock on the ASX LOL.
FA is strong here long term as I have said in the past. Having management invested in the stock is also a positive. At the moment LTR is in a lull SP wise because TA has taken hold and traders and short termers have left, but ultimately FA will take over again in terms of SP. If I can time an entry I will do it if I can, but if not so be it and good luck to those holding.
And by the way most of my posts, if not all my posts, in LTR have been at a time where the SP has been much higher than where it is now btw, including, I think as can't earlier posts from me, the first time I believe I posted in the LTR forum back on 28 May 2019 btw - Post #:
38773449. I don't recall posting before that date, so if you have access to one of the posts please post it.
Having posted this reply, I will make this my final post in the LTR forum - maybe I'll post again when the MET tests are released, as I suspect the upcoming JORC revision will show a revised measured and indicated resource of some 120 mt - 130 mt of ore.
All IMO IMO
(20min delay)