I'm a fairly new CXO holder, but I've held a number of other lithium explorers/producers over the years. I'm not trying to put any noses out of joint, but some of the commentary here has been optimistic to say the least. IMO the comparison of market caps is futile as the companies you speak of are at very different stages. CXO's resource is tiny when compared to any of the current Oz lithium producers, so it's just not an accurate comparison. There's no point saying that a company has "10 x of our current MC" if it also has 10 times the resource size. While there's scope for CXO to increase resource size through exploration, this also applies to the Lithium majors, so it's a moot point. While the resource size may increase, there's nothing other than hope for some here to claim that the resource size will double, triple, etc...
As far as hydroxide production goes, this is the stuff of pipe dreams. There's not a single hydroxide plant in Australia, despite several lithium producers with market caps exceeding $5 billion. IGO/Tianqi have the partially constructed refinery at Kwinana, but it could be 2023/24 by the time it's operational. As an explorer who is yet to produce a single tonne of spodumene, this talk of lithium hydroxide production for CXO is pure fantasy for the next decade at least.
Just one final point, I'd be careful with identifying Gangfeng and Yahua as the "best backers in the business". Yahua was one of several Chinese companies that exploited Oz lithium producers over the last few years. As with explorers Piedmont Resources and (formerly) Kidman Resources, large players like Gangfeng, Yahua and Tesla are in the business of securing lithium offtakes at the cheapest possible price. Why would they sign off takes with CXO for a very small resource, when they can get larger more reliable offtakes from existing producers such as PLS, MIN or ORE? Because with regard to pricing, the majors are in a position of power and CXO isn't. In order to progress from explorer to producer, CXO needed to secure backing through offtakes and was willing to sell Finnis spodumene at firesale prices to get the project off the ground. This is why SB is focussed on spot pricing rather than contracted offtakes, because the offtake pricing isn't quite as rosy a picture as some here would like to paint.
I don't say any of this to be negative, as I'm a holder myself and hope to see the company (and share price) continue onwards and upwards for the future. Just need to remain realistic....
Expand
(20min delay)