You mean like a feasibility study?
https://ionicre.com.au/wp-content/uploads/post/210429.pdfIf you feel that there is 'smoke and mirrors' and they are 'wannabe's' perhaps you'd care to elaborate (with supporting evidence) on exactly what sections of the independently compiled study which suggest fairly factually as to the how and why the project is economically viable. Shortly there will be an update one based on mining reserves which you can expand on any implicit detail you feel to be inaccurate '
Also for clarity 'basket price' is simply industry measure to understand the spread of the element suite.
If you start talking about costs to produce that basket, well then you have to look at what the 'concentrate basket' is. Ionic clays (FYI) don't have linear recoveries across the element suite thus the in ground basket and post processing basket are actually different.
The actual revenue received for the product is a culmination of the elements (the basket), the grade at which that concentrate is (IAC's around 90%+) compared to most MREC from hard rock 40% and the payability (discount from the downstream processing to refine it.
People can review Post #:
64940647 for detailed explanation.
Having a higher grade feed-stock is obviously an advantage - it means you process less tonnes in front end to get the same output. What's omitted from this crude comparison is that despite having to process 80 times more material at the front end the cost on a per/t basis is 80 times less.
Additionally, this doesn't also mean that the HREO on a percentage basis produced by LYC are all that great and hence why downstream avenues were targetting around NdPr. At 0.6% Dy of the TREO in head grade and similar in the concentrate grade, we're talking a very small and diluted amount of Dy. Compared to 2.5% for the IAC. Essentially there's 4 times as much Dy in every kg of IAC concentrate compared to LYC.
FWIW if simply having the elements in volume as a by-product meant economical supply then Bayan Obo @ ~6% TREO would be arguably the largest HREO 'producer' in the world. It's already the largest LREE producers due to the sheer volume via the baestenite tailings. If you took the volume of HREO in the tailings would be massive - enormous, so much by-product HREO... how good.
But I wonder why 95% of global HREO content is still supplied via ionic clays and not this high grade hard rock project tailing - by-product etc etc. Hint, it's the distribution of the concentrate of those HREO and secondly the ease at which they can be processed/extracted. i.e.the cost effectiveness to which HREO can be extracted and produced (currently) is cheaper in IAC's than trying to process a lower grade hard-rock by-product. There are exceptions like NTU who have the Dy biased basket and thus the economics are underpinned on that alone (p.s like that project don't hold it though).
Average distribution is as per below with (L)ight and (H)eavy elements indicated. If my latest table from LYC is correct the HREO composition is around 5-8% of the TREO basket and 92-95% LREO.
View attachment 4874335Additionally, FWIW the 'environmental disaster' you've indicated on these deposits (without probably understanding why this is synonymous with these deposits) is almost entirely due to some (key word) producers in china are using in-situ leaching as the method of extraction. Heap leaching (refer to SS) is a effectively a close looped system, thus none of the acids or lixiviants are released back into the enviroment as tailings. Additionally, given that the radioactive elements of thorium/uranium are never concentrated in the process to dangerous values this is an "environmental disaster" that just isn't a factor. This is unlike hard-rock project hence why the Th and U values are much more important as deleterious element. (best presented as a percentage for the hard rock as opposed to threshold value).
FWIW I like Lynas and hold some stock via the super (and a handful of others) - just not in my spec folio and hence the reason i don't post here - try to leave threads alone and not be controversial unless tagged or see an opportunity to add value without derailed the thread to dissent. So just here to correct a few inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
I note that you're almost exclusively posting on LYC so must be an ultra bull here, which is great - i'm bullish rare earths and LYC has done very well. For context to forum, I post across a suite of stocks across a range of commodities and so i'm not here with an axe to grind compared to some others here who are controversial and maybe exclusive only hold other rare earths stock. The stocks i hold in that space are only a portion of my folio and thus hopefully weighs in favour of any potential assumption of agenda.
If you'd like to continue to discuss these projects in detail can hit me up via direct messages on twitter or on the respective thread of the company you're discussing.
*putting status to held as technically i do hold this stock but not in my spec folio (which is typically what i would indicate my held status on)
SF2TH
(20min delay)