ASX Today, page-30302

I won't bite at the African comments, but agree in terms of capex and opex comments you have made, plus the fact the increase in capex and opex in part here is because the configuration LTR are bringing to production is higher than what they modelled in the DFS (production scale is 20% higher than what they put in the DFS) - refer https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/65809559/single

In case you decide to comment on my other African holding, be mindful I am free carried there having taken profit of the table there as I have posted in the past. Although, annoyed with myself I didn't take it all of the table but they are the breaks.

My point for reply to you is I want to draw attention to WOF and explain a fundamental difference between LTR and LLL here. It is probably offtopic to this thread but seems lots of discussions happening on your threads and comparisons made to LTR. Happy for this post to also be reported and taken off air herein as I don't particular like comparisons as I feel if your deposit is good enough it will be developed given the expected lithium shortfall (which I regulalry post about). If it is offtopic then can be reported - refer https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/67439660/single

General
The choice between Whole of Floatation and DMS/floatation becomes one of i.) cost and/or product quality especially if wanting a higher grade product and/or ii.) what markets you are intending to target (Chemical Grade or Technical Grade or both CG and TG like Greenbushes does) and/or iii.) whether spodumene can easily be liberated from the lattice at the DMS stage.

Whole of Floatation has lower capex cost (albeit not significantly lower given you still need a number of the capex items before DMS in a process flowsheet), but higher opex costs when compared to a combined DMS/floatation that say PLS and even Greenbushes has, but choice becomes one of recovery rates and project economics in outcomes and how such costs balance out. DMS has lower capex costs but also lower recovery rates. But if you are seeking to produce product above say 6.5% Li20 you certainly are only going to be relying on WOF btw, which LTR is targettng and would appear LLL is also seeking to do.. Greenbushes itself has installed floatation units and produces some product types well above 6.5% Li20. But again grade is also king in been able to do this IMO.

Coarseness of spodumene, crystal size and how easily spodumene is removed from the lattice, is the key to DMS and as well as low impurities as well as how easily the lithium can be liberated from the lattice of the ore btw. DMS settings are either 3.35 mm or above 5 .56mm, but with floatation generally, like most producers proposing floatation, you grind the ore to a pulp, been P80 of 106 microns and then use floatation to get to your concentrate.

Fundamentally, in a WOF circuit you have to get the flow correct or you potentially block the efficient operations of other circuits - in simplistic terms, say in the circuit before floatation, you need to match the flowput of the SAG that comes out with the input feed and output of the ball mill so you don't have 'blockages' in a very simple explanation (i.e. a bit more complex than that). Just to be clear ball milling is what gets you to p80 of 106 microns, so this stage is critical to subsequent floatation stage, and ball milling comes after the DMS stage if a producer decided on a DMS/floatation configuration instead of WOF itself. How the SAG and ball mill interact a key to recovery, especially when feedstock is not homogeneous, but homegenuity can be achieved in my opinion through good blending practices which is what most producers seek to do (some better than others).

DMS has lower opex and capex costs but has recoveries well short of 80%. WOF gets you to 80% and above (as can also DMS/floatation intergrated options).

Here is the crunch
LTR can use a DMS/floatation process if they want to (or even a DMS only option), but have decided on full WOF. The reason LTR are are going WOF only is because the ore has low deleterious elements and they can and want to produce grades well above 6% Li20 whilst maintaining an 80% recovery rate. In floatation, LTR is also using Whims, a standard process. The process LTR has is pretty well standard for floatation, which means you probably won't have the significant issues around ensuring your SAG and ball mill operate effectively (and obviously there are a lot of learnings to come from the likes of PLS/AJM/Greenbushes and others in this regard). Refer - https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/67887991/single and https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/67888140/single

On the other hand and from recollection when reading the METs for LLL and its DFS, https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/48220544/single, LLL are required to use WOF because they cannot liberate the lithium from the ore easily, meaning DMS is not an option, which is the reason they even themselves stated why they need to use WOF - but they can also produce above 6% concentrate. LLL are also grinding the ore beyond P80 of 106 microns because according to LLL that is the optimal size to liberation which IMO is going to be interesting as to whether they can achieve their assumed recovery and product specs and how the SAG intergrates with the ball mill. In WOF, LLL is also using Crimms instead of Whims processes, in other words there is a lot of new elements and things LLL are required to do to the WOF process that to be frank are probably going to have elements of risk attached and whether they operate as intended is going to be interesting, including meeting opex costs and recovery rates. Essentially LLL is using a different WOF process because the spodumene in its ore is hard to liberate from the ore itself. Whether LLL achieve assumed recovery rates and costs (and no need to retrofit capex) to achieve recovery rates is going to be interesting, so to be frank I am more comfortable with what LTR can achieve than the risks associated with LLL (and note I am not talking Africa either for Kikker here just comparing the processes themselves).

At the end of the day there is a lot of scope for new entrants in the market, so good luck to all on the ASX lithium prospective deposits they are invested in.

All IMO