No Offer Forthcoming IMO, page-88

First 88 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
vmp

13,551 Posts.

9331

17/02/24

22:42

Post #: 72465007
Share

Originally posted by Lurra ↑

This is a reply to Siva108's previous post. I've tried to make a direct reply but the system got blocked.

I’m invested in this project and am confident in the values of our company. They are spending a lot of money to remain on track and in time to commence delivering SC. But ramping up is complicated at every mine and the unexpected often happens.
Regarding timetables, we may watch Mt. Holland mine ramping up. Each mine has its own and specific processing issues, but it’s our closest peer by development stage and resource size (94 Mt at 1.5 % LiO2 before been purchased by Wesfarmers). According to Wesfarmers last financial report (briefing, page 35), Mt. Holland has started ramping up in 1H FY2024 (=2H CY2023), and they expect the first SC available for sale this 1H CY2024. That means about 6 months from commissioning to delivering of first shipment. If LTR goes through a similar timetable it might start shipping SC before the end of the year. If anything goes wrong, that could delay deliveries. Any producer/seller will show confidence about meeting expectations, but any buyer might show worries if it needs the agreed supply in time.
Very probably the visit has given LG evidence of LTR commitment to remain on track. And who knows, LG could have agreed to financially support their strategic supplier so they can receive their so wanted white gold with no delay.
Anyway, even if it’s normal for LG as a buyer to be worried, it would be weird and counterproductive to their interest to say it publicy or leak through the media if they really care about their supplier. It would weaken their supplier's position and that could unnecessarily increase the risk that they could not supply the needed goods in time, but also would weaken LG's position when going to the market for a substitute to the failed supply.
So the information given by that analyst was just a guess not supported by LG statements. And like @8horse has pointed out, that guess was thrown before LG recent visit to Kathleen Valley. LG has given no news after the visit, so no worries are stated from them.

Expand

Mt Holland employs DMS. Ltr has wof. This subject on flowsheet has been discussed to death previously in this forum. Additionally, mt holland is expecting to produce no more than sc 5.5.

We’re not saying wof will not have initial issues but For anyone interested, read the dfs of both projects including flowsheets and make your own conclusions about risks rather than be scared by members comments on the forum.

Last edited by vmp: 17/02/24

LTR Price at posting: $1.18 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
24 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

IRX

InhaleRX snags $38.5M in funding from VC biotech funder Clendon

What's causing the cost-of-living crisis, and how to navigate it

TLG

Talga Group wins key permit for flagship graphite mine in Sweden

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

SWP

Swoop lobs $18M offer at microcap telecom Vonex – in which it holds 19.9%

SNX

Sierra Nevada raises $2M for silver exploration at Blackhawk

NVU

Nanoveu surges 10% after benchmark testing for new AI chip begins

M4M

Macro, Norden set up transport solutions initiative for West Pilbara

MTH

Mithril's drilling in Mexico picks up silver at 997g/t, gold at 28g/t

Week 42 Wrap: HotCopper's top picks; new ASX 200 record; world yawns at war