LTR (ASX) ASX Today

Originally posted by Scarpa: ↑

There is major differences using a DMS versus WOF process - if Mt Holland used a WOF process they probably would get a higher recovery rate. To use a DMS process the grind size itself is larger than what you grind in floatation and coarseness of spodumene determines whether one uses DMS or WOF - a DMS process is a cheaper process btw. LTR could also have used a DMS process itself, but decided on WOF - why, its view is WOF maximises profits and allows it to produce product above 6% grade, so I suppose those using DMS think that is where they maximise profits.

Look there is always a risk that METs do not translate to actual recovery rates in process - we have seen that with the likes of PLS/CXO/AJM etc. And I think those with a negative view here hang their hats on this - been METs may not translate to actual recovery rates

But this is the key point, recovery rates are determined by grade of ore, process obviously, and extent of deleterious elements, and how easy the spodumene can be removed from the lattice of the ore (liberation). Going to LTR's ore:
1. It is high grade, 1.56% first five years especially.
2. It is coarse and is stated to have easy liberation (i.e. this is why DMS could have worked here too);
3, It is using a WOF process only instead of DMS or DMS/floatation, and its WOF process flowsheet is ok (i.e. for a start the particle size going into floatation is stock standard P80 of 106 microns;
and
4. Fundamentally has low deleterious elements because specs are not just about producing 6% grade concentrate but concentrate on spec, and this is a key and fundamental point to recovery rates.

It is for the above 4 reasons why I feel LTR can achieve its recovery rate - LTR's ore appears better than the others been compared above to (i.e. PLS/CXO) is my point. However, it is clear too me the market is hedging its bets here. Meaning this debate will not be settled until production starts and recovery rate is a key to costs. Either one believes or one doesn't. I feel the recovery rate can be met - some don't on these threads by the looks of it.

Further info on above here - Post #:71113718 and lower down in this embedded post Post #:71801792

But hats of to PLS - they got to market and are reaping the rewards for doing so.

All IMO

Expand

Hey@Scarpa , it's great to see some regular informative posts from yourself of late. We're lucky to have some very knowledgeable investors in the mix with a deep understanding of the fundamentals and processing dynamics.

Not to take away from what you've already outlined, only to add to this... I remember when it came to David Richards presentations way back then the decision to go with WOF process was directly related to (at the time) the recovery of tantalum. Without WOF the tantalum was potentially a wasted unprofitable element. I'm sure @vmp and many others would remember these slideshow presentations regarding tantalum recovery and the decision to go with WOF instead of DMS.