@Kikker1959To all, I have redone the post. Whilst I would prefer...

@Kikker1959

To all, I have redone the post. Whilst I would prefer the post be un-moderated, to move on below is a reconstruction of the post to remove any perception of ramping with a heap of IMO IMO IMO statements etc etc

I will rephrase the post that was moderated and see what happens.

IMO IMO IMO, I have interpreted all of LTR's announcements and presentations to date as implying first production is expected end June 2024/early July 2024. Question 1: If others have a different view to the commissioning date, please provide your relevant views and reasons why, as this is a sharing forum?

I have also posted about process flow sheets and what LTR is doing in terms of the build and how it, IMO IMO IMO, may be viewing the plant's running in operation (specifically achievement of the DFS recovery rate) including why it has scoped some parts of the plant at 4mtpa even though it will start operations at 3mtpa (meaning further down the track it will need some additional capex to ensure the plant can ramp up to 4mtpa - my views were provided in - Post #: 73922761, and Post #: 74047980 and my view IMO IMO is some items of capex need to be built at 4mtpa upfront (refer reasons in embedded posts herein) (Question 2: If others have a different view on how the capex should have been set - i.e. that is should there have been any capital items scoped at 4mtpa initially in the upfront capex spend - please provide your views and why they could differ to what LTR is proposing to do with the capex spend as this is a sharing forum)?

A key document for everyone IMO IMO IMO on funding is this one dated 13 March 2024 - Post #: 72859058
It is this document that talks about the funding arrangement which I have interpreted in the manner below. This facility is intended to have a maturity of end October 2025. Key conditions of the facility are below - copied straight from that Ann :



A specific condition of the term sheet, which IMO IMO IMO, is a key before funding can be formally concluded is the meeting of specific Project milestones and the delivery of an independent expert report (presumably on the project itself) by 31 July 2024. Now IMO IMO IMO, why hasn't funding been finalised yet - well IMO it is because the plant has yet to be commissioned, because that is IMO IMO a month away and a key condition above IMO IMO before funding can be secured (i.e. a Project milestone condition IMO above). Why do I say that - well why would there be a condition around Project Milestones in a March 2024 agreement (which I presume was about commissioning btw) if the independent review to financing needed to be done by 31 July 2024. If I have interpreted these facts/assumptions correctly, one must assume that LTR are confident they will be in production before 31 July 2024. Question 3: Do posters who disagree with this interpretation please explain why as this is a sharing forum, and do you think the Agreement is written in a way that means funding can be given before commissioning?

IMO IMO, I also wonder whether the independent expert is already starting their review as their would be nothing stopping that process starting. Even if the process started, nothing can be done until the commissioning happens as per IMO IMO IMO my comment above.

Now IMO, we also know that LTR has done METs and already revised its cost estimates of operation to A$651 per tonne in September 2023, with this cost increasing since the DFS (noting the DFS costs were calculated by industry experts btw) - refer update costs in the Ann in Post #: 70089149

IMO, LTR is confident of its estimates and so what I would assume is that the independent expert will simply verify that LTR will be able to pay the interest and (some) principal (before LTR refinaces, if need be in October 2025). Question 4: Are posters interpreting the agreement above as been needed to be paid off in full by LTR, or simply that interest and (some) debt payments can be paid off before refinancing in October 2025? IMO the statement implies too me IMO IMO that this is preliminary funding to when a long term funding agreement is secured later down the track, should one be needed after October 2025 (as that will depend on how much cash flow LTR does generate over the next 15 months and its proven ability to produce).

IMO , LTR, if it is able to maintain costs at around A$651 per tonne will be quite profitable over the next year, hence any debt it will need to refinance post October 2025 IMO IMO will be lower than current debt. Furthermore when it does move to 4mtpa IMO, LTR would probably be able to pay for those upgrades through cash flow (note the term probably which equals may herein). Question 5: To posters who disagree with this view, please advise your basis, and I presume part of that basis must be higher opex costs assumptions by you and/or lower spodumene price assumptions as this is a sharing forum?

As I have stated in the past a key to ensuring opex costs stay on budget is ensuring the recovery rate is met and a WOF process is a key to this as well - Post #: 71801792 as well as understanding well your process flow sheet IMO Post #: 73922761, and Post #: 74047980

Finally, to the discussion on Albermale walking - they walked because IMO they couldn't deal with Gina and actually wanted full control of LTR btw and then have it delisted - stated that in Post #: 74063170. They also advised at the time of walking that they found no issues with LTR.

To finish this post, everything above is IMO IMO IMO and should not be viewed as financial advice. DYOR etc etc

All IMO IMO and need a VB

-