The selective quoting of data can work both ways, using Heeman's...

The selective quoting of data can work both ways, using Heeman's figures and then looking at strip ratio costs we have A40 incurring almost 9 times the cost of AJM.



The following assumptions have be made on the chart:

AJM and PLS have LOM strip ratios below 3 (I think 2.7 and 2.9) and they note that their deposits are large and shallow - I do not recall their strip ratios differing substantially over time so I have allowed 3 which is probably a little too high.

A40 recently announced that they forecast a strip ratio of 11.5 for 2019 and this would indicate that their ratio for 2018 was similar or higher.

From the above it could be argued that A40's costs are 9 times that of AJM and PLS is twice that of AJM.

In fact as AJM and PLS are most likely incurring a lower strip ratio and A40 a higher ratio than used in the chart - this could be considered a best case scenario for A40 with the actual numbers pushing up towards 10 times.

This is clearly not the case as in isolation these numbers are only one part of the situation.

PLS produced just under twice that of AJM and would be in a better position to AJM, A40 is harder to determine as while moving 9 times the dirt their process is simpler and they produced a bit over twice the lithium.

Similarly if you compare three companies that have been producing for differing periods of time and then calculate based on yearly nameplate it is misleading and meaningless. This comparison would have some substance and validity this time nest year when the 3 companies are compared and 12 months of productions is considered.

The true picture of the juniors will not be known for another 9-12 months.

Cheers

Newbie Thomas