Ok mate I will take your post apart word by word hows that as...

Ok mate I will take your post apart word by word hows that as you obviously don't read the tripe you write.

I will give you that the below was from AGY's PEA. However I largely ignored all this I have a lot more faith in JZ's numbers personally as the below is simply based on a factored number which the consultant came up with based on the costs in LPI/ORE reports as JZ for confidentiality reasons wouldn't give the consultant a list of the plant equipment required and I quite agree with his reasons for wanting to keep the IP confidential. Given JZ has not only built stage 1 and 2 ponds but also an industrial scale pilot plan and is upgrading it already to automate it more and knows exactly what equipment he needs and the costing for it I will take JZ's costs as being more accurate than factored costs from other unrelated projects any day. Thats just my opinion and I stated that with my reasons for why I feel that way, others may disagree and thats fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Given the consultant didnt have the detailed info he needed to provide this I can see why he based it on the other projects and why there is the +-50% disclaimer on their numbers.

Now for the one little thing as you call it that you posted from LPI's PEA...actually its more like 2/3rds of your post. So below you do mention the AGY PEA numbers but you ramble on about how they are wrong using all the LPI numbers (and that was what I was referring to). So are you saying then that the consultant has fraudulently stated in the AGY PEA document that AGY can produce 10,000 tpa for 16.5yrs or 15,000 tpa for 10 years when really they can't? Better be careful of what you accuse this consultant of here IMO. The consultant has performed their analysis and come up with these figures from their modelling so personally I take more credibility in their numbers. They would not have put that in an official document if they dont stand behind it so again are you just stirring or like I said are you saying they are committing a fraud? You maybe right that other companies dont come anywhere near a 100% recovery rate and LPI certainly doesn't from its PEA but the consultant by putting these numbers in an official ASX document like this and it was reviewed by both ASX and ASIC too must be fine with them otherwise by including them they are opening themselves up to potential litigation.



Yes I agree Worley Parsons did include other NPV's for discount rates of 6% and 10% too and if you read my post I actually acknowledged that but LPI pushed the NPV with the 8% rate in their summary and gekko just confirmed in a separate post that 8% is the norm.

Now who's looking like the fool ah. Not just here but also on the LPI threads I see where a number of posters have taken apart your incorrect claims. Willing to put your money where your mouth is now and call this fraudulent and potentially face litigation??? Because thats exactly how I read your post.