SF2TH, Agree. Realistic price assumption, but the two issues for...

SF2TH, Agree. Realistic price assumption, but the two issues for me are around METS and discount rate. Discount rate looks low given Australian plays are discounting at 8%. Would have thought 10%, but would still show viability. Capex assumption might be questionable but is workable. But like all prospective plays outlook depends on spodumene prices improving, an obvious point. In terms of expandability more resources required, but DFS is ok. A number of assumptions, from recovery rate to opex costs, are on par with LTR who is also using a WOF process, albeit some differences in capex cost from recollection.

Plenty of room in the market for new greenfields projects if 2000 GWh or 3000 GWh capacity arises in 2030, so not sure why people see things as competition. Ultimately for all of us it is about growing demand leading to increases in spodumene prices that is a key to viability. I note a lot of posters previously yabbering on other threads of where prices are currently at have not commented too much on the spodumene price assumption here, which is close to the other African play, but about US$60 per tonne less than LTR, yet LTR would appear to have a lower post tax IRR than here, which might be in part explained by the higher feedstock assumption in the MLL DFS, and given close enough recovery rate assumptions, meaning more output etc etc. The other explanation involves costings, but positive DFS in my view but time will tell. Ultimately it is about demand and spodumene prices.

All IMO