I think all the page 5 financial summary numbers relate to the...

I think all the page 5 financial summary numbers relate to the 130kt production variant. The $1,188/t figure referenced is the 130kt average cost and the at full production is used twice, but then again on the next page to reference 130ktpa.

I think the Maths at that stage when at full 130kt production may be approx:

• $2,550 * 130kt = $331.5m of revenue.
• $154.42m of production costs (130kt @ $1,188)
• $178m of EBITDA (using $2,550/t gets within $1m to the published figure)
• Throwing these numbers, some capex and lower production in the first few years gets values close to the NPV quoted.
  

The original scoping study at 50kt was $1,950*50+$900*16.6=$112.4 less $38.2m costs and $1.3m of unknown rounding for $73m cashflow. Costs and Capex have gone up significantly but they are now likely to be a lot more accurate for an operation operating in the US.

Also, while the OEM's will obviously try to push down every input cost, $2.55/kg IRA HPMSM HPMSM isn't going to create the same concerns for them as $50-$80/kg Lithium Hydroxide or $35/t cobalt. Synthetic graphite is also in the $8/kg range so manganese would remain a cheaper battery input material.