You have raised this transport issue before and it has been answered. You are quoting Ivanhoe's current Durban route I suspect as well, or a very long trucking option if some product is sold to another port, as well as I suspect movement of inputs to mine as well.
Furthermore, the estimate of US$350 per tonne for Ivanhoe remains unclear what they were modelling for Lobito as I previously posted having read the entirety of their document, unlike I believe yourself who looks like you simply took a number and posted for annoyance sake only. The Lobito route Ivanhoe looked at as they are exporting soon, not in 2023, has a lot more road in it than rail btw hence why they are currently sticking with Durban. They also have a lower Durban cost than your estimates given the improvements they claim are made on that route on a go forward basis, i.e. mid this year when new production comes onstream and not the historical data you are quoting, albeit I'll simply say with bigger train sets meaning economies of scale - note that term when their production rapidly rises mid year. Also you might want to see how much larger the anticipated production compared to the historical production been referred to in your post is for Ivanhoe - will be chalk and cheese comparison by later this year noting economies of scale btw as its new expanded production comes up. Embedded post explaining this is here - has been previously provided to you the other day but obviously it is clear you didn't read it as you have a preconceived view IMO, but transport is obviously a key risk for AVZ so understanding the ins and outs of Ivanhoes study is a key as well, as well as AVZ management explaining their costings. All dealt with in Post #:
50259956 and subsequent replies on that post
Happy reading in the embedded post above. Actually, the above is for others benefit because like every other post to you I am sure you will forget it has been posted to you and you'll simply continue with the same drivel.
You and Roller should get a room. Forums have deteriorated into an absolute mess as a result.
In terms of some of your initial comments this morning, the 3 - 4th page of corporate presentations at conferences for any stock you see give somehighlevl page on SOI, SP, revenues, costs, money in the bank etc etc. It is for the sake of investors in the room listening to a presentation, as some may not even know anything about the entity.
To the other issue, yes transport is a risk that can be sorted over time IMO. Always has been a risk.
Now in the FFX threads all you hear is that these consultants modeled A, B and C so independently verified and must be taken as truth - what consultants did AVZ use, so in one forum some say trust consultants and in another forum say don't trust the consultants there. That is a logical inconsistency to be frank in 'my stock is better than your scenarios'.
But let me be clear about risk - consultants model but often don't get it right, hence the construction blow out costs you see in industry and lower recovery rates at minesite you see in Western Australia for example. It is why financiers look at sensitivity studies, and in terms of AVZ sensitivity studies refer back to the DFS to work that out.
For lithium, a key IMO with these type of blowouts is lack of METs, meaning your process flowsheet doesn't work as assumed. You just have to look at the fact PLS didn't achieve recovery rates, and what that meant was more capex spend. The key risk for FFX is actually process risk given it grinds its lithium to a pulp in a WOF model, and if they don't get the interaction between the SAG and the ball mill correct, as well as the ion exchange correct, they will not achieve the recovery rates and quality of product they are after (noting they are using untested Crims at scale compared to the often used Whims process btw as part of process flowsheet design which can be a further risk). But you have totrust that the consultants have done that work correctly.
Transport can be dealt with, process is hit or miss with greater capex involved down the track if it is a miss, but transport risk is a risk that AVZ needs to deal with (as per my embedded post above - noted).
Furthermore, transport costs become less relevant with the higher value add product produced btw. If you convert your spodumene at minesite to sulphate or hydroxide, the transport charge as a % of final price is far less than exporting spodumene alone. So further processing reduces risk as well as it relates to transport, but then you have increased process risk as the offset there for wanting to produce a higher value add product, albeit if you have one large homogeneous pegmatite deposit with a low strip ratio as AVZ does well that risk of process IMO is less than say lithium plays with (several) skinny pegmatites ina hetrogeneous deposit with high strip ratios to deal with btw.
Which then takes me to LTR, who R22 says he previously held claims to have sold out. It has an underground option, that is not easily scaleable IMO with
3 different underground mining techniques to get to the orefeed
as per the PFS btw. We haven't seen the full METs there and IMO the historical information around the Mann pegamatite would make the METs interesting btw, albeit is is not clear how the historical info relates to LTR's current activities where production is slated for btw, but yet again you need to trust management there, as you do here, that they have done the METs correctly and that impurities plus mica there is low and that the process flowsheet will work as assumed.
Post #:
50230853Post #:
43295331If people do not have trust in management or question what management does - sell, it is that simple - or at least seek to free carry.
In other words, every deposit has its issues is my point, as was the case with PLS and unfortunately AJM and others. But I would prefer to deal with transport issues as against a process issue, and if you want a radical example, have a look at Windimurra in the vanadium space back in 2003/04 and what happens when your process flowsheet is crap to the ore you are trying to process (and despite consultants writing up beautiful reports before hand at the time on how great the process was) - Post #:
37370812.
Also look at PLS's recovery rate and need for more capex because the initial scope didn't achieve recovery rates etc etc, and despite consultant sign off. It you want to understand PLS's problems it wasn't opex related bwby and large, it was the fact they failed to achieve recovery rates (which had a revenue/profit impact) and that is why they spent more capex during 2020 to fix it up to increase recovery rates towards the DFS targets -
Post#: 41417087 LNG projects in WA are also littered with cost blowouts.
Been around long enough that the resource is a key, but unfortunately for AVZ the transport risk is there and needs to be dealt with. It is a real risk and is a post minesite risk. No doubt about that, and management need to provide more information IMO in that context as per my first embedded post above, because that remains the key to AVZ meeting its development timeline IMO (and financiers will certainly want comfort the route is good etc etc).
For others - AVZ's tin grades are at least on par (if not even slightly better) than this companies. Just an interesting observation by the way, and I see its SP has been taking off lately, albeit its MC is not that high - Post #:
50545229.
A few other matters - the DFS here did not include the SEZ or remittance of VAT. How that impacts NPV post tax will be determined in time. Also the royalty on lithium is not 10%.
Fed up with the crap posted on here, and back into hibernation I go as have said my piece. Read want you want, believe want you want, it is your money you are investing after all so DYOR. This post wasn't written for either of you two as I doubt you actually want to do research into AVZ per se, and the same goes for Roller in terms of FFS.
Keep the flames burning, but ultimately an extinguisher comes and for AVZ that actually means more Offtakes, then funding then FID. If FID does not happen by mid this year, then there is no way on earth IMO AVZ will get to production in its stated timeline btw, but demand is there, it always remains a question of taking your entry to market when available as quite a few greenfields projects are required to come into production in the next few years
Post#: 47799612All IMO, long neck drunk, bemused at best with how HC has turned to crap. My opinion is as above and have no intention to responding to one liner replies without demonstrated research.
All IMO
(20min delay)