Ann: Kathleen Valley Mineral Resource Update - Clarification, page-106

Most understand that. Put enough money into METs it will get you what you want, but it is how METs translate to a cost effective process flowsheet.

The point about deleterious elements is the cost of extraction in floatation and/or if not extracted out of the spodumene in sufficient quantities the penalties imposed by converters as a result of the clinkers effect.

Yes PLS is spending more capex and now more opex in getting its recovery rate up to DFS levels and/or ensuring its product is within specs. The question been raised, is has that done enough for them to return to profitability.

Below was a post I did ages ago on contract specifications in PLS when the issue came up:
Post #: 38419435

The more impurities you have in the spodumene concentrate in the roasting process, you will need to extract these impurities out but you also extract out lithium, a problem in itself. Impurities forms 'clinkers', and then you need to run a process to get the lithium out of the clinkers and you might only get 75% of that from the clinkers, and that affects the recovery of lithium overall in the roasting process and impacts the ability to produce battery grade carbonate. Best explained in this article:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-chemical-grade-spodumene-concentrates-same-harman-grant/

Anyway, the revised PFS and DFS will answer this question, in line with how grade improvements help out costs as per my posts above.

But yes I understand your point.

All IMO