There are very positive points in this update.The ESG report is...

There are very positive points in this update.
The ESG report is magnificent btw.

Updated estimate of Project Capital Cost
$56m or 6% increase is nothing for the job they are doing there (including A$25 million contingency). I was actually expecting much more because there are so many job fronts in the project and LTR is using the highest quality contractors, equipment and products. Have a look at the ESG report. It's incredible large project with a lot of stakeholders.

They are blasting the lithium rocks two times a week, and send it to stockpile. See ESG report, look at the solar array, wind turbine construction, huge waste dump, concrete and steel construction works, piping, cabling, process machinery, anything you can see there is huge and very high quality. I'm still amazed how good they are managing the project at that very high speed and at this cost. Just imagine 650 people working on site now. (it will 450 when the production starts)

They have also adopted a multi-contractor strategy to further de-risk plant execution and maintain schedule for now and future. That is very important point. I remember long time ago when PLS used one contractor for whole plant and had big big troubles with them IMO.

You can also see what LTR says "...higher specification materials, lining and equipment that will reduce future maintenance requirements,..". This is important for the future sake of the plant. We will not get any major problems and will do less maintenance. That means we will make profit and will receive larger dividends. Because most of us here for divvies, then we are happy to spend more now and less later.

Btw, as far as I understand LTR is trying to increase the recovery rate of the plant to 82% from 78% as indicated in the DFS (see below - on 11/11/2021). That 4% is going to make a huge difference in production.



Of course they wouldn't care much about ALB's due diligence atm as they have so much to do with a lots of stakeholders. Btw, they are already assisting ALB to finish it, pack up and go away.

Here is LTR's stakeholders from ESG report.
ALB has no place there of course.



10-year average cash cost (C1) of A$651 per SC6 tonne, excluding royalties is also very low.

It is US$423/t

Greenbushes sales price for SC6 for the Q2-2023 was US$5400/t

We would make 1300% profit at that rate even now.

We know Greenbushes made AU$10.5b profit in FY23 and AU$9.5b was profit (EBITDA). So these numbers are correct.




Our cost is going to be higher than Greenbushes of course because we will have very high ESG credentials. We will be paying more for renewable energy instead of using 100% gas and have cheaper costs.

Here it is. See what LTR says on ESG report.




We are making responsible mining at any cost. See what we do for Tjiwarl people. We have changed the pit plan to show our respect. This comes by a cost of course. I'm happy LTR is doing that.



FUNDING IS NO PROBLEM.
It's obvious. No need to talk about that about that for me anymore.

"FundingThe Company is well advanced in discussions with a lender syndicate of commercial banks and government credit agencies to obtain the funding it requires to meet its final funding requirements.

Engagement with the lender syndicate continues to progress towards credit approved term sheets, adding to the previously announced joint letter of support from the government export credit agencies.12 The Company expects a funding solution in place by the end of the calendar year, with additional funding not required until the commencement of CY2024"


Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) Project Update

It's clear that they are not happy with the DSO market prices, and the tests they have done showed that they could add this DSO ore into the process plant and can make SC6 with it when the production starts.

Great. That'd exactly be what I'd do. No need for early revenue. So no need to produce and sell DSO at cheap price. No messing with the workings there now. Just stockpile it.