@billijo, I think LIT has only one out of the four key criteria...

@billijo,

I think LIT has only one out of the four key criteria you refer to.
Resource viability- No resource yet
Product quality- It took 6months and three attempts, but yes 'battery grade' was achieved. This was not demonstrated on a continuous basis and highlighted some key process issues in my opinion.
Product value- Lithium and lithium products will exhibit strong LT prices (~$10,000/t LCE)
Profit- $800/t LCE ($2Mpa) this will not be enough to pay back the capital investment
and profit.

Unfortunately, @billijo I believe you have been one of the fooled. Ansto did not deny the use of HF, only the fact that it is not "added". The issue I see is that any technology, especially new or developing ones, need the least amount of hurdles to jump prior to commercialisation. The deadly nature of HF is a big hurdle and is always substituted where ever possible.

Both companies are progressing a sound strategy to commercialisation through large scale piloting. What I dont understand, is that LIT have a L-max license, but chose to study Sileach when Lmax has production costs at an equivalent scale to <$5,000/t LCE without by products while Sileach was $9,200/t LCE. That means that instead of 'break even' the Lmax equivalent would be profitable whilst also demonstrating scalability.

I think there is huge potential in this untapped resource and one of these companies will make it. Not sure about ADY - havent DMOR.

Who should you trust? Dont trust a single poster but assess all posted information in the light of day. Ansto are a good technical organisation. However, they do not look at the practical application or economic viability of any new process. They are a paid entity.

Trust yourself - its your money.