Ann: Large-Scale Pilot Plant study exceeds design criteria, page-82

Disclosure:
I'm an LPD holder who is Watching LIT.
I despise cross-forum ramping: waste of everyone's time.
Not ramping, just watching and wondering...


After RE-reading both the LPD PFS and the recent LIT Pilot Plant study...
it appears to the reader that LIT is:
1) coming later to the party (LIT 2017 06 report vs LPD 2017 02 PFS)
2) with less risk mitigation (LIT 2017 EOY target 'financial decision' vs LPD 2017 DFS and 2018 early implementation, 2019 production)
3) at a higher price (LIT $9200 USD per tonne LiCarbonate vs LPD $5-6000 per tonne, both before by-product credits.
4) with essentially the same technology capability: to process lithium mica from waste stream with high-temp acid leach. (So why the take-over except to remove a competitor??)
5) with a less certain supply line (LIT "Sourcing mica remains a priority and critical to LSPP" vs LPD with feed source quoted from Europe along with additional potential sources.)




Q) Is there some subtlety that I have missed which makes Sileach better?

A1) NO, rokkett, at this stage I am not going to bank on 'Sileach can process both Spod and Mica': I would like to DMOR on the Spod processing side, but aside from the fact that Sileach CAN process spod to high grade, I am still left without any info to determine financial viability (i.e. recovery rates, input costs, etc). This latest LIT announcement SAYS that Sileach for Spod is still under research, so unless you know something that I don't, then Sileach for Spod is a pretty speculative tech (too much for my risk appetite).

A2) JVs? Yes, possible... I'll have to look into this in more detail, but I know some have gone quiet for both companies (e.g. PLS for LIT, EMH (killed) for LPD),

A3) Mineral Resources: Both have spod or potential spod resources. Don't have sizes / status in front of me, but from memory LPD are farther along in this regard.

A4) SP? MC? Hmmm... Too much volatility in both of late to use these as indicators.

Thanks,