Hi mate,"Ok, let’s go back to step one… why would LPD abandon a...

Hi mate,

"Ok, let’s go back to step one… why would LPD abandon a now technically green-lighted plan to commercialise lithium carbonate? Back in 2018 the express reason given for the capital raise at that time was to ‘support a carbonate offtake’. Considering the company’s own mission statement - cashflow from carbonate, however meagre, is still cashflow."

Because they saw a better opportunity in lithium hydroxide. Yes, cashflow is still cashflow, but that doesn't mean pursuing it blindly is in the best interests of the company. Remember that P1 is not the end-state, and any errors they make in planning it will take even longer to resolve before P2 can be built.

The sodium sulphate issue won't immediately rear its ugly head, if their concerns are correct, but it could become a major issue in 4 or 5 years' time. That would be a massive issue for a P2-sized operation to deal with. It would still be pretty bad for P1.

And it has been repeatedly stated they may go back to carbonate with LOH-Max. It is a lot easier to get back to carbonate from hydroxide than it is to go from carbonate to hydroxide. It's just the sodium sulphate they don't want.

They also stated the interest and feedback from potential offtake partners is that hydroxide is what they're interested in. These companies are likely being asked to stump up cash for prepayment to help build the plant, so if the money is in hydroxide, that is where the team will go. BASF want hydroxide, and that is the closest we have seen to an offtake partner.

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190218/pdf/442p7gp2ch31mz.pdf

"There are so many mixed messages in there it becomes difficult to pinpoint exactly which version of reality is credible. Big picture is that LPD Board insists that carbonate is viable but are not pursuing the commercialisation because it is not viable."

Again, not seeing the mixed messages. Carbonate as a business isn't going away, but that doesn't mean there is interest in funding new sources of it. The highest range batteries require cathodes made from lithium hydroxide, so if you are going after top tier customers, that is the material you need to be providing them.

And again, I don't see how you can say that because they changed plans, the original one wasn't viable. We can only say that it wasn't the best plan, not that it wasn't a viable one. I don't know what it would have cost to deal with the sodium sulphate as waste, and maybe it would have been so expensive as to limit the viability, but I doubt it. The stuff isn't radioactive, it just has to be stored properly.

That would be sub-optimal, for sure. That doesn't mean it isn't viable. So they changed plans to go with the best option.

The updated flowsheet, showing that L-Max is still integral to the process, it's just the final stage that has been supplanted with LOH-Max.