Ann: Liontown moves forward with DSO opportunity, page-83

I would take that one point further and state that the DSO product been sold was initially considered over-burden in the DFS. Or in other words waste - its costs are therefore part of the mine development cost for producing and selling spodumene concentrate.

So the only additional costs that should only be considered, IMO, for DSO product relate to the following:
1. Stockpiling.
2. Ore sorting
3. Transport costs.

If others can think of other costs please state, but the key is differing what the costs were in teh DFS to the additional costs required for selling DSO.

In other words, given the product that is to be sold was initially destined as waste, then the DSO business is going to be highly profitable. I would suggest the 3 costs above would be less than US$150 per tonne additional cost to the original DFS. They are likely to be lower, but I tend to be conservative. In part because there may be other minor costs I can't think of yet at this stage.

In undertaken an economic analysis of DSO you don't include the mine development costs because the DFS was about spodumene sales and no DSO. So DSO is an incremental cost over the original DFS costs.

If interested: Point 1 of Post #:65809559 and grade of DSO likely to be above 1% Li2o as per Post #:66062936 This should also put to bed the issue around, if there are further cost overruns how will they be funded. They will be funded from the profit from DSO sales given the profit will be related to the following equation:

DSO revenue received - stockpiling - ore sorting costs for the stock pile - transport costs.

All IMO