Hi Rhys. - here’s the link to Blythefan’s post yesterday. [ref]...

Hi Rhys. - here’s the link to Blythefan’s post yesterday. [ref]

You asked me to look again but frankly I find it almost impossible to separate denigration of AVL from facts about TMT.

Spoiler : Revisiting TMT facts from that post

I think it comes down to this ;

“I have maintained, and continue to maintain, that TMT was a genuine developer. They have published a DFS within 5 years of listing, underpinned by a Reserve and Resource base of fresher, better, less compromised (metallurgically) ore than AVL”


I read that as what it says - the 2019 DFS was published within five years of TMT listing.
TMT’s ‘Gadbinintha’ tenement (the only tenement analysed in that 2019 report?) is a superior ore body.


I saw TMT as the most technically astute and realistic and commercially focused company, whereas AVL was a lifetimer outfit helmed by boomers and sinceured lazy puffins with dumb ideas to cart ore to Geraldton.

Ah … TMT seemed more efficient ?
plus the proposed AVL processing plant 80km out of Geraldton is a dumb idea where the land ought to be given over instead as a sanctuary for aged AVL directors (the ones that are gone now?) and Scottish sea birds?


… TMT had a water exploration borefield and was doing water licenses and proving up water resources to underpin ~20 years of mining…

TMT secured water licenses.


…So NAIF is on the hook at **anintha for TMT. But that's based on TMT's DFS and mine plan.
If the new merged company changes the mine plan from TMT's process-on-site, to AVL's process in Geraldton, an (can) TMT assure shareholders that NAIF will back in $120M or whatever it is, to get the camp, pipeline and watever else they agreed to fund?

This bit confuses me a bit.
As I read it, it says ‘if AVL messes around with the progress TMT has achieved to date will NAIF still put in funding for $120m which has been previously agreed on?’
One reason for my confusion is I did not realise NAIF had committed to support TMT to the tune of around $120m!

(That’s huge and I’d really like to see the agreement if anyone is able to provide it please.)


Also, remember that TMT's plan was 3Mtpa. AVL's was 3MTpa. TMT's mining lease application and mining proposal was for that mine plan as envisaged by the DFs. AVL did the same.
SO what's RCF's grand galaxy brain idea? 3Mtpa. Because re0permitting both operations is insanity, having gone all the way through enviro and heritage and everything, you're kinda stuck at 3Mtpa.

I think that reads as ‘theoretically RCF would be insane if it made AVL start back at the beginning of the repermitting process’
(— So why would it do that?)

If you double the amount of sheets of toilet paper on issue (and TMT gets 40% of the poo tickets under the merger) you're bound by the mining proposal rate of 3Mtpa. Which means you only ever make...8ktpa pentoxide. Same costs. Same profits. Twice as many butt wipe pieces of shares to split the winnings with, after dilution, and assuming the merged entity gets the MMI grant, builds a risky technology factory for batteries, gets the mine production aligned perfectly with the factory, and then also gets NAIF to grit its teeth and fund it now you've cut the nett profitability in half and added in all the extra risk.

I think that means that if everything stays the same after the two entities come together under one name the merger stinks ? (and AVL has too many shares)
From what I can see, TMT and AVL haven't even discussed this in their tragic merger presentation. Both boards have just listened to one major shareholder and agreed, like sock puppets, to the merger.

Blythefan thinks the merger presentation is weak and that RCF has controlled the whole thing .

In a way, it's fair enough. Whomsoever agrees to keep tipping money in gets to decide what these companies do. If no one has an alternative to RCF's money, then RCF gets to decide. The fact both companies' boards are just RCF tools is by now not a shock.
Etc

So that’s why many posters here are triggered by the words ‘Australian Vanadium’?
That’s really all I get … that TMT is the better and more advanced mining project and that if RCF wanted the battery stuff, network and patents at AVL it should have merged AVL into TMT?

Rhys frankly I believe your post of this morning [here] offered better insights and more objective views uncoloured by any of the past slanging that others seem unable to get over.
The last section:

So I am trying to find a proposal that RCF saw where, advantages of having it all under one roof needed to be taken, but TMT is still absolutely 100% the main game in town.

That at least can make some sense to me, from RCF's perspective..

Hell, it's obvious that to own the whole resource, AVL had to buy out TMT. It's simple dollars and cents..

But how differently might we able to look at this whole thing and how RCF plan to move forward, if we changed that sinple point and and have TMT buying out AVL.

We'd be looking at it like, TMT see an opportunity to extract the best parts of AVL, let's say including the name, but TMT IS still the main game here..

Maybe that's exactly how it is, just it's all obscured simply by the fact it was cheaper to have one entity acquire the other and not vise versa?​

This hits the nail on my head in my opinion.
This is hardly the time to be stuck looking over one’s shoulder at the past IMO
It’s the FUTURE this merger was designed for, and traditionally - according to my research - what profits RCF also profits those who ride with it!

Cheers