Ok, my quick read is as follows and to understand this many here will need to revisit this log I have been keeping on MET tests, in order:
Post #:
40447214Post #:
40459181Post #:
40459342To summarise the posts above, AVZ is using a DMS option (with no floatation) to achieve a saleable product. It is working on the viewpoint the spodumene can be liberated from the lattice in ok quantities in the DMS stage and because of low deleterious elements it does not need floatation to produce a saleable product, albeit that comes at the expense of recovery rates. That is given the size of spodumene crystals at Roche plus the 'easiness' of removing it from the lattice with low deleterious elements here compared to peers, I suspect, it is why AVZ is able to extract far far far more spodumene concentrate from a DMS process (and others need floatation). In other words with floatation recovery rates for AVZ will be greater than 80% here, but increase capex costs.
IMO, your tin/tantulum recoveries are actually impacted by the option adopted (i.e for example as the DMS option IMO does not have ball milling and other component parts in a process flowsheet this impacts recoveries there as well for them - what I am saying is that whilst a DMS option works for spodumene it is not liberating IMO significant tin/tantulum and that is why I suspect AVZ is talking about more tests to work out how to get more receovery in a DMS process for tin etc etc). Refer: Post #:
40476332 Obviously IMO when in future they retrofit floatation and therefore the ball milling/further grinding that is where I suspect tin recoveries will increase further (but that is a guess). (Note: you don't get the tin from floatation it is before that stage for avoidance of doubt, but obviously get spodumene from floatation).
The whole idea of these tests is really to put in place the lowest cost capex option to underpin NPV, noting it will impact recovery rates.
When you look at the tests, the best recoveries and Li20 grade under DMS/HLS are actually at 3.35mm grind size using SG2.90, but here they are intending to use 5.56mm crush size at 2.95 (which suggests too me there are some cost considerations here as to why they are doing that). I suspect in due course when they convert to floatation that grind size, SG specifications will be optimised so I am treating these METS essentially as what they think they need to do to have a lower funding requirement, a viable project and an ability to get this to production by say 2022/23.
I recognise they are proposing further testing, but how these tests are conducted I suspect will depend on where they think they are with funding,Offtake Agreements etc.
The most positive aspect I saw in the announcement was the viewpoint of an impending Chairman announcement. Let's hope the Chairman ensures whatever option is adopted that when it comes to retrofitting the preferred production method (with floatation) that changes to the process flowsheet are easier to make. Also lets hope the Chairman can play the Chnese at their own game and maximise value for SH.
Nonetheless, for a DMS only option the recovery rates are still very good for Li20 and tat too me still means a viable project as I posted at Post #:
40536113All IMO