Ann: Prairie Lithium PFS Confirms Extremely Low Operating Cost, page-167

My sharing Grounded's economic assessment is just a point of reference for wider audience to consider what feeds into the equation as "cost" in determining IRR. Your question would be best placed once we have E3's PFS and compare it to AZL side by side.

Agreed with your module analysis. I think you understand well, as you have followed this project for a long time and understand the economics even if can't write it down in numbers, compared to the general market: how many drills, how many pads, how much each module would cost and why... so in that respect Grounded is not the best for peer comparison.

I am of the view that E3 will change their approach to modular with their other projects if given that economics are better, and we believe it will show, since cost of improvements and maintenance of the value chain haven't been factored in. For example, if we are to build a centralised processing facility fed by brine from all drills as opposed, if there was a need to improve that central processing site would be very costly rather than each module. One module can remain productive, while the next can be improving economics, and a third being constructed with better, etc... instead of stopping all activities outright because of an expensive improvement required to a central processing site all drills rely on to feed. Theres also the supply chain eg. carrying unprocessed brine to send to central processing site before being sent to chemical processing, is much more costly than eluate end product per module sent directly to chemical plant... what more if process improvements are required? That value chain would be more costly to adjust.

Hope this makes sense and help.

Hope you have a prosperous New Year! And thank you for sharing your thoughts and contribution/information with us.