Haven't had much time to look at this, but I thought a good starting point is this post on brines per se as they may relate to lithium in brines:
Post #:
44584547What I can see from the published data is that for a brine deposit ASN has the Li grades are ok, but not as high as Atacama for example - refer above post - so the driver of economics is going to be the bromine/boron here IMO in the first instance (i.e. obvious to yourselves I take it but just needed to put it into context for me) or the technology working for producing the carbonate/hydroxide as against typical technologies that brine uses in the conversion process. That seems the most interesting part for me here, albeit the PEA announcement (June 2020) was essentially for a bromide project with a pilot 24 tpa lithium carbonate plant. Would appear if the technology works they will then expand out.
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200605/pdf/44jdvxhykzb704.pdfhttps://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200511/pdf/44hqg3fqx3pn69.pdfI think they appear to be also saying low deleterious elements in the brines themselves, and by that I presume magnesium.
The interesting aspect is the lithium pilot plant, which appears to potentially design a single process of going from lithium in the brines to lithium hydroxide. This is Phase 2 of the Project, whereas Phase 1 from the PEA is about the sale of sodium bromide (which targets other markets). The strange thing for me is whilst they appear to spend a lot of time talking about the lithium market, it would appear they intend leveraging of Phase 1 to develop Phase 2, meaning cashflow from Phase 1, I presume, will be used to further develop Phase 2 and progress the pilot plant to possibly greater commercialisation if successful, meaning more tonnes of lithium hydroxide/carbonate. The market outlook for sodium bromide is actually quite good btw:
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sodium-bromide-market.htmlOn a positive infrastructure in the area looks ok, a does having access to gas. I would question using a 7% discount rate in the financial analysis, and maybe substitute 8% or 10% instead, but for the US probably 7% is fine (or 8% which is what a number of Australian companies seem to now be using for projects in Oz and yes I know this one is in the US).
Finally, ASN seems to be focusing on too many things, and needs to be clearer in what it is seeking to do - i..e better explain Phase 1 and explain the Phase 2 plan to greater production, and probably better explain how it will commercialise and patent the Phase 2 technology if its is successful.
Looking at the PEA, the bulk of the capex is in Phase 1, with a small amount of capex in Phase 2. Would appear too me the idea is if the Phase 2 technology works to use Phase 1 -i.e. read cash flow and self funding - for further expansion down the track in lithium carbonate/hydroxide. So the pilot plant (stage 2) is the interesting aspect of this project. Hence the risk/reward equation here as the predominant project here at this stage is Phase 1. So essentially a long term perspective needed here IMO.
Finally, I spent very little time on this - 90 minutes - so could be wrong in my interpretation, but found what they report at times to be not that well constructed in what they are seeking to say and do. Probably because I haven't spent much time looking here. Anyway, hope the above helps - I am positive I am wrong, but hopefully might help your discussions here.
I do get tagged in a lot, and often don't respond as old age, VB and forgetfulness is setting in LOL. Only responded as looks interesting but obviously I don't think my interpretation is fully/near the mark. Anyway, all the best.
All IMO IMO IMOIMO
