the double handling of our ore was in our integration study and...

First 48 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Therookie88

2,672 Posts.

1834

05/12/23

18:55

Post #: 71287345
Share

Originally posted by LewisB: ↑

Other than the tenement issue (which seems to me easily solved by signing an offtake with AVL for a slight discount to the market price of Vanadium for their electrolyte facility, since they’re years behind mining). They can tear it up when they hit production for all I care as I reckon we will have got 5 years out of Yarrabubba, and the electrolyte facility, I seriously don’t see what AVL bring to the table here.

if it means that much to financiers, find smarter financiers with more time/brains to compare the two companies, in the meantime cut costs, get shovel ready, and wait for vanadium to shoot for the sky’s again (this has to be 2024 or 2025 at the rate China are developing).

In tomorrow’s webinar I’m going to ask what the cost of double handling Yarrabubba production is per lb and ask if that’s worth the dilution and $10m in fees to merge. It might be “double handling” but you don’t have to dig up the rock twice, so it isn’t twice as expensive. Hopefully someone here knows roughly what it would add to our opex. We are $2USD a pound lower than AVL $6.50 vs $8.50 (using Troytd’s comparison doc which used company data) so we could be 30%!!!!!! higher from double handling AND STILL BE CHEAPER THAN AVL WITH LESS CO2 EMISSIONS!

This “deal” doesnt make any sense

Expand

the double handling of our ore was in our integration study and still delivered better economics than AVL Bfs and that's with TMT using a $1.67 diesel price and only a modest offset with the titanium credit

TMT Price at posting: 21.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
6 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply