AR, page-3

Well done CJ I mostly agree with you: you're finally learning a thing or 2 here.
In particular, I agree with the need to reassess your previous estimate of their breakeven point (or COP).
I disagreed recently with your naive assumption that Lynas would sell anything if it made any profit (39821535 and your previous post).
Seems you now see my point there; hard to miss it now we've seen their 35% profit margin on what they DID choose to sell. I won't rehash the argument here.
We were both confused by their decision to cut back production. My reasoning was: make it and stockpile more if that's best. After all there may be a halt/further impediments to production. (This was before the license extension ann.)
Amanda addressed this quite specifically in the Q&A section. Last year's December shutdown due to regulatory throughput constraints (not being increased) was a major disruption. Better to operate at the steady state that maximises allowed processing with no disruptions. Makes sense.
The $80m profit in poor market conditions is no suprise once you recognise that Lynas is a low cost producer. Don't forget that when they needed to they were selling INTO China, much to Jack Lifton's suprise. (Was his analogy Coals to Newcastle or Ice to Eskimos? I can't recall.)
They don't need the "ROW Producer" boost to be a globally competitive producer. But it does help.
The capital outlay of building C&L in WA is a hit; about a year in terms of their overall development IMO. Long term it may well be a good thing given the boost in capacity and expected efficiencies gained from 10 yrs experience with the LAMP. I don't expect any significant change in overall COP. Greater efficiency, more automation and expanded capacity being balanced by higher transport, chemical and labour costs.