My price target took a few things into consideration, been...

My price target took a few things into consideration, been downstream processing into hydroxide, and obviously the metrics in production been met to allow SP to transition to strictly EPS and P/E basis, or another way to put it LTR been in production. The upper price target was around downstream processing as against spodumene sales. And obviously been in production, so probably looking a slightly longer timeframes, but in the interim meeting targets is the obvious key and SP will look after itself. My posts on valuations are here for those interested Post #: 65922837 and Post #: 65923045 to get context

On the question of underground mining, as raised by @eugened, underground mining is not a new thing in the mining industry and while it may be a new way to extract spodumene for LTR compared to say PLS I don't see moving underground as an issue in itself. I just see spodumene mining similar to way I see, say copper and other mining - you have open cut and underground mines and economics dictates which will be chosen. I posted as such when I was a non-holder - refer Post #: 43885608 . I don't see underground mining as an issue here is the point, and never have.

I agree with what @Process1 has posted in the context of rising capex costs. This is interesting in that IMO it means spodumene prices are going to be higher for longer because IMO new exploration plays may find it more difficult to get finance and/or to get finance may require giving away part of the 'farm' to achieve funding for developing a mine. This puts LTR in a unique spot in that it has got its finance in place and if things go well it can use free cash flow to fund the downstream operations, and that is only a positive for SP.

There is a lot wrong in the post by @Bluegoose as they are making a lot of assumptions around ramp up and production issues, which are not apparent at this stage but you can never discount ramp up issues. Spodumene prices are likely to remain high and the key is that if operating costs were to increas sightly, for example, than planned well at this stage actual outcome are that prices are still higher than what was previously expected in the FID studies, notwithstanding DSO sales as well. So it is a case of checks and balances. And the fact part of the capex increase is actually because the configuration now is to produce 20% more than initially anticipated - Post #: 65809559. What is also missing in this analysis which I talk about in the underground mining post is that the higher grades in the underground section mean that LTR actually will be treating less ore to produce saleable product than many of its competitors. It is the high grade ore in the underground sections that are a key to controlling costs. Where I may agree with him, given my conservative nature, is that it may take slightly longer to get to the valuations quoted by some on here, with some of those valuations certainly requiring the variables to come in as anticipated and noting it is in production that SP fully transforms to EPS and PE ratios (nominal metrics). Even my quoted price is based around downstream processing in production.

Having said that a rising SP and, in future, dividend payments is nothing to be sneezed at. Time will tell, but to be frank I think a lot of learnings have happened from the likes of PLS and others in there ramp up to production that I feel that LTR will not have production issues in the ramp up stage and be able to achieve its targets more readily. It also helps having a higher grade ore with low deleterious elements as well in helping that, which LTR has - Post #: 66062936 Time will tell but risks are always appraent with any investment, it is how you deal with them that counts.

All IMO