No worries, and take your point, but suggest your graph is triggers to production based on the last cycle, where the last uptick comes from DFS/Offtakes/funding/FID and meeting your DFS/FID targets in production in that order to get the continued upward trajectory in the graph in that last cycle - at the moment SP for KV is a function of NPV at this stage of the cycle, i.e after PFS but before DFS and reconfiguration in DFS of production volumes and makeup - so with the sulphate/hydroxide proposal looking at a SP up to 80c (without Moora) on a NPV basis at this stage until upticks continue, noting hydroxide/sulphate proposal was a Scoping Study, and depends what the valuers are using at arriving at fair value today. I would say LTR is not been currently treated by the market as a exploration/speculatative play anymore - that has already occured so your in the stage before the last uptick, meaning market will be pricing the road to production from here on.
Maybe put a X on that graph where you think LTR is at. With a 2025 production start date, maybe earlier I think they are on the 'limited news' part (end of) as now awaiting DFS, tgen comes offtakes/funding, FID etc. That 5x - 10x is the trigger points of process from moving from NPV measures of SP to nominal measures, but the trigger for that movement initially IMO is offtake/funding and then market believing you will hit the production date. At production it then becomes nominal values and hitting DFS targets a translate to EPS. Now if don't hit them, well SP could do the reverse at production initially as PLS showed, having to retrofit capex to get to DFS recovery rates. So graph is also simplistic IMO.
In production, and meeting DFS targets for hydroxide SP will be a lot higher - note, first column was the spodumene nominal profit estimate in the relevant Ann cited (production based) by me. I have not done a nominal profit one for hydroxide/sulphate profit, albeit did one here a while ago if others want to find it as it pertains to SP, and SP in production I estimated a lot lot higher assuming those production and profit targets on nominal as against NPV terms are met (again in production move to nominal values, but where LTR is today like any other play before production and before capex spend, hence the time value of money concept, are assessed on NPV basis after the initial speulatative stage (already done here - market now wants the road to mining). That $4.8 billion profit in hydroxide column, should be in the NPV column btw in my table - would be obvious to a lot given the P/E SP fo the last few columns was NPV based. Posted to correct that point. And yes this is how I assessed AVZ as well - search my posts and you'll find me constantly talking about the required trigger points there, offtakes, then funding, then FID etc etc
In a TO scenario it is based on projected NPV at this stage of the cycle given whoever does a TO still needs to install capex and the TO value is treated as a capex spend btw. In other words the principles for valuation were provided in my first post above - an embedded post. Noting that is irrelevant as TG saying he is taking KV to production anyway, but that post gives a view on how fair value is created.
If follow the maths, the market is pricing in IMO that LTR for KV will upscope the PFS configuration if producing spodumene alone and/or will upscope to produce hydroxide/sulphate was my point. A while ago I posted here I thought the KV SP alone was about 36c currently, so Moora is not that pirced in yet is my other point. When you move to the next stage, starting with upscale/DFS/Offtakes then finance you can then start looking a that last upswing etc etc In the interim, the catalyst to upswing SP is finding something a Moora. Finding good grades of copper and gold without PGEs is still great, noting an EV needs 3 - 4 times more copper than a ICE btw. In other words, just need to find a viable resource in Moora is my point, and doesn't have to be a Julimar signature type either
All IMO
Expand
(20min delay)
