AVZ Peer Transparency, page-7

MLL (formerly BGS) reported there was a cut off threshold for penalty rates………. where for iron oxide that is 1.4%

PLS has also indicated in its commissioning, a target to get below 1.4%

Eyecandy-wise IMO, PLS wont publish the variance in iron levels which could indicate the consistency and or inconsistency of product. If you look at the 1st Qtr you see reported more than once an Fe level of 1.8% (which semantically as some have argued here could mean an iron oxide level of approx 2.5% due to atomic weight difference).

This is the main issue for retail investors. There are specs for product types internally published but are confidential and so we as retailers only have anecdotal information on what is suitable.

I suspect the newer batteries with less cobalt and higher density require better spec than 1.4% penalty threshold.

There is also the matter of mica.......

In any case a JORC defined ‘homogenous resource’ would likely find long term offtakers as the product would be easier to know and handle.

Therefore as Huayou already claim………… AVZ has a premium product.

All IMO & DYOR