COMSEC Snapshot Report for today AZV vs PLB, page-60

That is going to be a problem for LTR more than AVZ. As per my posts on why resource quality matters - Post #: 43092083 and Post #: 43031668 - lenders are waking up (after the initial lithium euphoria) that not all resources are great and cost overruns are evident when you have thin viens and/or smaller width resources and/or a mine plan that are spread out over a large mining surface. What do thin viens mean as well - they also mean different cooling outcomes that impact the resource itself - it is why AJM/PLS resource crystal structures are different btw despite so-called nearology - I posted this in the PLS thread btw when asked for an opinion btw , Post #: 41474370 IMO.

For LTR the issue is depth and the viens themselves that are going to be mined in the open cut section before getting to the much better and wider width resources at depth, which might have their own risks (given LTR will be the first lithium underground mine if it proceeds after the open cut stage). Moving from open cut to underground is LTR's other issue.

The key issue with multiple thin viens, is the resource is not likely to be homogeneous (as the cooling systems in each can differ, meaning the process flowsheet is constantly tweaked and that is where you can stuff things up especially around the floatation stage where the settings of the SAG and ball mill are not adjusted properly. Especially if deleterious elements in the resource change in each vien.

Having a deep width, closer to surface, compact resource, along the lines of Greenbushes that AVZ has but with a lower strip ratio, and is homogeneous limits that risk at minesite. It is why the resource matters, which you then ask me not to focus on but then yabber about AJM/PLS problems as if they are relevant to AVZ - the problem with PLS/AJM, especially PLS, is the opex costs at minesitehave failed to meet the DFS and that has impacted recovery, because the spodumene price in teh DFS was around US$550 per tonne for each, and that is a resource problem by the way. It is why I am repaeting myself again to you.

You don't like talking resource but yet you throw up PLS/AJM, but to repeat the principal problems there have been resource and leveraging of the Greenbushes scenario for development, when the Greenbushes development scenario is on a far better and compact resource. Your a PLS holder - btw who scoped your plant and I just wonder how much leveraging was done of Greenbushes by them, and how detailed those METs actually were, because retrofitting capex is a sign of poor planning (i.e. the DFS only works when you scope properly btw and obviously in WA cost overruns in construction seem to be a norm these days btw). Notice the extent of AVZ's METs and reporting and compare that to teh others in their DFS (understanding the resource a key is my point).

Yes I do see lenders/buyers focusing more on the resource, layering of the resource, METs etc when looking at the DFS and funding btw. That is the likely outcome from say A40 and some of the other WA plays, like PLS, not hitting targets.

Yes transport is a risk for AVZ, but at minseite the resource is not going to have the risks of the likes of the stuff ups of PLS especially (by misreading the resource - do you recall PLS comparing the resource to Greenbushes all those years back and I was hoping to find those Anns/presentations but not my issue as I don't hold PLDS, well how did that play out?)..

If you are saying you can't trust a DFS, that has a greater issue for LTR given its resource btw - see embedded posts above.

Yes for AVZ it is about transport and I suspect lenders will be ensuring the solution is solid, and part of mitigation strategies are who the equity for Offtake Agreements are with.

Finally, the risks around transport are not 'inflated' blow out cost wise btw (unless transport tariffs increase), given the newness of the infrastructure and costing through doing sample runs (but risks around upkeep there so the operator and Chinese involvement in maintaining transport routes a key). Train path policy andtrain managment techniques for running a train network newly built does run like clockwise, unless it is allowed to delapidate. Enough data exists on rail tariffs and road tariffs to have a decent go at costing transport btw.

The risks around transport is failure of the transport system itself and/or internal conflict that disrupts the transport system, given the length of the transport task (but transporting long distance is nothing new to this world btw). If you look at derailments in the Pilbara they are fixed quite quickly btw so disruptions themselves are not that significant noting train movements themselves are not going to be that high for AVZ moving 1 mtpa of spodumene btw. They are not moving tonnages of hundreds of millions of tonnes like theyon the Pilbara railways btw, so a bit of perspective by you on the transport task needed. Obviously rail is preferred, but you want to have the shortest road option when hauling stuff anyway is my point as well, and that appears what AVZ is also seeking to do with that new route (and using rail is an opex cost saving against longer road haul btw).

But scoping for the wrong resource and/or process flow sheet, well that is a different kettle of fish in the risk stakes btw (i.e. ask PLS for a start).

Transport cost is the risk for AVZ, always as been to repeat, but if production starts the risk is simply around keeping the transport systems maintained as they are new (as against installing the wrong process flow sheet).

Not sure why I keep responding to you because bluntly your arguments become circular. I await your comments when the DFS is out btw. Do you have current, note I use the word current, pictures of what the transport system looks like in the DRC, because the transport infrastructure scene in Africa seems to be continually changing with the belts and road initiative of the Chinese as well as how will roads be improved in that 'economic zone' now set up forManono - Post #: 43099905

When the DFS comes out comment all you like. I will certainly focus on transport in my own review of it.

If you don't want me to talk about the resource don't mention PLS's problems as if they are relevant to AVZ.

All IMO

All IMO