Thank you Mr @Scarpa for your generosity in explicating...

Thank you Mr @Scarpa for your generosity in explicating possibilities.

I believe it was that MLL management realised selling SC6 is not reliable, and possibly plays into the hands of Chinese processors, where as integrating a precursor chemistry for hydroxide or carbonate, that is lithium sulphate improves the value accretive dramatically.

It also troubleshoots issues with consistency that plague all but the top two in grade hard rock deposits. Further detail shows that usually the process of transforming Spodumene concentrate to Lithium sulphate requires a kiln firing process which as for operational expenditure would be very expensive, but the kiln technology that MLL management had in mind was a much much more effective version of kiln firing, from a time and cost point of view.

So the question is if this kiln Grier process of dust/ pulp was feasible why was it not carried through to a DFS level of study already?

According to this announcement in January, the DFS was due in May. https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200130/pdf/44dmqj7tth1hjk.pdf

If anyone wants to elaborate further on particulars please do so.

I also checked this corporate presentation from February 2020, and note MLL Management are using a 2017 Fraser institute statistic, instead of a 2018 or 2019 version. Can anyone explain that? Is it a case they were too busy, tired or lazy? to find the up to date data?

If one easy fact is easy to gloss where are the other gloss overs? For some who comfortable with heir investment this is likely not material but if you’re looking for value and analysing a stock then it throws so many data points into doubt as well Management’s performance.

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20200212/pdf/44f0sr1jrwqdyh.pdf