I actually think yesterdays announcement was very good in terms...

I actually think yesterdays announcement was very good in terms of opening up project development scenarios for LTR. Buldania seems to have a good resource to 100 metres - a key for me here. My issue with Mt Kathleen was the depth and the games a suitor can play on that, but Buldania actually IMO gives LTR the serious option of developing Buldania first to get some cash flow to then deal with the overburden issues of Mt Kathleen before getting to the resource there - infact the benefit there IMO would be it puts LTR on the front foot in terms of Offtake for equity agreements and in dealing with third parties (as can use cash flow from Buldania to progress Kathleen if potential partners play hard ball). Obviously more drilling required.

The other day I did compare LTR to other Australian plays yesterday but the post was modded for been offtopic as it talked about other issues. To be succinct LTR's market cap is 1/4 of PLS and nearly 100% of AJM and 40% of GXY - that is a key consideration for myself in terms of Australian plays and how it translates to value of LTR because the latter will sort out their recovery rate issues IMO. I recognise people here are stating that LTR is an explorer therefore MC should not be aligned to a producer. I disagree with that view because what drove the latter SPs in the exploration stage compared to the others - which many here are referring to as well - was the resource but also their respective DFSs issued at the time which many haven't looked at here IMO, and underpinning those explorers was a strip ratio of around 4:1 and a recovery of 75% - 80% assumption in the DFS. If you want to know the issues of the others it is in the recovery rates, as prices received today by say PLS when compared to their respective DFSs at the time are, at times, still higher today than what was assumed in their earlier DFSs, i.e. go take a look at PLSs September 2016 DFS for its initial 2mtpa plant scenario, but all are still well below the 75% - 80% recovery assumptions in their respective DFSs.

Now LTR in some of the data I have seen is stating a strip ratio higher than 8:1 (double the Australian plays) and a recovery rate of 80% (the same as the Australian producers in their respective DFSs). The market has seen with the others that unless you sort out your capex properly upfront achieving those recovery rates is difficult. The benefit I do see for LTR is they do have benefit of hindsight by seeing what went wrong with the existing producers with strip ratios above 4:1 so that they can ensure that they can hit the estimated recovery rates on time (and by the way I do expect overtime PLS/GXY/AJM to hit their recovery rates albeit some are spending some additional capex to get to that).

But to repeat the Buldania announcement does open up options (good options IMO) for LTR. Some more drilling into Buldania I suspect but possibly develop this one first IMO so get the cash flow to deal with the overburden issues of Mt Kathleen before hitting a pretty good resource there at Mt Kathleen. The grades for Buldania between 0 metres to 100 metres look good too me so hence why I think they can have a two development strategy here, developing Buldania first.

Obviously getting to market the key for LTR and that means more drilling and proving up the resource and confirming the good grade it has come with ok deleterious elements of iron, phosphorous and fluorine. As I said before, given the Fe count here look very good I suspect the other impurities will come in the acceptable ranges as well, hence, my gut feel is that this deposit of developed will certainly see the product destined for the higher value hydroxide market.

In terms of this Ann, this has IMO changed the way I am now viewing LTR. This Ann has certainly tweaked my interest here.

For those who got in early also well done.

All IMO