Hi @bobsacramento.
This thread seems a better one to try to answer your question.
It's an impossible question for any of us to answer I guess.
I admit I may be wrong here Bob, but, from memory, this fixed crushing circuit was either the first one refurbed by GMM when they took over the mine back in April 2016, or was the only one not to ever get replaced by them, with all the mentions of the subsequent upgrade work of 2016 being about the fines circuits and the installation of the mica classifiers to qualify for Esperance shipping.
I guess that is called Go For The Low Hanging Fruit First Strategy.
First, upgrade the circuits that improve quality, reduce impurities - thus achieving a better contract price for the product.
That was AT's strategy. Quality, then Quantity.
Mica was the big pain in the neck for Mt Cattlin and now you don't hear anybody talk about it with Galaxy because it has simply ceased to be an issue. It becomes the problem for the next oz hard rockers - because they all have mica to deal with.
Esperance Port has a No Mica policy and trucking that much further to Bunbury or Kwinana would have added a definite extra cost per ton.
The plant was basically upgraded with throughput moving from 1.2Mt to 1.6Mt by virtue of these new circuits being less wasteful, recovering more spodumene and separating the tantalum from the rock, and removing the vast majority of the mica.
It seems logical that if they can upgrade the very first circuits of the mine then we, in effect, get a bigger funnel into the pipe. A better recovery rate (or higher throughput) inevitably results in less costs.
That's because most of the costs of the mine aren't really a permanently fixed per ton cost. That is how they're calculated, of course, dividing shipping payment by Mt Cattlin expenses - but fixed costs like the staffing levels won't necessarily change on a per ton basis, its just the circuits become more efficient.
More spodumene for substantially the same overall costs = less cost per ton.
It seems to me that they're doing everything they can to increase recovery without moving to install a flotation circuit as a final stage. There are probably cost factors behind deciding that is the best strategy for now, though that could add another 5%+ to recovery rate, if and when they put one in place.
I think its also reasonable to see the choice of 120kt sized contracts as ultimately 6 month fulfilment contracts with bi-annual negotiations on pricing and the plant moving towards operating at around 240-250ktpa of spodumene, the target rate that Michael Fotios identified as the capacity.
It would be good to get some better clarity on current recovery rate as the 60% rate suggests we should already be incrementally moving "organically" towards 192ktpa of spodumene this year.
TBH I'm not really that fussed about it. Its a good money maker already.
If we can get more out of it, fine.
We've got a good plant boss down there at Mt Cattlin and with 2 new assets to fund, they would be smart to put money behind whatever progresses the Big Picture the fastest.
