Nothing necessarily wrong with the calc's here when writing the...

Nothing necessarily wrong with the calc's here when writing the Sc credit to zero. People can validate this themselves using inputs from the SS themselves.

Using the 810ppm head grade and utilising these recoveries on right,

and current spot price this is what i arrive at today. Noting it was around 18M USD with the credit included. As indicated previously not a massive advocat for banking that Sc credit entirely. 10-20tpa might be feasible long term production rates, noting that in early years which is roughly what they will produce from 2.5mtpa.



Of course if you omit the Sc credit entirely the cash cost move up to ~12usd/t (LoM) from memory which obviously decreases the revenue and profit therein,

Using the 740ppm (which the RL1693 JORC resource) i arrive at around 73M USD ebitda @ 12.5mtpa.
Noting again this is quite lower if the Sc credit is written to naught. The lower revenues/profit driven by only 3670T of REO concentrate being produced compared to 4021T using the higher head grade of 810ppm

It is often why i am watching and commenting on the REO pricing because it is what materially impacts overall revenue for a lot of playing in the space. Given IXR will be a large bulk scale producer it is using economies of scale to drive revenues. 1usd/t increase the concentrate revenue (with no impact to opex costs adds 4M USD pa in revenue. so $5usd/t increase could be another 20M usd/t profit.

In bulk scale operations minor amendments can make large differences. For e.g. producing a 95% concentrate and not 92% and/or payability received being 75% not 75% moves the EBITDA to 103M USD.

Anyways, all speculation until the FS arrives and we know what the inputs are in terms of grade, recoveries, mined/t rates etc.

Like others have mentioned future state will likely see the separation facility change the optic of the economic whereby 100% (or close to) is received for the oxide price. One must then of course add the operating costs of that facility. As a scoping study - it will be a first principle evaluation. I was hoping LYC would have something in place to baseline off first but haven't seen anything published.

Also it's my understanding the the sep/refinery facility to take MREC from ionic clay source at 90% to 99.9% is inherently less capital intensive when compared to LREO counterparts. I recall Tim quoting a figure in previous interviews some 6 months ago. I can't recall exactly what it was. in the ~150M USD for that facility but someone would need to validate that was what he said. Also, i stopped concentrating on that comment the closer we got to the SS release as the detail would arrive shortly.

And yes I still hold IXR, I bought more at 3.2c a few weeks back.

One of the key reasons for me is that I believe the HREO pricing will increase in rate more substantially than the NdPr price which will be a more competitive market. The HREO pricing drives 58% of IXR's revenues. Meaning with the economies of scale the impact the overall ebitda and revenue is impacted more positively (or negatively) by the raw pricing of the HREO. So those projections of the concentrate value in 2025-2030+ i think will eventuate. Whereas although i expect NdPr price to rise i do think that will be a competitive market. Most other hard rock companies are in a situation where NdPr must rise or if the NdPr price crashes it will detonate the revenues. In this circumstances IXR's revenue across the element suite is more balanced. The second (and i've mentioned it a few times on the threads here) is the IXR in 5-10 years time will be known more for it's downstream capability and recycling businesses than it necessarily will be for the mine itself. That's just my opinion/guess.

SF2TH