LFP battery/Phosphate news, page-627

Yes AO,

That is the report mentioned. The reasons the project was deemed uneconomic at the time were the high silica content (not aluminium as I have been rabbitting on about), which we know can be beneficiated, but would be at the expense of the buyer.
The other was the transport costs. At the time of the two main feasibility studies, the price for rock phosphate was just over $100 per ton. As we know at the moment the prices are nearly triple that.

Here is a significant paragraph which may have been missed by some.

7.7.1 DSO Study 2010

Minemakers completed a DSO Feasibility Study in 2010, which reported positive results regarding the generation of a product suitable for fertiliser manufacture. Minemakers, however, stated that it had not necessarily found buyers for the product in the spot or short-term contract markets. Uncertainty concerning future prices and the appreciating value of the Australian dollar resulted in Minemakers' decision to focus further on downstream processing (Optiro 2015).

So, they have now advanced the downstream processing options to alleviate the possibility of the reduction in demand/pricing of future phosphate products (i.e. DSO).
However, the basic market fundamentals are now completely different, and the product was assessed positively as being "suitable for fertiliser manufacture".
We may or may not be able to command the highest price for our product, but the current demand particularly in South East Asia should see our product marketable, notwithstanding a discount to offset buyers' beneficiation costs.



https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/phosphoric-acid-market-723#:~:text=Based%20on%20region%2C%20Asia%20Pacific,the%20rapid%20growth%20in%20population.