Risks to be Discussed, page-296

SF2TH, following on from an earlier post you did on this thread, I also did my own research and evaluation and posted my views on that thread in this post which does suggest mica is there in the various pegmatites, but it does not mean that the pegmatite LTR are currently drilling has (significant) lepidolite (full assays can only determine that). But the historical data certainly infers lepidolite of some level in some of the pegmatites in the area, including Mt Mann- refer Post #: 43295331. Nonetheless, the historical date is interesting, but does not mean where the current drills are there is lots of mica around either. But the historical data suggests the only way to resolve the issue is with full assays and how that has been accounted for in the MET tests. What you want to test for is that the assays per se and how the METs record low deleterious elements can be reconciled so that the cost estimates in the DFS are indeed a true reflection of outcome.

I think the PLS experience provides that risk in that the cost estimate and its approach to METs hasn't transpired to the underlying recovery rate and costs estimates in a running plant (i.e. the process flowsheet where a large portion of the recovery rate of say 80% is done by floatation). PLS's problems are not price based IMO, because when compared to their DFS it was based on a US$550 per tonne spodumene price - the PLS problems are cost based, led mainly IMO by lower than expected recovery rates (hence the retrofitting of capital solutions to fix the problems) fundamentally diverging from the DFS targets. (Ditto - AJM has similar issues around divergence of recovery rates from DFS numbers and that explains its problems as well, despite it been better able to control costs compared to PLS, IMO).

The AVZ assays provide the data as I have posted to make the METs testing (run by a DMS option attainable) - Post #: 43249337. That is with floatation AVZ's recovery rate would probably be 80% plus, but of note over 50 percentage points of that recovery rate will be through the DMS option, meaning less reliance on floatation product for achieving an 80% recovery rate. Until full assays are released by the new prospective plays the PLS/AJM experience will hang over such stocks IMO as a 'risk factor'.

Having said that, I see positives and negatives in both stocks, but risks can be mitigated. Provided AVZ sort out its issues,i.e. transport, given the earlier DFS release my view remains that AVZ will get to mining earlier than LTR but time difference won't be that far apart given the pace LTR is working at IMO and its stated timelines. Obviously all this is based on EV forecasts coming to fruition, but with a 2000 GWh LCE requirement needed by 2030 there is ample scope for several several new greenfield entrants as I have posted in the past. If EV forecasts don't come in that is a risk to all prospective greenfields projects, an obvious point.

All IMO