Running Commentary on the SP Movements., page-10866

They are impressive NPV numbers but unless we become a miner I suspect we will attain around 40% of that SP in a TO scenario, and that is just a pure guess btw, a bit more if we can leverage the strategic benefits into a TO price. A different perspective, but am bullish btw as you know but maybe a little more conservative than you. I gave my views in these posts and obviously some of the numbers have moved on from this. Nice action today as well. My point is we won't attain that price in a TO scenario unless we become a miner. BTW, I agree with your numbers by the way in terms of scale and size and obviously they are based on capex and opex in a mining scenario and scale is the driver here.
Post #: 30092345
Post #: 29971739

As a cross reference, just looking at the PLS Ann a while ago and GXY Ann around feasibility studies there the fact they were forecasting 3 year payback periods (meaning huge economic rents due to the significantly higher assumed spodumene price to costs base there) IMO supports the 'scale' of NPV calculations here (given size and scale and the value of tin credits etc IMO as well as unit cost structures would be lower for AVZ IMO due to economies of scale at a 5mtpa to 10mtpa operation here compared to a 2 mtpa operation there at PLS for example) of multiples of the current SP. Obviously assumes AVZ gets adequate power at its facilities and can offset the transport costs through scale of operations and obviously assumes a JORC will be defined here etc etc

All IMO