@tendoji , whilst your post doesn't change my views and in particular how you deal with Dathcom, the entity where the Manono project actually legally resides in, your post does contain issues around information and how at times little progress is provided by AVZ on issues that have been announced ages ago. And therefore without updates, makes one think they have been done and actually become reality.
When I quoted the figures, I was working on the assumption of an eons ago Ann where AVZ was stating they were going to go to 70% in Dathcom over time, which was through attaining 5% from Dathomir (which I felt they had well progressed but doesn't appear concluded) and 5% from Cominiere (which was under discussion at the time and from recollection had stalled in part due to the inability to have face to face meetings as a result of COVID-19, but can't recall exactly the reason given?). Have to admit, I was not aware of 5% been moved in Dathcom from Cominiere to Dathomir, i.e. haven't found the makeup so trusting your post numbers there btw, and looking at AVZ webpage it still states Manono at 60% AVZ, 30% Cominiere and 10% Dathomir - obviously indicating 65% still hasn't happened?.
https://avzminerals.squarespace.com/manono-minePersonally I would like an update on a few matters from AVZ so that I am better informed on certain matters than assuming where things are at, and this matter around % eld by AVZ in Dathcom is a start (including exactly when they expect to increase ownership stake etc). The other matter would be some statement around how, and the vehicles AVZ is proposing to use in funding the project (discussion at a high level because yes I know things change) as well as what is their back up plan if full funding isn't possible - the DFS itself 'implies too me' scope for slowing the staging of introducing the sulphate plant to the project for a start, and just selling 700,000 tpa of 6% grade spodumene. Is this an option?
Agree, and notice of late your posting has been more critical of Nigel. In the past I have been very critical of management as well, and at this stage and as I posted the other day their latest 'performance shares' were very low ball for my liking IMO - Post #:
45203792. The business end is Offtakes and financing and to be frank I am still waiting on statements in Anns (beyond high level words on paper you can interpret several ways) from AVZ on how progress is actually going since outcomes have not been stated (and based on previous Anns they have been in discussions for eons on certain things) and how timelines to production are going and how they see their entry to market taking place. Yes I know they won't provide that, so as SHs need to do our own researchetc etc
Finally, whilst there are quite a few people on these threads providing views on PLS and AJM and GXY and other stocks, I am mindful that their recovery is a key for AVZ - why, if PLS and AJM die in the next year or two for example, it means spodumene prices have not recovered IMO, and if spodumene prices haven't recovered it means either i.) the supply overhang in the market is taking longer to clear short term and ii.) the road to 2000 GWh in 2030 will take longer. Either outcome means AVZ's entry to market is delayed, given in itself IMO I think the earliest AVZ can get to market is 2022/23 or 2023/24, which is a slightly longer timeframe in my mind than what has been stated by AVZ in the past.
Whilst AVZ's project had a DFS price of US$673.70 to demonstrate viability, and viability can be shown at lower numbers ultimately, as I have posted on this thread alone, ultimately Offtakes are a key to funding, or if funding comes without Offtakes well the financier would be having a view of when AVZ should be supplying into the market (which means a view on how they are viewing demand etc).
Ultimately selling into a market at a 'closer date', and the nearer the better, is what drives funding. If that date is seen to shift to the right, my personal view and own experiences is people will continue to yabber on the project but the key issues of signing on the bottom line relating to funding and construction contracts gets deferred until needed (but discussions continue regardless especially if no other option presents to speed up progress, and hence why I have stated on here the need for AVZ to get some contestability bewteen the Europeans and Chinese etc etc). Hence the importance of growth forecasts actually happening in the market as planned and why PLS/AJM IMO can be a barometer for seeing those stages. Moving back to the road to achieving 2000 GWh in 2030 requires a number of new greenfields players in the market, without having to worry about whether existing players survive or die regardless IMO as I state din - Post #:
43616066 And for the record, the players that survive, does not mean IMO that they will be able to grow btw, unless of course they are able to reign in costs and demonstrate that they can produce spodumene concentrate within stringent impurity levels etc (and obviously some will require finding and proving up suitable resources for any significant growth plans as well). Regardless, 2000 GWh means a number of new greenfields projects required regardless of what existing producers do, noting that the need may be even greater if Attacama cannot sort out water access issues etc etc
All IMO
