My posts have said the project economics/ SH value in a TO secnario are likely to only stack up here at a starting configuration of minimum 5 mtpa ore feed. Who knows what the actual per annum plan ore feed is in the fullness of time because that is what bankable studies seek to do which are influenced by demand projections, but given the resource size and growth in EV markets (and hence demand for lithium from hard rock plays) how that configeration changes over time depends on who takes this to mining. In other words over time see ore feed at greater than 10 mtpa here because mine production doesn't stay static if demand increases. I dealt with that issue on top of all the issues of tonight in this post of the other day -Post #:
32156902
I see the 8mtpa as a starting configuration, not a life configuration just like iron ore output of say the likes of BHPB and Rio expand over time (similar analogy).
The thing I do agree with you is that if AVZ don't take this to mining then some of the SP assumed by some in the AVZ threads on TO are over the top. In the embedded post above I give what I think might be a TO if AVZ do not bring this too mining themselves.
As I said also in the embedded post resource size matters as gives the scope of what is there. It is just a question of what the market can cater for and this is where I find some of the comments of certain posters arguing my deposit is better than yours becomes inconsistent. If you don't believe that there is capacity for AVZ to supply a minimum 5 mtpa - 10 mtpa ore feed (i.e. meaning the equivalent of 2 mtpa 6% spodumene concentrate at 10mtpa ore feed given the grade here and therefore 5 tonnes ore feed gives 1 tonne spodumene concentrate or 267,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate depending on how it is developed) then really what people are arguing is the demand profile won't be there and that will impact all lithium hopefuls (and I think that assumption is inconsistent and wrong given future EV demand profiles and the lithium supply shortages that leads to noting the preference is for hardrock ).
Brine cannot currently appropriately compete in the growing hydroxide market (that is where hard rock is the key) as hydroxide makes far better batteries than carbonate. That is why IMO SQM also took a 50% stake in KDR btw noting the main product from brine operations is potash and those credits have less value if you also oversupply the potash market - all these issues in this paragraph I dealt with in this post on potash and why hard rock is preferred to brine, particulalry in the growing hydroxide market - Post #:
31661029.
Sometimes I wonder if I just should be posting on teh general lithium thread. because it is why a lot of us, including you I suppose, are investing in hard rock plays.
All IMO
