Serious question re/ AVL and TMT, page-137

I too welcome Bermuda's posts even though I do admit I skip a lot of what he has to say as I write it off as the same old rhetoric/musings of a mad-man etc. but his views (although proffered ad-nauseam) are quite valid, and even welcomed here to provide balance and context.

At least here we tolerate opposing points of view, as long as they're not blatant lies, like the last rookie here trying to tell us we still needed to submit 2x EPA scoping studies!

IMO we don't want to be become like the TMT threads where lateral thinkers who ask questions and query things are chastised and ostracised (I think you know what I mean). A good example would be the excellent and informative poster @sabine who was chastised by the TMT 'brains trust' for not being an ignorant member of their 'cheer squad' and complying with their expected narrative. So many of the posts there now are just sycophantic rubbish. "We're so undervalued. "Should be $2" etc. Well no, these two co's MC's are probably fair value atm. With the current marginality of both projects it could be argued some future V price appreciation and demand expectation is already priced in.

It's a strange situation with the two separate co's developing the same ore-body with similar downstream processing and both chasing the same Gov loans to service similar sized CapEx's. If you were responsible for handing out the Gov cash, could you rationalise supporting both, or be forced to choose only one? And who else will provide finance - US, India, Japan, Korea, Germany? Who needs/wants security of V supply?

Like you say it seems incredulous that AVL could possibly be driving 400k's past a V processing facility, especially with current cost of transport.
AVL chose to de-risk their V processing to be close to gas mains. There are no guarantees in life, and there are no guarantees that a 160k spur off the NGI will be built for just one plant, or when. If it was, AVL's plans probably would've been different.

As for 'where we are', we are in an amazing space, holders of a gigantic high grade V resource, in an industry which (if you believe the news) is about to take off in the same vein as Lithium.
I am guessing some are lamenting the SP. Personally I look at the MC, which is still quite healthy. SOI is mentioned a lot but kind of irrelevant, AVL could do a 10:1 prior to finance, but it's not essential.
If things play out as we hope and V hits projected demand/price expectations then AVL in the future will make enough coin to pay dividends/buy back shares vindicating all who bought, from the 11c pump down to the recent 2.5c lows.
IMO AVL is still the best V stock on the ASX, just need a bit of patience...

Good to see you making sense again cophot. We were worried. This thread was originally used to discuss the two projects (as they're so similar) but it only seemed to attract TMT trolls with the usual 'my resource is better' rhetoric and uneducated mistruths, which was unfortunate as with the coming dawn of the V age an honest discussion (even negatives) without rose-coloured glasses can be beneficial to all.

Another large VRFB...

And with the push to renewables and LDES in Oz one could easily argue non-flammable VRFB's should be in the mix. We're not constrained for space here but as you scale up MW's the footprint of the VRFB actually becomes less than Li-ion as they don't need to be spaced apart to account for thermal runaway.
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/12/09/energy-ministers-sign-off-on-capacity-mechanism/
"The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has forecast that about 9 GW of new firming capacity like pumped hydro, batteries, and lower-emissions gas generation will be needed by 2030 to unlock those renewables but warned that by 2050 that figure will climb to about 60 GW."

GLTAH (AVL 'and' TMT)