Hi SF, My first thought on reading your post was that including...

Hi SF,
My first thought on reading your post was that including stage 2 revenues will produce a lower PE but 2019 is a bit too soon for stage 2 production I think. My figures were obtained from the company's DFS for stage 1 and I have not updated them for stage 2. My guess is that the analyst may have been using a higher price for SCO6 and probably included revenues from the Atlas sales as well, which are outside of the stage 1 figures that I used. A PE of 8 seems attractive to me and would usually result from a company with a higher level of earnings risk. Given that PLS is still in start-up mode, this is not surprising but if we anticipate an increasing Li price in its various grades, as well as increased production (as per stage 2) then PLS looks even more attractive.
Miners can have high PEs where strong growth in earnings is expected but as a cyclical as well as extractive industry, we should expect PEs for miners to be lower than industrials, on average. However, I do not have figures to give you.
It is a good idea to use a variety of value measurements for mining companies such as NTA/share and not just PE which can can go quite high. Sometimes the EV to resource ratio is used. These measures recognise the value of resources in the ground, even if they are not being mined. Not sure about how these measures work for PLS because there not many pure Li miners on the market, that are producing, on which to make a comparison to know if it is under/over valued. Since miners consume the resource that generates their profits, they need to be constantly looking for new resource and this consumes financial reserves and so needs to be allowed for in some way. Since PLS has such a large resource with a mine life over decades based on planned rates of extraction, then this is probably less of an issue with them at this early stage.