Which goes back to the post below on LSE below?: "Probably the...

Which goes back to the post below on LSE below?:

"Probably the issue with "taking the amount used in the LPD PFS" is to do with the % of the concentrate. LPD use $350 as the concentrate purchase price based on 4.5% Li2O content, reduced from a $500 for 6% spodumene comparison. In the EMH PFS the concentrate is 2.7% Li2O so they would never get $350 for it anyway, maybe $200. Equally, LPD running the lower grade concentrate through the 29ktpa process would end up with roughly a third less end product unless they upped the capacity of the plant and increased the throughput, therefore more capex.

So the only conclusion i can come to is that the comparison is probably highly inaccurate. But of course happy to be proven wrong!

Further to this, Table 8 in the EMH PFS gives us all the info we need:

360ktpa of concentrate produced
$90.86 cost/t concentrate inc byproduct credits

So back of fag packet using estimated LPD concentrate purchase price of $200 for 2.7% Li2O content

360000t concentrate at $200/t = $72m revenue
Costs of $32.7m
Profits = $39.3m

Capex of $200m

IRR over LoM of 21 years = 19%

So a rather different outcome. Using these rather crude estimated figures it would appear to be a similar to worse performing proposition than going down the route we are going down".


As I have posted before, the increase in cost from the scoping study lies in the revenue credit that the PFS reports on the tin. In the PFS the study is based on the high grade lithium ore near the border. If you have a look on the resource map it shows the Sn and W mineralisation at the other end near the hill. So therefore higher Li grades, lower Sn/W grades for this part. Remember only circa 5 percent of the total resource has been used!!

Keith said that one of the first things they will do is an expansion study – that is look at the economics of increasing the size of the whole operation.