Transport/Scoping Study Build Up, page-5

I am with @Davyboy on this and hope we have a few days to digest the Scoping Study when relaesed. I am just opening up this thread again to list what I would be looking for in the scoping study:
1.  Obviously transport costs, and the transport options available and what they are looking at in their base case.
2.  Production rate and ramp up and likely start up date.  And tied to this will be there view of the market.
3.  Capex costs (and then I will compare to BGS and PLS to get a per tonne rate of installed capacity)
3.  Tin/tanatlite when and how much they think they will offset transport costs.
4. Grade of ore and recovery rate and then how that compares to cost reductions at mine site.
5.  Exactly what will AVZ be producing, because I suspect given grade that they will probably be producing 6.3% to L.5% spodumene concentrate instead of the usual 6%.
6.  Headline IRR number and would be hoping it is over 30%.
7.  Any information how the JV will work in relation to funding capex and operations.
8.  The length of the Scoping Study itself because anything less than say 20 pages IMO makes it more high level comments than something that say is very lengthy and detailed as some of the more recent PFS/Scoping Studies I have looked at which are in excess of 100 to 200 pages btw.  How the SS is written and the data contained therein will give you a good idea of essentially how much more work has gone into the SS and what needs to be done in the subsequent DFS because the Scoping Study here might end up looking more like a PFS - refer the BGS/Nemaska studies for example on how detailed one is before a Final Investment decision is made:
http://www.nemaskalithium.com/assets/documents/docs/2015-024 Nemaska NI 43-101 June 8 2016 Final-SEDAR.pdf

Essentially I will be testing what I wrote in these three posts:
Post #: 35711567
Post #: 35711678
Post #: 35634167


All IMO IMO IMO and surprises can happen - ask Collingwood supporters.

All IMO