WR1 General Discussion, page-24905

A few remarks:
Gold is nearly at the highest it has ever been at $2000. So to assume $3000 I would think would be unrealistic wouldn't you think?

If the agreed long term price for SC6% is a $1000 from most analysts and lithium experts then I would agree if you use a figure higher than that in your PFS then the NPV produced will be discounted by the market. But if that were to be the case then no new spodumene producer will have attractive NPV's in their PFS and will not be able to raise enough capital to get the project to production.In a world where a lot of lithium will be required by 2030 this will result in huge shortages in lithium if no new spodumene projects gets developed.

Surely that would mean that analysts would model future demand and supply and see if there is shortages or surpluses to see what future stable lithium price would be given the cost of production of various producers.If the price is too low to ensure new projects gets developed then their models should reflect the lower future suppply and voila shortages will emerge resulting in higher expected future prices. So yes I would expect b(w?)ankers should be using their own derived long term pricing and not current spot in deriving the price for sc6% in PFS.

The current spot price is also resulting in higher cost producers into C&M and make Chines lepodolite producers curtail operations. The DSO shipments from Africa is also facing challenges. Using this spot price as your long term price seems unrealistic.