CATL makes its entry via Lithium Plus Pty Ltd?, page-182

I wasn't going to reply to your post as I thought it was a relatively pathetic reply.  When you do your own analysis based on understanding, rather than one liners, post them here as I would be particularly interested in your results.

At a high level, I see you only decided to concentrate on transport costs in your response which was below some of my opening comments around how scale/grade/consistency impact revenue/costs more positively at mine site for AVZ  than PLS, say.  Transport costs need also to be assessed against this light, despite been a negative, which is what I have always said here if you bothered to look at my posting history. 

As to your question, if you bothered to do your research you will note that I initially started at US$250 per tonne without  credits, then in the SS they settled on US$221 per tonne (which was the starting base of my latest post btw, but maybe you understand first how I got to US$250 per tonne before you fly of the handle again. 
Post #: 34174854
Post #: 34175145
Post #: 35223305

Then an Ann came out after the SS and it came in at less than there US$221 per tonne number, and thererafter you need to take into account tin and tantulum credits which is what gets you to the US$100 per tonne to US$150 per tonne in my post btw.  (Note for others: In my earlier post I meant US$150 per tonne in one of the later lines, not US$150 million).

Also if you are going to compare to others in the DRC you do need to compare like with like and impact of economies of scale, since you are comparing small production levels to larger ones.  Here in these two posts is some comparisons and analysis for Ivanhoe on comprability to AVZ.
Post #: 35681657 and Post #: 35681657

The only thing I will agree with you is that AVZ is relying on others to build those transport networks, so if it is required to contribute capital that will adversely impact NPV.  Also relying on others to upgrade/build the transport infrastructure means your timeframe to production becomes dependent on others completing transport routes and that I think is catch 22 here - my personal view is the market doesn't accept AVZ will get to market before 2027 to 2030  so it is up to AVZ to prove that wrong.  Also, as new transport routes come in they reduce transport costs for all players in the DRC btw, not just AVZ.

I will revisit this when the PFS comes out, but @WoodySpoon in the meantime understand the term economies of scale and volumes and size, and maybe do a bit of your own research on the subject and provide with the appropriate adjustments.  Hint: start with BGS, which shouldn't be hard for you since you are a holder there.  I know you also are a holder of PLS, but check out what I post there too - I do some research before actually posting anything there

Also when you do your own analysis based on understanding, rather than one liners, post them here as I would be particularly interested in your results.   I am one of the more conservative posters on this forum so will be interesting what AVZ's transport costs ulltinately comes in at and how they will model transport costs in a DFS, given you can only model what is likely to be there transport wise before production with 100% certainty.  And that is why I think AVZ will have a short term and long term solution if the still expect to be in production by 2022, and I certainly think that will be hard to achieve as i posted the other day without getting a move on. Post #: 37237025 and Post #: 37507888.

So to repeat in summary the viability question - AVZ's grades and consistency of deposit means it will get at least 20% more revenue per tonne of ore feed and have a lower mine cost base than PLS at mine site so it will simply boil down to teh tarnsport costs (which has been the issue all along here for AVZ).  Transport costs will come in below US$200 per tonne IMO, but ultimately it is a question of timeframe to market given AVZ is reliant on others for the transoprt route.  And obviously, if AVZ have to fund the transport options through capex this will adversely impact the NPVs in my post as I also said, hence the catch 22 around timeframes to market.

Now if you got to here and think that is a long post for me, no I wrote this for others and to restipulate my thinking, but for yourself go back to the bold and underlined bit.

For others below is the NPVs (AVZ quote the pre tax one mainly probably because it thinks it will get tax holdiays etc for stumping up capital beyond its 60% share).  Just changing transport assumption to US$150 per tonne and US$200 per tonne, but keeping the 13% discount rate.  (Table would be the 5th one and 6th one after taking into account the first 4 in my previous post, but based on what AVZ is saying more likely than not the number is either US$100 per tonne or US$150 per tonne after tin/tantulum credits and I suspect those credits are valued at US$50 per tonne to US$100 per tonne and the precedence there is check out PLS's tantalite credit in its DFS and here you have two credits).  Tab;es below shows viability, so essentially a question of timing to market and when here for AVZ - SP reflects a market view IMO that they don't expect AVZ to go to market before 2025 or even 2027, IMO (refer previous post).

Table: at US$150 per tonne transport cost after credits


At US$ 200 per tonne transport after credits



All IMO IMO IMO and another few VBs drunk