Agree with a lot of what you say. Still think the catalyst for...

Agree with a lot of what you say. Still think the catalyst for SP growth is to ensure that you are open to all customers (not simply wanting a Chinese customer) and ensure you can get into production ASAP- refer Post #: 37712728

Obviously timeframe to market is the key here, and that is what I think is the issue here SP wise as well. As soon as the market does see a 2021 production start date been an actual possibility for AVL the SP will take care of itself IMO. AVL hitting their stated timelines a key, and I am just wondering when the MET test results will be coming out btw as they are also a key to the DFS, and whether timeframes for the DFS will be met.

Agree with you that if AVL and TMT set their egos aside they might benefit each other through lower capex spend in those areas where infrastructure can be shared, like the gas pipeline, and that might even help both in coming to market earlier than expected.

In terms of the resource estimates in your post just be mindful the current crop of estimates for AVL especially are predominantly based on the measured and indicated resource. And bluntly it is only measured and indicated resource that makes it to the proven and probable category that underpins mining decisions. You cannot mine an inferred resource. Scale, mine life and size of plant and production capacity (like ramp up) ultimately depends for both TMT and AVL on proving up more measured and indicated resource through drilling, and then moving more of that to the proven and probable bucket. AVL's proven and probable reserve, from the December PFS, is essentially 18.2 million tonnes and at average grade of 1.04%, so not surprising mine life for AVL is currently set at 13 years for production of 10,000 tpa - Post #: 36902221 (page 9). For AVL they haven't assessed the bulk of their tenement. This statement from page 2 of the November Ann - refer Post #: 36663475 - is a key

"""""There is significant potential to convert further Inferred Resourceslocated along the Company’s 11.5km of strike length at Gabanintha(see Figure 1)to the Measured and Indicated categories,with additional targeted low-cost drilling programs. This de-risking of resources will support a longer mine life for the proposed Gabanintha vanadium operation, as outlined in the Company’s ASX Announcement on 26 September 2018 (Gabanintha presents Robust Base Case for Pre-Feasibility Study)."""""

If you look at TMT, not surprised they also have a 17 year mine life fro 13,000 tpa, given there probable reserves are currently 21.6 mt at roughly 0.96% - refer page 8 of Post #: 36828531 TMT also need to prove up more resource from its inferred resource into the measured and indicated category.

The JORC Code in the pic below explains what I mean by the above, and how it is only measured and indicated resources that move to the probable and proven category that underpins bankable studies. What you are wanting from any drilling program is to get to a "probable" or "proven" reserve and that comes from moving your 'inferred' resource to an 'indicated' and 'measured' resource and from there studies for moving that resource to proven and robable. Basically 'probable' and 'proved' reserve is after you define a 'measured' and 'indicated' resource and the drill spacing for doing that is around 50 metres spacings (or slightly less btw).

Anyway, like I said agree with most of what you said but that is my view on the resource comments above.

All IMO IMO IMO IMO