Ok. You got me on semantics. So rather than say "TiVan cannot...

Ok. You got me on semantics.

So rather than say "TiVan cannot work at AVL"; I should have paraphrased the company response and said:
TiVan is not needed at AVL because AVL grades are significantly higher and TiVan CapEx requirements are massive compared to the tried and tested methodologies of V producing peers. That is, the technology is unproven at production scale and represents a high risk. This is illustrated by TNG having had a Feasibility Study out in the market for 3.5 years*.

Is that a better response? Anything made-up? I am all for robust discussion when considering peers.

* TNG Feasibility Study. Note this is not a PFS but a DFS as referred to on Page 1:
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20150731/pdf/43059vp030sz70.pdf

I agree with the sentiment in the document; it is a robust case. Imo, the problem is the high CapEx for an unproven technology at production scale. TNG was earmarked to be producing by early 2018. Obviously V prices were much lower prior to 2018. However, the TNG case is predicated on $6.26/lb V price. TNG case relies substantially on titanium and pig iron revenue streams.

Salient point: Despite high V prices in 2018 and off-takes, TNG has yet to secure funding.