One may ask why I said "Capital cost can be remain the same btw....

One may ask why I said "Capital cost can be remain the same btw. No need to reduce it. "

The Capital cost is only US$280m. It's not that much IMO.

Because the world needs another vanadium producer asap, then it won't be hard for this project to attract the investors, JV partners and/or offtakers.

See "Largo vanadium mine delivers $316 million profit in 2018".

"Largo is the world’s only pure-play vanadium producer and is currently the world’s lowest cost producer... The company is focused on the production of vanadium flake, high purity vanadium flake, and high purity vanadium powder at the Maracas Menchen Mine."

"Largo recently guided investors to anticipate production of 10,000-11,000 tonnes this year at an average cash cost of US$3.45 to US$3.65 a pound."

If TMT can reduce its cash cost to Largos level as I said on my previous post; which is $3.50-$3.70 level then TMT would be in much better position than Largo as TMT's resources would be much bigger than Largo according to the peer comparison table below.

I just crossed out the projects at the right side as I don't believe at all that they could be economically viable projects and never could be realised.

There is only Bushveld and Largo as producers in the World.
And then TMT and AVL are the two projects economically viable.

I am sorry that I have to eliminate AVL as well because it's at least 6 months behind of TMT and has much higher MC and SIO (shares on issue) which would be a big disadvantage in the long run. Also if TMT can increase its speed and realise its project in short time, AVL will have less chance to realise its project. So the time is ticking against AVL at this stage IMO.

Therefor TMT has the highest chance of being the next vanadium producer than any other vanadium explorer.