Nice work and analysis.  Can see how you got there as well when...

Nice work and analysis.  Can see how you got there as well when redoing them myself and agree.  Presume your $50 number is $US so the flow through number to the AVL SP will be slightly higher I suspect using your example. 

My only concern in terms of the gold comparison  is that gold is still essentially a store of value because if went solely on demand/supply conditions for gold it is not even clear why we are mining gold given the 'stock levels' at hand in bank vaults are well over what is needed for jewellery (a commodity for consumers) (so the mining despite the collapse of the Bretton Woods system back in 1970 probably still remains predominantly in the 'store of wealth' concept for gold, whilst for vanadium and other minerals it remains a straight out demand/supply equation to a produced commodity, here been steel and later on for batteries) .  I would also caution the derived SP values for AVL purely on the basis of the different capex and cost structures between gold and vanadium, and differences in cut of grades but can see where you are heading with it and obviously as a low cost producer AVL will do well (and even better if the upcoming MET tests change some of the recovery rates upwards, particularly in the oxidised sections).  

For example, gold deposit assuming have enough of the deposit is generally viable at 1.5 grams to 2 grams a tonne (and possibly even at around 1 gram per tonne if have enough of a resource and/or it comes with some other high valued mineral)  for open pit operations, whilst for vanadium cut of grades here are around 0.3% V205 (or roughly 3000 grams per tonne) - our own PFS talks about cut of grades of 0.4% in the oxidised section and 0.18% in the transitional and fresh layers, albeit they used a higher conservative cut off grade in the PFS itself and not sure why either - refer page 5 in the Ann Post #: 36902221. Before I forget, that Ann stated the following: "However, a cut-off grade of 0.8% V2O5 for all materials has been selected based on mine to process optimisation studies and a lack of metallurgical testing on material grading below 0.8% V2O5."  Hence IMO also the importance of the MET tests IMO from a DFS perspective, as I keep blabbering on.

These cut off grades between gold and vanadium give an indication of the different cost structures and capex involved, but your exercise provides an overall perspective on FA here btw because obviously AVL  is touted to be a low cost producer, so the analysis becomes valid when vanadium is above the cut of grades etc. And obviously in this case the AuEq here is well above 1.5 to 2 grams a tonne for AVL.  For others if you assumed the AVL vanadium deposit graded only 0.3% V205 the AuEq outcome becomes 1.36 grams per tonne and I would say vanadium projects in that regard would most likely be unviable or marginal at best IMO using this high level method by @M2HB (but does depend on extent of resource and the depth of the open pit mine anyway).

I think though at a high level, and  despite the above, you have got your message across very well here.  A lot to look forward to.

All IMO