Member Info for Laverda

In red?

Sloppy you are not insinuating that there is a link?

As there will be no link between EU benefitting companies sponsoring EU promoting MPs. None whatsoever.

PS, ivenoidea, I would point you back to this video and the regimented way mining goes to the finance stage, it is fairly global standard. If you read the regulation and standardisation across the world there is not a lot of room to miss much out of these reports. FPvone mentioned this too. There is loads of information on the web. Companies do not hand over 100m dollars or sign contracts on loose information.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=TIwN1S-a4XI&feature=emb_title

Ivenoidea, if the study is going to definitive level as stated in the 2022 AGM (in my mind there was no question) then the resource is definitely proven. I do not see anything here which indicates that anything leading to the DFS is of a lesser standard than anywhere else, because I have been following each stage.
We do not have all information as you know, we only have an overview.
You need to e-mail Bernard and he will answer your specific question, nobody here can answer that for you.

Ivenoidea, I am not sure about this reserve calculation or its importance.
As SP Angel described, while an NPV headline figure is issued and we see, behind the scenes there is a large and complex table of outcomes, for a financier they are particularly interested in the point at which the mine would no longer be profitable, this would be for both tonnage output and final material cost and (obviously)a combination of both.
That is probably the most critical information for them. Probably the most critical for us too.
If they loan the money those figures must be ok, for multiple parties to be interested, like Bernard says they are, then they must be good.
Bottom line here is everything is looking rosey here.

Virtually all finance (where DFS are used) is based on a draft DFS, our updated feasibility study is an elevation to the almost there path to DFS, those initial figures were draft NPV on a flotation plant, revised figures were draft DFS after optimization (DMS), now they are finalizing drawings costs etc and the last and final NPV may be altered by a few pounds and percent one way or the other before final DFS.
If the final DFS was a mile out from the one that those companies are basing their finance offers on they would not release the money, but obviously, unless the end material price dropped through the floor that does not happen much that I am aware of.
We are using such a low lithium price in the NPV that this will not happen to us.
Mining is complicated.

August 2022 end of to use Daz's terms, it is a DFS. Optimization etc tweak the last figures and bingo final DFS, or BFS after finance is issued take your pick on your wording.
In the AGM
Raise it to definitive level.
They are not financing on anything less.

DrPineapple - exactly you can see why I am so upbeat about the finance - who would ever have thought lithium would rise so quickly to get to the current price. And that percentage figure is based on less than half of the current price.

Ricky lol, sorry if it communicates that way.
Obviously this is an AIM investment, it is explorer to miner which is a massive change so there is risk.
However we have, whatever you want to call it a Feasibility study and NPV which absolutely blitzes the normal requirements for funding, listen to that video for minimum percentages.
We have a strong geologist from a high pressure commercial background.
Steve on the board who has an impeccable history of mining set up and management expertise in Africa and including lithium set up and operation.
SP Angel in the video below, who worked with Kodal to bring the study etc to finance standard.
Bernie in the last interview said there were finance options on the table.
All of these are facts - so I am as positive as you can be in an AIM share.
Looking way into the future if successful now I could see a pattern which could provide a high share price, as I saw historically from an oil company which pumped oil to fund exploration, but as Daz said that is not the here and now.

Ivenoidea, sorry which reserve are you talking about?

Ivenoidea, this only covers the 97km square plot with the mining licence on it, the NPV is also just on this plot and just on the veins drilled within this plot. They are saying there could be more within this plot too.

Everything else is not included in that NPV valuation, the other 200 square kilometers of lithium or any of the Goldfields all of which are on exploration licences not mining licences.

Fpvone, yes I understand that the schedule has to be followed exactly to justify profitability, prove the resource and present for full production finance.
If this is not possible, private finance pilot plants can prove the resource.
If you Google lithium pilot plants there are loads trying to prove resources around the world where the normal process can't be followed.
Unfortunately a lot of those fail as you will find online.

Fpvone, the regions where terminology is used may have wider allowances, so it could be regions rather than terminology.
However SP Angel, who are already on our board, state the potential values should all be listed right down to break even price anyhow.
Actually it is a good find that video.
Both this link and the other link earlier both cover optimization and tweaks to the process too.
Covers a lot of contested points.

In fact the company in the video is on our board

Found this to help understand

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=TIwN1S-a4XI&feature=emb_title

Daz I disagree with you on this fact, I don't think it is possible to get an NPV without a DFS to use for mining finance purposes, I think you are mistaken.
However I concede as per my posts below that the alternative terminology used around the World is more than just confusing.
No way would we have multiple interested parties or a broker approaching us with potential clients without a DFS.
Everything in the final feasibility study and NPV screams DFS to me.

This company covers it simply
https://magnis.com.au/news/bankable-feasibility-study-what-why-who/

Weirdly the PFS becomes a BFS if you use that terminology - mad isnt it.
A DFS is the same (or should be the same) as a BFS.
As you and I have seen I don't think some Prem investors know what they have, we definitely have a DFS or whatever other equivalent term you want to call it.
If you use the BFS terminology this can only be after finance is issued on the report!
Talk about confusing!!!

PS, they can be called either, in short. But stupidly a PFS and DFS are in reality different. Not everything is standardized in mining.
I am not 100% but I think they call it something like a final or finance PFS when using the other term. DFS is much clearer.

Daz it is definitely a DFS, although terminology is loose. A PFS proves the resource, a DFS dictates whether to mine or not and produces an NPV. We are going to mine and have an NPV therefore it is a DFS.
Terminology creates issues in mining and is a source of regular disagreement on the boards.