Member Info for Laverda

Lorcun.

Regarding Kodal and this the onto the ship terms remain as before. He didn't mention scrapping the onto dock price so we don't know if that remains or if he is going direct to ship therefore bypassing the dock stage.

Regarding employment I was in a national company which owned acres of docks, railway sidings lines and trains amongst loads of other equipment. No ships.

Small tonnages like Kodal were direct on and off ship.

The company had a lot of divisions and we had crossover of staff.

Accionista all I do is repeat what Bernard says.

Regarding doubt, I would not call it that, I will simply wait for Bernard to tell us his final decision on the transport and shipping process. He may simply have not mentioned it in that presentation or could be doing a none touchdown straight to ship process.

He will tell us.

Accionista it was 95% onto the ship before so it is unchanged.

PS, because he didn't mention it, I don't know if that still stands or not. But if we don't touch down and store at the dock in the process it would be irrelevant.

An expansion on the detail is required when we eventually get past the permit.

Although if prices keep rising a delay is good.

It was always 95% onto the vessel no change.

He didn't mention the dock in the last discussion.

Goulimani and the dock visit, private company they are using is all covered in multiple articles and pictures on the net, right from the first delegation.

Yes accionista, he did recently state 95% onto the ship which was the same as before.

Goulimani has a warehouse right next to the ship loading area, so I don't know whether or not we will follow the same procedure.

The warehouse would be the dock.

95% of SC6 could be a higher price than 100% of 5.5%.

It will be interesting to hear the full detail when we move to the next stage.

Onlyking the whole amount if drawn and if kept for a year and more interest covered.

However the loan facility is just 10 months.

Cheers redorb.

So; n fact if our product is 5.5% we get paid more than 65% at the dock because we are paid at SC6.

Imagine the headache for the mining office with this, their mining code rules and already complicated taxation process. No wonder the floor price is delayed until January.

Https://ithy.com/article/spodumene-sc6-analysis-lqucbuc6

Onlyking yes that fits.

I think I have it, in contracts apparently they use SC6 benchmarks and adjust accordingly.

I thought too our target was 5.5%, but Bernard mentioned 6% spot price.

Which I agree is/was confusing.

Anyone want to shed light on what he meant?

So that increase hits the discussed floor price.

Positive if Spodumene keeps going up in value and stock keeps going up.

Negative if price drops.

Hindsight is 20/20.

PS another 20 dollars and we are at the floor price talked about previously.

Malcolm J, not really if it keeps rising in price an export permit would make the rise irrelevant.

Not having the export payment yet if this price maintains or increases is an absolute gift.

Iveroche, the original 680 dollars per tonne NPV we should not be far off, the resource increased which should wipe most of the additional percentage.

The old OPEX was calculated I believe, on a less complicated basis.

AISC is a bit mind blowing for amateurs. It talks of an average, however works in practice on more capital being 'put away' when prices are higher, less when low and obviously the taxes are higher when lithium is higher and lower when the price is low.

Comparing the two at any given spodumene price is virtually impossible.

Wow, glad we didn't get the permit yet.

Maybe we should leave these decisions to Bernard and his team?

That is huge from where we started and 50 dollars per tonne than Bernard anticipated in his original plan.

Onlyking, someone knocked the only pub down in your village?

Sounds like you are going cold turkey, bit of cabin fever.

RNS, turnips! What next 👾 👽 aliens?