@LithiumIonBull@Lithium_ARG The red flags: Ganfeng guarantees the “cheap” debt, while LAR still backs 49%. Stage 2 is not fully costed, approved or funded, distributions were partly debt-funded, and LAR recently faced major refinancing risk. Real mine, but a very selective pump.
@mondyinvest Quite a lot of mockery for a post that gets the metric wrong: FY27 guidance is unit operating cost, not AISC. FY27 carries costs before the tonnes. At 2.8Mtpa, more clean ore through an already-built plant means better recovery, fixed-cost absorption and operating leverage.
@zempheth@moneyofminepod I think it'll be a massive success. To be clear, the stockpile ends after Q1, but mill feed then follows a nine-month underground ramp to 2.8 Mtpa by June 27. It does not require 2.8 Mtpa by December. Temporary underutilisation is part of the FY27 plan.
@zempheth@moneyofminepod What you’re describing is a scenario, not proof in the data. The data shows 1.5 Mtpa achieved early, H2 averaging ~1.5 Mtpa and record development ahead of the Q2 FY27 step-up. “under-utilised from October” assumes no ramp, no shutdowns and a fixed June draw rate.
@zempheth@moneyofminepod You’re confusing the end point with the ramp. Liontown does not stay at 1.5 Mtpa until June 2027 and then jump overnight to 2.8 Mtpa. The next production step-up starts from Q2 FY27, around October 2026, precisely when the stockpile bridge is expected to reduce. 1.5 → 1.7 → 2.0
@zempheth@moneyofminepod By the end of FY27, exactly as disclosed. That's 11 months away... It was never scheduled to be there now. Calling the mine constrained because it is currently at the planned 1.5 Mtpa ramp stage is like calling a project delayed before its completion date has arrived!