Quote Originally Posted by Scrunch View Post
I'd like to be wrong because it would also improve the economics of other projects I hold, but I think these mid-80% recoveries relate only to the material put through HLS processes replicating what a commercial DMS will do. They therefore exclude the non-recovery or lower recovery (with floatation) from Fines. If DMS only, there's no fines recoveries and the overall recovery drops down to low-mid 70%'s which again has a strong similarity to Core.

I've seen the same thing happen with ADV/GT1 which initially had reported these mid-80%'s recoveries for a commercial grade of Spod (circa 6%). Along comes the scoping study and it uses 75% while noting the previous MET results. My presumed explanation is that as DMS only there's no fines recovery and hence dropping whole of ore recovery rates.

That said, Latin's results are good and they confirm DMS only is viable (less capex). Like others at similar stages of investigation (A11, GT1, GL1, RDT, ESS), it may be that a back-end floatation circuit is added so that there is also a recovery stream from fines and this pushes up the overall recovery rate to nearer 80% (or perhaps just over that), although doing this requires confidence Spod prices will remain higher. If that isn't done, there may be a DSO fines revenue stream.
Yes I like the fact Sigma is leading the way just up the road from LRS Brazilian project .... Sigma Lithium Corporation has very low est. production costs

https://seekingalpha.com/article/456...ns-undervalued

https://www.ft.com/content/82d4c6af-...d-05845cdd1382