Perhaps I am too trusting and optimistic, but despite clay/sedimentary being non-traditional, LAC seems to be implementing some straightforward methods. Starting with their resource, according to their lead geologist, Tom Benson, the concentration of lithium in the clay at thacker pass is comparable to the best hard rock deposits in Western Australia. John Evans said in an interview that they will employ a hydrocyclone to separate lithium rich particles from lithium poor. This technology is very straightfoward and works based on the size and density of the particles. I don't believe this setp was included in their PFS and this should reduce the upstream capital expenditures required for the plant, or potentially allow a higher rate of production (if this is a rate limiting step). Unlike spodumene, they do not need to employ a high temperature/high cost roasting step to convert the lithium to a form that is leachable. But like a spodumene, everything downstream in the processing is quite similar, not necessarily the same, beginning with sulphuric acid leaching. I am not an industry expert, but have spent a lot of time scrutinizing their process to identify weakness and nothing jumps out as concerning to the point where it will make or break the underlying investment thesis. Sure, they may go over budget with capital expenses for thacker pass, production may be delayed operating expenses might be more costly, etc. There is not one step I see where operating costs should skyrocket. They will still be a low cost producer, but maybe not the lowest.

AXP