Storage is a hot-button issue, which makes it relevant to investors.
I didn't start this thread though. I've been patiently waiting along with everyone else.
But now the election cycle has started.
SMSL and Fuziah made world headlines last cycle, much to the chagrin of Lynas investors.
I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't also bring up the FOSL renewal next year if they gain any traction on storage issue.
Their focus is now on storage, so I'm taking a renewed interest. Common sense dictates.
BOTH sides have been silent for months and no one seems to know why. I believe on the one hand it means that PH has put pressure on Fuziah to tone it down, which is good, but I also recognize it's just a guess.
What I don't understand is Lynas's silence on the subject, which is a legitimate concern as no news is NOT always good news. Expected dates for approval have come and gone with nary a peep.
Investor-relevant questions remain unanswered. Mine included:
If BN being in power is the only solution to getting Condisoil approved, why hasn't it happened already?
If BN wins the election, how much longer will it take to get Condisoil approved?
If PH wins the election, what ... will happen to Condisoil?
Does Lynas know or suspect [Condisoil] won't be approved?
What other plans are they [currently] working?
[Will] the operating license to be renewed uneventfully next year irrespective of storage issues?
How much onsite storage space remains at the projected operation rate?
I use all sources of information available. The info posted by SMSL claims to be recent and is unlikely altered. What activist groups that want to be taken seriously typically do is take verifiable information and make alarmist misinformation from it. I don't intentionally use their misinformation and I'm pretty good at spotting it. In this case it seems like SMSL got ahold of chemical analyses of WLP, NUF and FDG and a formulation for Condisoil based on them. Then Lynas made the FDG disappear - which probably made a few plant chemists chuckle.
As far as the disappearing FDG goes, the plant absolutely produces a flue gas desulphurization product. However, I'm going to have to assume the LAMP simply blends it with NUF rather than declaring it as a separate waste. Both FDG and NUF share a very similar chemical profile, so it's not hanky-panky to blend them and it simplifies logistics. If that assumption is correct (and what other choice is there if Lynas says it only produces two solid wastes?), it certainly has a very advantageous ramification at first glance: Condisoil would be then formulated from two residues and its production could theroretically consume
all WLP should demand for the product be high enough. Of course the
radioactive WLP still has to be highly diluted and with a significant safety margin, so a LOT of Condisoil would have to be produced and sold.
Logistically, either Lynas would blend the two residues on site to be below the radioactivity limit and then sell it to some rubber or palm mill owner who would use it to upgrade their waste into Condisoil OR Lynas would bring mill waste on site and produce the product itself. Either way, it sounds like a win-win, though not without cost. SMSL makes one interesting point about those costs.
How does Lynas go about blending two wet products and inert biologically-sourced filler? Have they released any details on that? The final product can't be one that rots or needs to be stored in vats, so it seems certain
they are talking about a dried and bagged fertilizer. A
s the SMSL author asks, wouldn't the wastes need to be fairly dry before blending? How do they get dried? One can't just leave them out on the ground to be picked up later; Malaysia is not Western Australia. Drying could be a significant cost. Has Lynas produced any estimate for the capex and opex of Condisoil production? What is the chance that a PDF might be the cheaper option for the radioactive waste fraction?
