| Metric | Earlier source | Later source | Spread / driver | Most-defensible reading | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JV ownership % | AVZ 75% / Cominière 25% (post-Sept 2020) | Zijin 54.9% (group disclosure) vs 61% Zijin / 39% Cominière (Reuters JV-level) | 6.1 pp at current JV level — reporting basis | Both consistent under different reporting bases — confirm with Zijin IR | MEDIUM |
| Total resource (M+I+Inferred) | 400 Mt @ 1.65% Li2O (May 2019, Roche Dure only) | 842 Mt total project (Jan 2024, Roche Dure + Carriere de l'Este) | 442 Mt (110% increase) — drilling expansion | 842 Mt as M+I+I baseline; Zijin to potentially restate or reaffirm | HIGH |
| Reserves (P+P) | 93 Mt @ 1.58% Li2O (April 2020 DFS) | 131.7 Mt @ 1.63% Li2O (per Cantor 2022 update) | 38.7 Mt (42% increase) | 131.7 Mt as updated baseline; Zijin restatement pending | MEDIUM |
| Pre-production CAPEX | $545.5M (April 2020 DFS) | ~$702M (post-PFS revisions) | $157M (29%) | ~$702M as more recent estimate; Zijin actual not yet public | MEDIUM |
| Production scope (Mtpa) | 4.5 Mtpa ore (DFS 2020) | contested between competing operator positions | Range across scenarios | 4.5 Mtpa as DFS baseline; expansion potential to 10 Mtpa per Cantor | LOW |
| NPV under ownership scenarios | AVZ-modeled NPV under PEA/DFS scope (operator-disclosed) | Zijin/Cominière-modeled NPV not yet publicly disclosed | Enormous range depending on resolution scenario | NOT publishable as central estimate; trigger framework drives | LOW |
| CATH conditional funding | Pre-CATH: AVZ standalone funding constraints | $20M to AVZ + 100% production rights for 5 yrs + 30.5% indirect stake (conditional on AVZ claims succeeding) | Conditional structure activated by ICSID outcome | Conditional only — actual activation depends on substantive ICSID rulings | MEDIUM |
Confidence tier convention. HIGH = direct primary-source operator disclosure with regulatory filing or matched cross-source convergence. MEDIUM = single-source or scope-limited operator disclosure where additional context would strengthen the reading. LOW = inference or where multiple defensible readings exist without single-anchor consensus, or scenario-dependent on contested-tenure outcome. Same convention applied across all four case-study Benchmark Spreads.
| Source | AVZ % | Cominière % | Date | Reporting basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVZ original announcement (project entry) | 65% | 30% Cominière + 5% other | 2017-2019 | Pre-acquisition |
| AVZ post-September 2020 acquisition (Mining-Technology and Mining Review verified) | 75% (target post-Cominière 10% acquisition for $15.5M) | 25% | September 2020 | JV-level via Dathcom Mining |
| Zijin group-level disclosure (post-acquisition of Cominière stake) | — | — | — | Zijin reports ~54.9% in Manono Lithium SAS at consolidated group level |
| Reuters JV-level reporting | — | — | — | 61% Zijin / 39% Cominière at Manono Lithium SAS direct JV level |
The 6.1 percentage point delta between Zijin's group-level reporting (~54.9%) and Reuters' JV-level reporting (61%) reflects different reporting bases: consolidated-group attribution vs direct-JV-level attribution. This is methodologically explicable, not contradictory — the consolidated-group view applies cross-holdings and minority-interest treatments that the direct-JV view does not.
The structural complication is the AVZ contested claim. AVZ asserts via ICSID arbitration that its 75% interest in Dathcom Mining (the entity holding original PR13359 rights) was wrongfully diluted; Cominière (DRC state-owned) and Zijin assert the current Manono Lithium SAS structure is legitimate. The percentages above reflect the current operator-side position; AVZ's claimed position is the 75% Dathcom Mining interest under the pre-2022 framework.
Both Zijin disclosures are consistent under their respective reporting bases. A capital committee should (a) clarify with Zijin investor relations directly which figure applies for the institution's specific exposure decision; (b) treat AVZ's claimed 75% Dathcom Mining position as contested-and-pending pending ICSID resolution; (c) recognise that the percentages can be definitively reconciled only after ICSID substantive rulings clarify legal-title status.
| Source | Tonnage | Grade | Date | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVZ initial Roche Dure resource | ~400 Mt | 1.65% Li2O / 715ppm Sn / 34ppm Ta | May 2019 | Roche Dure pegmatite only |
| AVZ updated Roche Dure (post-2022/2023 drilling) | 669 Mt (67% increase) | ~1.62% Li2O | January 2024 | Roche Dure post-2022/2023 drilling programme (53 holes, 15,684.7m) |
| AVZ Manono total project (Roche Dure + Carriere de l'Este) | 842 Mt (47% increase) | — | January 2024 | Both pegmatites combined |
| AVZ exploration target (entire Manono Project) | 1,000-1,200 Mt | 1.25%-1.50% Li2O | Various AVZ disclosures | Conceptual exploration target — not a resource estimate |
| Zijin/Cominière post-acquisition update | Not yet publicly published as updated MRE | — | — | Zijin to potentially restate or reaffirm under their preferred reporting code |
The trajectory is the signal. AVZ-led drilling progressively expanded the resource from 400 Mt (May 2019) to 842 Mt total project (January 2024) — a 110% increase over ~4.5 years driven by the 2022/2023 53-hole drilling programme adding 268 Mt to Roche Dure alone. Grade has held at ~1.62-1.65% Li2O across the trajectory, indicating consistent geological characterisation.
The current operational structure (Manono Lithium SAS under Zijin/Cominière) has not yet published an updated MRE. Whether Zijin will restate the AVZ-published 842 Mt under their own reporting framework, reaffirm at the existing AVZ-published value, or publish a different number depends on Zijin's internal validation and their choice of reporting code. AVZ's resource was reported under JORC; Zijin (HKEX-listed) typically reports under JORC or CIM standards.
The exploration-target framing of 1,000-1,200 Mt at 1.25-1.50% Li2O is conceptual under JORC — it is not a Mineral Resource and should not be treated as one. It indicates the upside-potential envelope for further drilling, not a bankable basis.
842 Mt M+I+Inferred at ~1.62-1.65% Li2O as the published baseline (per AVZ January 2024 update). A senior reader should treat this as the most recent published resource estimate, recognising that (a) the operational entity (Manono Lithium SAS / Zijin) may republish under their own framework with potentially different numbers; (b) the AVZ-disclosed update was JORC-compliant at publication; (c) further drilling under the current operator is likely to expand the resource further toward AVZ's exploration target of 1,000-1,200 Mt. Institutional users should treat 842 Mt as the floor and the exploration-target range as the multi-year upside.
| Source | Reserve tonnage | Grade | Date | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVZ April 2020 DFS | 93 Mt | 1.58% Li2O / 988ppm Sn | April 2020 | P+P reserves at DFS publication |
| Cantor Fitzgerald Initial Coverage (citing AVZ disclosures) | 131.7 Mt | 1.63% Li2O / 990ppm Sn | February 2022 | Updated P+P reserves per AVZ disclosures |
| Manono Lithium SAS / Zijin updated reserves | Not yet publicly published | — | — | Pending Zijin's preferred reporting code |
The 38.7 Mt (42%) increase from April 2020 to February 2022 reflects continued infill drilling and reserve-conversion work under AVZ. Grade increased slightly (1.58 → 1.63%) indicating the additional reserves are not lower-grade infill but reflect a broader resource envelope at consistent grade. Tin grade essentially unchanged (988 → 990 ppm).
Reserves represent a much smaller fraction of total resources at Manono than is typical for sulphide deposits like Kabanga. 131.7 Mt P+P / 842 Mt M+I+I = 16% reserve-to-resource conversion — reflecting the early stage of mine planning and the geological complexity of pegmatite deposits where grade variability requires more drilling for reserve conversion than is typical for orebody-continuous sulphide deposits.
131.7 Mt P+P at 1.63% Li2O as the most recent published reserve baseline (per AVZ updates through 2022). A senior reader should expect substantial reserve growth under continued drilling — the current 16% reserve-to-resource ratio is well below sulphide-deposit norms (60-85%), reflecting Manono's early-stage mine-planning maturity rather than a structural ceiling. Zijin's expected reserve update will likely materially restate this number; the direction is more probably up than down.
| Source | CAPEX | Date | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVZ April 2020 DFS | ~$545M | April 2020 | Initial development phase including SC6 + Li2SO4 plants; required ~$120M of non-project infrastructure |
| AVZ post-DFS revised estimate | ~$702M | Post-DFS revisions through ~2022 | Updated estimate reflecting cost inflation and scope refinement |
| Manono Lithium SAS / Zijin actual | Not yet publicly disclosed | — | Construction underway with Q2 2026 commissioning target |
| Comparable-asset benchmark: $/tpa concentrator capacity | $120-160/tpa for hard-rock lithium pegmatite developments | Industry references | Greenbushes, Pilgangoora, Wodgina, Bald Hill comparables |
The AVZ DFS-to-revised CAPEX delta of $157M (29% increase) reflects standard mining-development cost inflation through 2020-2022 and likely scope refinement during pre-acquisition execution-readiness work. Comparable-asset CAPEX/tpa benchmarks for hard-rock lithium pegmatite developments at 4-5 Mtpa scale typically fall in the $120-160/tpa range. AVZ's DFS at $545M / 4.5 Mtpa = ~$121/tpa is at the low end; the revised $702M / 4.5 Mtpa = ~$156/tpa sits at the high end of comparable benchmarks.
The Zijin-led actual CAPEX during the current construction phase has not been publicly disclosed as a standalone figure. Manono Lithium SAS construction milestones have been disclosed through Zijin (HKEX) investor channels, but the consolidated CAPEX figure for Manono specifically has not been broken out.
~$702M as the most recent AVZ-side estimate; actual Zijin-side CAPEX not publicly available. A senior reader should treat $702M as the AVZ-side reasonable benchmark, recognising that (a) actual construction costs under Zijin/Cominière may differ; (b) cost inflation through 2023-2024 likely increased the figure further if construction proceeded under the original scope; (c) the 4.5 Mtpa scope itself may have been revised. Institutional users should request specific CAPEX disclosure from Zijin IR or proxy via comparable-asset benchmarks pending operator transparency.
| Source | Throughput | SC6 production | Li2SO4 production | Mine life |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVZ April 2020 DFS | 4.5 Mtpa ore | ~700,000 tpa @ 6.1% Li2O | ~45,700 tpa Li2SO4 | 20 years |
| AVZ Cantor 2022 expanded scenario | 10 Mtpa expansion potential | ~over 300,000 tpa LCE (lithium carbonate equivalent) | — | Extended scope |
| Manono Lithium SAS Q2 2026 commissioning target | Not yet publicly broken out by phase | Pending operational disclosure | Pending | Pending |
The DFS scope of 4.5 Mtpa ore producing ~700,000 tpa SC6 + ~45,700 tpa Li2SO4 over a 20-year life-of-mine is the auditable baseline. The Cantor 2022 expansion scenario at 10 Mtpa was an upside scenario not committed to in DFS — based on the expanded resource at the time it was treated as feasibility-stage upside rather than committed production scope.
The current operator's commissioning target of Q2 2026 has been disclosed at the milestone level (per Zijin investor channels and DRC government statements) but not broken out by phase or scope. Whether the operator builds toward the original 4.5 Mtpa DFS scope, the Cantor 2022 expanded scope, or a different scope entirely is dependent on the construction phase outcomes and the resolution of the ICSID arbitration which affects the scope of legal claim.
4.5 Mtpa ore / ~700,000 tpa SC6 / ~45,700 tpa Li2SO4 / 20 years as the DFS auditable baseline. A senior reader should anchor base-case sensitivity on the DFS scope, treat the Cantor 2022 10 Mtpa scenario as upside conditional on subsequent expansion decisions, and recognise that current operator construction may produce a different scope entirely. Institutional users should request specific production-phase disclosure from Zijin IR before finalising base-case projections.
This is the metric where Manono diverges most sharply from a typical Benchmark Spread. Under contestation, NPV under different ownership scenarios produces materially different distributions of the project's expected returns:
| Scenario | NPV implication for AVZ-side claim | NPV implication for Zijin/Cominière-side | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICSID rules favourably to AVZ + DRC complies | AVZ recovers 75% of Manono economics | Zijin/Cominière exposure to settlement payment / restructuring | Pathway A per platform's mandate-fit analysis |
| Negotiated settlement outside ICSID | Partial recovery / payment / asset substitution depending on terms | Operating continuity under restructured terms | Pathway B |
| ICSID rules against AVZ or AVZ withdraws | AVZ exposure to claim costs / no recovery | Zijin/Cominière retain full operational position | Pathway C |
| Ongoing arbitration (status quo) | Claim value uncertain | Operational uncertainty in financing markets | Current state; ICSID arbitration resumed 23 Jun 2025, merits pending |
Under each scenario, the operator-modeled NPV (whether AVZ-modeled or Zijin/Cominière-modeled) is structurally different. Public-source disclosure does not currently include either AVZ or Zijin/Cominière modeled NPV under their respective scenarios in a directly comparable form.
NPV under Manono is not publishable as a central estimate while contestation is active. A Benchmark Spread on Manono NPV requires either (a) ICSID resolution clarifying ownership at the legal-title level, or (b) detailed public-source disclosures from both AVZ and Zijin under their respective frameworks. Until either condition is met, the platform records NPV as Absent with the trigger framework (ICSID outcome scenarios; CATH conditional funding implications; operational continuity under each pathway) published as the institutional reader's tracking guide. Institutional users with pre-positioning interest should track ICSID procedural and substantive rulings as the primary signal.
| Source | Funding amount | Production rights | Equity stake | Activation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CATH-AVZ January 2026 conditional framework (publicly disclosed) | $20M to AVZ | Rights to 100% production for 5 years | 30.5% indirect stake | Conditional on AVZ claims succeeding |
| Pre-CATH AVZ standalone | AVZ funding constraints (suspension on ASX since 2022 securityholder vote) | — | — | — |
| KoBold Metals separate framework with AVZ (May 2025) | Separate conditional framework | Conditional on dispute resolution + state approval | — | Different conditional structure than CATH |
The CATH conditional framework is structurally important because it monetises AVZ's contested position into specific economic terms — $20M cash (relatively modest), 5 years of 100% production rights (operationally substantial if claims succeed), 30.5% indirect stake (positionally significant). The framework is conditional on AVZ claims succeeding through ICSID; it does not provide AVZ with unconditional funding or independent claim resolution.
The KoBold Metals separate conditional framework with AVZ (May 2025) demonstrates that AVZ has multiple parallel-conditional structures with different counterparties. Each is conditional; none is activated until ICSID outcomes or state approvals materialise. The structural pattern is "private-strategic capital pre-positioning on conditional terms" — different from DFI engagement and different from each other.
CATH conditional terms are publicly disclosed at the framework level; KoBold separately disclosed at framework level. A senior reader should treat both as conditional optionalities for AVZ rather than as activated funding. The structural signal is that multiple private-strategic capital counterparties find the AVZ claim sufficient for conditional pre-positioning — but the activation of any specific framework depends on ICSID and state-action triggers that are outside any party's unilateral control. Institutional users tracking Manono should monitor ICSID substantive rulings (proceedings resumed 23 Jun 2025, Case No. ARB/23/20) as the primary trigger-monitoring item.
For an institutional capital allocator with corridor-or-asset mandate that intersects Manono, the spread provides three operational inputs:
This Benchmark Spread will be updated on three triggers per the published Benchmark Spread Methodology: (a) ICSID procedural or substantive rulings (arbitration resumed 23 Jun 2025; substantive rulings pending); (b) operator disclosures from Manono Lithium SAS, Zijin (HKEX), or AVZ (ASX); (c) the platform's Daily Watchlist surfacing material public-source developments. Each update is recorded in the public Audit Log.