Manono Lithium — Comparable Asset Benchmarking

The peer set — selection rationale

Resource scale and grade — where Manono sits structurally

Resource analysis

Three observations on resource positioning:

1. Manono is the largest hard-rock lithium resource globally on contained LCE basis. 33.4 Mt LCE (verified via mining.com lithium-lowdown February 2024) is 2.4× Greenbushes' operator-stated 13.9 Mt LCE comparison reference. Pilgangoora's chemistry-implied LCE on its 446 Mt @ 1.28% Li2O resource is approximately 14 Mt (Li2O × 2.473 LCE conversion factor); the operator-stated reporting basis varies across reserves vs M+I vs total resource categorisations. The resource scale itself is an asset-class differentiator: even at production rates comparable to Greenbushes (1.42 Mt SC produced CY24), Manono's contained-LCE base is structurally larger. The geological case for Manono is exceptional and uncontested.
2. Manono's grade (1.61% Li2O) is materially above the cohort. Greenbushes at 1.5% is the second-highest; Pilgangoora at 1.28% is below. Higher grade means smaller mining-and-concentrating footprint per tonne of contained Li, which is the underlying driver of Greenbushes' cost-curve leadership. Manono's grade-and-scale combination is structurally stronger than any operating reference.
3. Goulamina is the most direct geographic comparable but is materially smaller. Goulamina at 7.14 Mt LCE is approximately 1/5 of Manono's resource. The structural similarities (West African jurisdiction, 2023 Mali Mining Code framework, Chinese strategic operator) make Goulamina the relevant precedent for understanding how the 2023 Code's 35% state-stake structure operates in practice; the scale difference means Manono's commercial trajectory at full development would substantially exceed Goulamina's.

Operating status — where Manono sits operationally

Operational analysis

Two structural observations:

1. Greenbushes is the only profitable lithium operation at 2024 spot prices. Per Citi Research (Sep 2024), at spot price of US$750/t for SC6, all major Australian lithium mines except Greenbushes were operating at a loss. This is the cost-curve reality the entire cohort operates within. Manono's eventual cost positioning will determine whether it competes with Greenbushes (Tier-1) or with the loss-making mid-cohort. The deposit grade (1.61% — second only to Greenbushes' 1.5%) suggests Tier-1 cost positioning is structurally feasible if execution is competent; this is the operational case for Chinese strategic capital deployment.
2. Goulamina's first-shipment-to-first-royalty-payment lag was ~13 months. Mining license February 2019 → construction start 2022 → first production December 2024 → first commercial shipment August 2025 → first royalty payment Q3 2025. The pattern is informative for Manono: even an operationally-uncontested deposit takes 5-7 years from license to commercial cash flow. Manono's contestation-resolution-then-construction trajectory adds 18-30 months to that pattern at minimum.

2023 Mali Mining Code precedent — how state-takedown actually operates

Mining Code precedent reading

Goulamina's operational arc tells a senior reader what the 2023 Mali Mining Code framework actually delivers when ALL parties accept the terms: a competent Chinese strategic operator (Ganfeng) builds in ~5.5 years from feasibility to first production, the state takes 35% via the 10% free carry + 25% acquired stake, and a TPSF royalty structure provides cashflow exposure for non-equity holders. Goulamina is the empirical answer to "how does the 2023 Code function operationally."

Manono's contestation arc is structurally different: there is no agreed operator-state framework that all parties accept. The Manono Lithium SAS (Zijin/Cominière) framework was constructed on the premise that AVZ's prior tenure had lapsed; the AVZ ICSID arbitration disputes that premise. Until ICSID rules, neither the Goulamina-style operational pattern nor any alternative pattern can be applied. Goulamina's data illuminates the geological-and-commercial case for Manono but cannot illuminate the contestation-resolution-and-timing question.

DFI mandate-fit positioning across the peer set

DFI mandate-fit reading

No major hard-rock lithium asset has been DFI-debt-financed. The cohort is structurally private-strategic (Chinese balance-sheet for Goulamina/Mt Marion; Australian listed-equity for Pilgangoora/Wodgina/Kathleen Valley) plus offtake-linked debt where applicable. Manono's DFI-ineligibility is therefore not a Manono-specific issue but a hard-rock-lithium-asset-class pattern: even uncontested assets in stable jurisdictions don't typically clear DFI mandate-fit because lithium-price volatility and project-finance-untested deposit structures push DFIs toward more conservative commodity choices (copper, cobalt, nickel for energy transition).

The implication for Manono screening: even if AVZ's ICSID arbitration resolves favourably and Manono becomes structurally eligible for DFI debt, the realistic capital-source pathway remains private-strategic — Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or US strategic capital with end-use offtake interest — plus possibly equity-side institutional capital (sovereign wealth funds, pension funds with extractives mandate). DFI debt is structurally available post-resolution but is not the binding-constraint capital source for hard-rock lithium developments.

Where Manono is structurally distinct in the peer set

Three dimensions on which Manono has no peer-set comparable:

1. Resource scale advantage. Manono at 33.4 Mt LCE is the largest hard-rock lithium deposit globally. Even Greenbushes' world-leading 13.9 Mt LCE is structurally smaller. The geological case has no upper-bound peer reference; Manono is the upper bound of the asset class.
2. Multi-claim contestation. Every peer is post-resolution (operating, ramp-up, or post-DFS) under uncontested operator-state frameworks. Goulamina is the closest jurisdictional comparable but operates under an agreed Ganfeng/Mali framework. Manono's parallel-claim structure (Manono Lithium SAS operational; AVZ contesting via ICSID; KoBold framework with AVZ; CATH conditional funding) has no peer-set analogue. The decision shape Manono faces is not a "which lithium asset to fund" question but a "when does the contestation resolve, and through what pathway, with what residual ownership structure" question.
3. Sovereign-strategic capital concentration. Goulamina (Ganfeng), Mt Marion (Ganfeng/MinRes), Bald Hill (MinRes Chinese-aligned), and now potentially Manono (Zijin/CATH) point to Chinese strategic capital being the dominant non-equity capital source for African and Australian hard-rock lithium developments. KoBold's framework with AVZ adds a Western-strategic counterweight conditional on AVZ-claim success. Manono is the only asset where this Chinese-Western strategic-capital tension is the binding screening constraint.

What this benchmarking does NOT do

• It does not predict the ICSID outcome or its timing. The peer set illuminates what happens after resolution; it cannot illuminate what resolution looks like. ICSID outcome is sovereign-arbitration-domain, outside platform scope.
• It does not endorse any specific contestation party's position. AVZ Minerals, Manono Lithium SAS, Zijin Mining, Cominière, KoBold Metals, CATH, and the Government of the DRC are public-source counterparties only.
• It does not validate operator-disclosed cost or capex figures by independent technical work. All peer figures are operator-disclosed or industry-data-cited; institutional users requiring independent verification commission their own technical-review work.
• It does not extend to brine lithium operations. Salar de Atacama (SQM/Albemarle), Salar del Hombre Muerto (Livent), Salar de Uyuni (Bolivia), and Cauchari-Olaroz (Ganfeng/LAC) are different cost structures and project-finance characteristics; structurally non-comparable to hard-rock spodumene assets.
• It does not include proprietary cost-curve subscription content. Wood Mackenzie, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ, and Fastmarkets remain the established subscription-cost-curve providers; the platform engages with their content only via public-disclosed citations within operator filings.