Sevo - next funding round, page-19

Thanks Sevo (and Fysher and Rewardian) - useful as always!

I don't doubt that the Reward team have had a much tougher journey with LD than Tony has with LW, for instance, but there's a massive difference between getting all the paperwork in place and actually building and operating a large scale operation.

That's not to say that I think the Reward team aren't capable of doing it themselves, or bringing the right people in of course. It's just easier for me to see that Tony does have that experience.

Like you say though, SO4 is probably unique in the size of its senior team, and Reward may be no "weaker" in this regard than other players like AMN. And Greg / Michael clearly have more practical experience than Savich does!

As per my previous post I'm not trying to do Reward down, I'm just looking for potentially important / insurmountable reasons as to why it might not be valued on the same basis as AMN, for instance (improved PR etc is clearly an easy one to sort out in due course).

It basically looks too good to be true at the moment, which has me worried that there might be something I've missed...

I did top up this morning regardless though!

Thanks again

Slimbo

p.s. on SO4, I'm not sure that the outstanding environmental approval is an issue actually (in the short term at least) - there was a slight change of wording in the last presentation (shown below in italics) - looks like they don't need it for the 245,000 p.a., just for an increase in capacity / longer life than planned

For environmental impact assessment purposes, the Lake Way Project includes the proposal for construction and operation of additional on-lake infrastructure (including trenches, bores, ponds and associated infrastructure) over an additional area of up 2,750 hectares and extension of the operating life of the processing plant, together with minor modifications to the processing plant to support increased an increase in production capacity of up to 260,000 tonnes per annum of sulphate of potash (nameplate capacity 245,000 tonnes per annum).
The EPA determined that this proposal would require detailed environmental review, without the need for public comment.