2021 - General Discussion, page-3152

@ascrulpeous - can you answer some questions of mine, seeing as I helped you out in good faith the other day over on A4N. You seem to know a lot about ESG after reading through your posts, lots of details regarding A4N, so I have a few questions - I hope you don't mind. I've also added some FYI specific questions that I'm curious about to stay relevant to the thread.

1. ESG certification takes into account suppliers, as you allude to. The reagents that A4N is buying from Orica are 98% recycled; what ESG rules apply to recycled products? And do you know what those products are and what the carbon footprint is to make them? The reagents are different to the feedstock of course. Do you have any opinion on A4N's feedstock credentials?
2. Recent anns suggest FYI is still experimenting with their feedstock; how will an ESG certifier look at the different feedstock options? If it's from Alcoa, is it a feedstock that is used as part of the Bayer process, or is it created as a byproduct of the actual smelting process, as there is an enormous difference in power use between those steps? Will FYI's feedstock decision affect their ESG, or am I looking at this incorrectly?
3. Orica's Gladstone plant mainly produces products that are used by the mining industry. If FYI decides to mine Kaolin and have that as their feedstock, will they buy products for their mining operation and processes from Orica or an Orica like company? How green are FYI's methods of feedstock calcining, hydrochloric acid leaching, and the high-temperature HCI recovery?
4. Orica has thrown about $30million at their Gladstone plant since they royally f'ed up polluting the Gladstone harbour in 2012. Do you know what kind of improvements were made? You wrote that Orica's Yaruwan operation would be shut in 5 years; could you substantiate that claim?
5. A4N released their carbon footprint modelling on May 21, which showed an improvement of 59% in CO2 emissions for HPA production from the incumbents if they use 100% renewable energy. Can you point me to the FYI modelling for their process? I read in a presentation that FYI claimed a 50% improvement; it would be good to see those details as I presume they would have done those calculations.
6. FYI have started the ESG ball rolling, and congrats to them. They signed onto Socialsuite, a $100 a month SAAS software that helps them collect data - a survey/diary tool. But is that really worth an announcement to market (July 1 "FYI Independent ESG Reporting Platform Established") for what amounts to a pretty standard SAAS product?
7. In the initial ESG rating for FYI, the environmental metrics FYI scored a LOW risk on those values. Is that because you aren't operating a mine/processing plant yet, therefore, don't have a footprint? Will those risk metrics move around as you finalise your process and feedstock?
8. In the Feb announcement, "20210211-FYI_Alcoa-joint-pilot-plant-outstanding-99.999-results.pdf". The best sample was sample one at 12.3ppm of impurities. Equivalent to an HPA grade of 99.99877%, yet FYI rounded that value up to 99.999%, suggesting 5N - much to the joy of many FYI holders. But, as you would know, 5N is less than 10ppm of impurities; they still have to reduce pollutants by 23% to get to 5N. I've seen companies round values up before to show information in a better light, including A4N. But why did FYI let shareholders think that they had achieved the milestone of a 5N grade when they hadn't? Roly must have known what he was doing as he didn't crow about 5N in the announcement at all.

Cheers