Ann: Noosa Mining Conference Presentation, page-37

Thanks @pattyr.
Hmm, our AFS put our 1.6m wmt/yr ore supply and transport costs at AUD $176.5M, which equates to AUD $110 or USD $72 / wmt at current exchange rates.
From the FT article, local Indo ore was at USD $5 / wmt! and now at USD $20.
Clearly a price advantage/result of BRI/unsustainable for preserving ore reserves long term.
Philippine ore at USD $65 / wmt is more in QPM's ball park. The shipping distance looks around the same to Morowali as from NC to Townsville.

Here's a similarly interesting read on the Philippines nickel industry and it's efforts to move up the value chain:
https://issuu.com/brimblepublishing/docs/prj_issue_1_2023/s/20689476#:~:text=Of%20the%20nickel%20mines%20operating,Acid%20Leach%20(HPAL)%20process.

It contains these two graphics which shows the ingenuity of QPM's Direct Nickel process (and subsequent hydrometallurgy) for it's ability to process limonite & saprolite, also avoiding multiple processing steps (often involving significant transport between each):





Early QPM presentations had a variation of this (March 2021 below):

Maybe a re-tweak of the message is needed in line with a back to basics or 'more macro' call of late.
Add typical locations to the traditional steps, to highlight the lower transport/carbon footprint of the TECH's one stop shop solution?

Those who watched the conference livestream may recall WA1 Resources who preceded QPM had their MD spend a good deal of time detailing the industry context for their niobium project, which sets the scene up nicely for the sciency micro stuff.
Take a look at BHP's home page to see saturation ESG messaging done pretty well also.

PS. my Post #: 70969642 was incorrect - the TECH project has 10 sellable products, not eight, as per AFS p14.