News: GT1 Lithium Americas Reports First Quarter 2022 Results, page-48

@Zkt,
Production early-mid 2025 would appear a tight but potentially achievable timeline that is consistent with early works in Q1 2024. Aside from consent approval which can be a complete wild-card, the longest item is the environmental baseline work. A video recently referenced needing winter and summer metrics for two winters and summers. This started with the Winter of 2021/2022. Unless some sort of exemption/shortened process is agreed, this won't complete until the Canadian summer of 2023. Mining plans, infill drilling, DFS etc would be done concurrently to this work. Core confirmed its DMS plant order on 28 Sep 2021 and expects to be in production Q4 2022 so a starting best guess is a Concentration plant being built in around a year. The Canadian climate may alter this timeline.

I've got no idea if there is any chance of shortening the regulatory/environmental lead time but my guess is no.

There may be a higher-risk commercial option of ordering DMS plant sightly before receipt of regulatory approvals, particularly if there are no red flags on any points within the application and applicable criteria. Normally this would be a complete no-go zone, but with Primero as a shareholder it may be a possiblity. If the DMS plant requiried was kept factory new and kept in containers when at site, GT1 could potentially cut 3-6 months off the production lead time:

• If GT1 got the approvals expected, its straight into assembing and commissioning the DFS plant (there ore a few metres below surface in some places so there may be minimal pre-strip, but this depends on the mining plan developed)
• If approval occurs but is delayed, GT1 has stored DFS plant on-site. Its an inefficient use of capital, but not the end of the world
• If regulatry approvals aren't received for this site, but GT1 confirms resource at a site other than seymour, then the equipment may be useable there.
• If regulatory approvals aren't received, GT1 has many problems. The plant may be able to be sold to someone else needing DMS (and could actually be very attractive as delivery lead times would be shorter than usual). There may be a loss on sale. There would be extra shipping and related costs.

Assuming Primero indicated a high likelihood of on-selling in the event of an unfavourable regulatory decision, the down-side of pre-ordering isn't actually that large, but the upside is getting into production perhaps half a year earlier might be. Pre-ordering could be commercially acceptable risk when balancing the upside and down-side.

Despite what I've noted above, I'd expect a traditional pathway where all regulatory and other approvals are gained before ordering equipment.