research & resulting questions, page-5

Hi IP,

As an investor who has been with this company since the IPO, I can say that the directors have delivered results that were consistently significantly better than expected.
If you look at what could have been expected at any given point in time has been surpassed by the subsequent developments.
It is true that some of the announcements, timelines and capital raising with subsequent dumping by the "sophisticated" and their brokers/advisers, do not appear to be having desirable effect on the interim share price. This are just small issues showing some of the directors are better skilled in science, technology and business rather than hyping the share market.

In the grand scheme of things the Moolap facility is just a test lab.
We should look forward to to global agreements, USA, Canada, some European countries, South America and Africa, perhaps China and India, look where major AL recycling facilities exist and what countries would be interested to stop dumping the toxic waste.
If the past can repeat itself, we can expect the imminent announcement to be larger than the expected agreement with SSC.
Considering how the Geelong council has treated our business, I trust we will have significantly better chance of business development in countries like USA, Canada or Germany where business environment and legal framework is better developed.

The mineral / mining projects in Tasmania, particularly the silica project progress cannot be attributed to the skills of the directors.
We have been informed a number of times that projects with capital investments of between half to a billion dollars take time and require cooperation of the governments, states / local and the business. During the time when Wacker AG has been looking at the potential investment in TAS, they have made a deal to invest $1B in Tennessee. There were two other companies which also invested similar amounts in Tennessee, one of them was VW. As far as the associated requirements for the silica smelter are concerned like land, port facility, green power, renewable charcoal, and proximity to super pure silica is concerned, Tasmania is in a superior position to Tennessee. We also have a free trade agreement with the USA and the final product could be shipped there duty free. Therefore the problem is with the incompetent government in this country. Although one could argue that we deserve better government, unfortunately they were democratically elected so they represent the majority. You can see where I am going with my conclusion but it is sad to say that the majority must use their heads more often so we can achieve better outcomes for all of us.

You may have seen recent stats showing the growth in solar panel numbers of 50% this year, the manufacturers of silicon wafers have sold out their production for the next couple of years. The efficiency of solar panels should reach grid parity within one or two years as prototypes already show significant improvement over older technology suggesting the solar power generation of the future should be cheaper than coal. Of course this is only applicable in places where sufficient sun energy is available which is often not in the areas where major industrial energy needs are like China. We cannot eliminate fossil fuels.
Unlike some of our political and so called scientific minds, I am not suggesting we should be against carbon based energy, we should not provide subsidies to renewables but give them other incentives like tax free income - at the moment they would be making a loss but it would provide an incentive for faster development of technology and production volumes to make it profitable.
This is how free market capitalism should work.

It all points to the conclusion already stated by the directors that the silica production in TASmania is a certainty. We just need a government with balls - the directors did not make the last comment.