@Motors@Slider. Looking ahead as we are all told we should do, I think we could develop a project management type Gannt Chart to "see" where we might be going with critical points being the BFS (now looking a year or two out) and then the issuance of EIS guidelines by governments.
It is this second one that for me is the elephant in the room. Governments declaration of support are very welcome but also quite an insignificant factor in the approvals process because their own EIS legislation is key and very high end in the legislation tree.
Digging up the last effort by an ASX listed co to propose developing a port in SA (and yes we may well not require a greenfields port) the following is a very relevant eye opener
https://plan.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/478371/Final-Guidelines-for-KI-Plantation-Timber-at-Smith-Bay.PDF for two main reasons...
1) The govt supported the project which amounted to what Paddy shot at.
2) It took two years from the issue of these guidelines for the minister to ultimately say NOT APPROVED
So I spoke to BG yesterday about whether there was any draft guidelines floating about or indication what they might be?. BG "Not yet, need the BFS done first" ('yes, obviously') "and then to move to address the govt's issued guidelines when we get them". BG "HIO is/has undertaken a lot of prelims towards meeting current legislated EIS matters to shorten the chain"
The above guidelines probably need to be considered for up to four projects...
1) The mine NSW
2) Water NSW and federal
3) Pipeline SA (if chosen)
4) Myponnie Point Port SA (if chosen)
None of these, once they become formal EIS assessments are approved by "the government" but by a minister.
So to me and my SWOT I see the total project BFS and the Meeting the EIS guidelines which we have not seen yet because we do not know what we are doing yet, as probably running (without experiencing more shenanigans as you summarise well in this thread) over some 4 years before we get product F.O.B. - if we do.
