Ann: ASX Waiver Decision Listing Rule 10.11.3, page-23

"...design changes to accommodate performance guarantees required by project lenders...
brine extraction rates were lower than expected, requiring additional bores, pumps, pipelines and trenches.."

I reckon the performance guarantee related to 90Ktpa and the abstraction was insufficient using the BFS flow rates, calculated bore numbers and trench lengths.
Assuming this is correct, it could have an impact on current reserve and mine life. Put simply, the aquifers may not be performing as modelled but that was always going to be a risk for all of these projects (without exception). Companies that have been conservative on their assumptions will be feeling slightly happier than those that have been ambitious. Interestingly SO4 reported new bores in their recent quarterly, they mentioned "air lift" but no mention of flow rates. From memory all we know is that their ponds are crystallising as per their model.

"...the complexity of taking a German-designed plant to the desert of WA had been underestimated.."

This might be irritating. Is K-UTEC part of the German consortium building the plant?

"...to meet product specifications demanded by German offtake partner K+S..."

And WTF is going on here? Did K&S move the goal posts? Abstraction and plant might just be bad luck but what is going on with the specs? They had a very impressive set of demo ponds and the process work was done by K-UTEC in Germany (from memory). How did the BFS miss this?

Anyone have access to the Fosters report?