@triage I think we can assume that LPD's binding OT Agreements...

@triage I think we can assume that LPD's binding OT Agreements are only executed with the knowledge of and agreement from potential financiers (albeit they may have additional DD requirements to complete). As @Welsho54 suggests, it is not so important who the end-user is, provided the outcome to LPD investors (including debt financers) is optimised.

The P1P is a demonstration plant, designed to show that the PP can be scaled up 462 times. This remains a technical challenge. A further 4x scale-up for P2P should be easier, but I think it unlikely the BoD will approve P2P FID prior to commissioning P1P.

@Welsho54, DFC funding is likely to be limited to Karibib ($37.9M out of $139M P1P project total). The DFC constraints are publicly available (it is US taxpayer money). Whilst it's clear that a US nexus is required (and I regard this nexus more important than you), I don't see how KIZAD can satisfy DFC's funding criteria. Accordingly, although DFC funding is important, it's not cornerstone.

Financing the remaining project costs ($101M), say mostly from Traxys and related partners, also seems a stretch given annual revenues of ~$108M (and only after qualification and nameplate production are achieved). Lions Head Global Partners are still on the scene, and it can bring a commercial banking/investment consortium to the table with debt finance. That's not to say that Traxys etc won't contribute, but perhaps only at the margin.

I feel confident that this will all come together. My interest is now more in the concentrate to feed the P2P, and the Karibib drilling campaign that will underpin it.

To your original objective of multiple bags @triage, LPD is likely to be an overnight success that was 10 years in the making (as is the case for some many successful companies).