Where a project has smaller deposits, they frequently scale the...

Where a project has smaller deposits, they frequently scale the startup build to a sensible mine life and there is limited to no expansion potential as its simply implement the mine then mine out the resource. Where a project has a particularly large deposit, its not uncommon for a staged implementation to the eventual size of the mine. Lithium examples of this include Sigma Lithium, PLS, Greenbushes and Goulamina. All four have had deposits of sufficient size that the start-up project was much smaller than the full plans. These projects have a layer of expansion capital expenditure that is planned to be funded from operational cash flow. This approach limits near-term dividends but enables the expansion to the ultimate planned size without as much shareholder dilution.

A similar thing is part of EGR's plans and the 300ktpa therefore is IMO relevant. It means the medium-term EBITDA the project could deliver is a significant multiple of the initial start-up size. You can of course dismiss any future expansion and that is your right. You can of course post comparative financials that ignore any expansion potential however this removes one of the sources of potential value to shareholders. That doesn't appear irrelevant to me. The expansion potential means EGR can hold meaningful discussions with OEM's and battery makers that anticipate a large future increase in their demand.

If the project has a technically simple mining and processing structure, it may be argued that the hard part is getting the project financed because I suspect far more potential projects would stumble on this financing step than the step of commissioning the mine successfully having secured finance to do so. That isn't however to say commissioning risk doesn't exist - it does. Some projects attempt to start the implementation of mining before securing appropriate financing. This is understandable but high risk strategy and under-funding projects is a major cause of implementation issues.

Re the engineering study - Agreed, EGR has had comparatively advanced plans around the midstream development for years. Those plans need refreshing and revised costing if the plant location or configuration changes. I don't think anyone is particularly surprised that EGR has been able to complete an engineering study for midstream development. That noted, few if any projects will progress without completing engineering studies so its a critical step towards the mid-stage part of the overall plan.

Re your comment: "It is the equity side of the financing that sets the share price."
That is only partly correct, it is the mix of projects with a realistic pathway into production and their associated expected revenue streams and capital costs that sets the share price. EGR has a mix of projects and while a critical part, Epanko mine is only part of that set. Until a few months ago the market appeared to be of the opinion that these projects were some time away. The recent share price increase would appear to be adopting an increased likelihood the projects will proceed in the foreseeable future.

As one of the ironies of the share market, the higher share price EGR now has also makes the successful implementation of the project more likely. It does greatly improve the chances of securing a debt/equity package to implement Epanko without eye-watering dilution.