Fib,In stark contrast to most FEED/Feasibility studies on these...

Fib,

In stark contrast to most FEED/Feasibility studies on these WA SOP projects there isn't a single mention of the NT claimants and virtually nothing on NT heritage other than the S18 approval. No mention of the NT negotiations that they mention in the EPA ERD. Perhaps it isn't relevant but it stands out.

The public benefit analysis and indigenous jobs show that the hurdles set to obtain NAIF funding are not very onerous, at least for APC. They mention a road upgrade but I thought the government was paying for the road ? Perhaps that is another road?

Flagging the bagging plant is a good example of APC doing something well. SO4 is in a TH pending a further cap raising. A HC poster has suggested it is for a bagging plant.
The one thing that isn't stated in this FEED and something that is highly relevant is the ratio of premium product to bulk product. The FEED is very much about the promotion of premium product but we have no idea what proportion of product is premium bagged product and what is bulk. SO4 state that 82% of product will be bulk, ex-Geraldton, the rest bagged on rail. Perhaps APC don't know yet but a bulk/premium breakdown almost warrants a place in the sensitivity analysis.

I definitely think this project has the potential to avoid most of the problems we have seen to date with KLL & SO4.