Hi Susan, this is all from recollection as the answers to your...

Hi Susan, this is all from recollection as the answers to your queries are a couple of years old, but as I understand it MB has nothing to do with our IP. We have to share it with them as they will be running the plant we are building and have to know how it works (with engineering assistance input from us). They're not telling us how to recycle a battery, the collaboration is as much to do with MB's own battery design to make it easier to hit high recovery rates and recycle generally. From Chris Reed: "The R&D collaboration is as important to us as successfully supplying the equipment. We are excited to work together to develop a more holistic recycling solution covering logistics, handling, compliance and sustainability". Nothing in there about helping us with the science. I think it might have been a Crux interview (someone else may remember), but CR said we have our people in their building, we are helping them refine their battery making, rather than them helping us refine our battery recycling.

Regarding your comment on tweaking, I think everyone would agree. However, the 'tweaking' came directly from the EU who out of left field upped their required recovery rates adding a second stage which goes hot in I think 2030 (from memory the first set of regulations were 2026?). This screwed everyone in Europe in the battery recycling space because no one was able to hit them. So we had to tweak our recycling process to be a viable partner in Europe. We have now hit those targets, so we've cleared the first stage regulations with room to spare and don't have to modify our plants to prepare for stage two. Last I looked some prospective competitors had not cleared stage two.

Regarding your frustration, I sympathise, but R&D takes a long time, especially with first mover stuff. If you want to see depression arising from lagging R&D schedules, go and read some of the biotech forums. omfg. What we do know is that:

a) NMT's recycling process works.*
b) MB chose NMT after a highly competitive tender process.
c) NMT's recycling process is future-proofed out beyond the second and final stage of recovery regulations.*
d) * = The plant we are currently building for MB is the proof of concept to have our recycling process work at a commercial level and deliver the results that our earlier trials and demonstrations suggested it would. When and if this plant has proven itself, NMT will be in a position to offer a proven concept to others who, if you believe what you hear, consists of a growing book of pre-orders that will be placed contingent upon this plant doing its job.

Whether we start building plants for several OEMs or just MB who knows? But first we need this plant to work. I do recall CR saying that we might only be able to cope with 2 carmakers, given the size of their requirements into the future. But that sort of stuff is commercial in confidence and is, again, contingent on whether this plant delivers. That's one of the reasons you can buy NMT at 9c and not $2.00 (though obviously not the only reason).

Regarding NMT's recycling business, I personally feel as though they have done everything right, and derisked where possible. Instead of going for gold like some of our competitors who had a 'build it and they will come' attitude to battery recycling and who would have made their shareholders intially ecstatic going for speed instead of certainty, NMT have opted for a build-and-royalty model. Considering a couple of the multi-billion dollar car crashes that some of our peers have suffered by going bull at a gate and putting speed-of-finishing ahead of good business acumen I think we have pulled the right rein, methodical, derisking, and where possible don't even bother trying to own the batteries, just process them for a fee.