Ann: Option Agreement for Location of Vanadium Processing Plant, page-42

I think you should read it again as you are misquoting me
1. If AGIG agrees to build a spur for TMT (or TMT funds the spur) the cost to TMT equals the access charge to on the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline to the connection for the spur, plus whatever the access charge is on the spur or funding thereof plus the cost of gas. For AVL the gas price is the access charge on the Dampier to Bunbury Pipeline plus the cost of gas.
2. In terms of the ERA they regulate access prices, and the gas pipeline is part of the infrastructure they regulate. It is nothing to do with retail prices. Now, if you have a build and operate gas pipeline and the ERA regulates your WACC, well that impacts the options. What the gas price TMT or AVL pays depends on whether they purchase it from a gas wholesaler or buy it directly from a gas producer - but the pipeline access charge is what I am referring too not what price they pay for gas as that could be purchased directly from a gas supplier - take Alcoa they buy there own gas from I think Apache and pay a gas access fee only for the use of the pipeline. So my comments on gas source price, not the access charge, is predicated on the assumption they, been AVL and TMT, can buy gas from the same supplier and then it becomes a case of the gas pipeline access charge - and TMT will have a higher access charge by the way is my point on the pipeline.
3. My comment on APV was about how the PFS was on AMV and then APV came about. And I am not saying AVL is not locating onsite because of gas btw, what I was saying was the PFS was wrongly scoped and management change goal posts - that was my point, the PFS been redundant. And the main benefit in a NPV sense is capex - from a nominal sense the answer might negate, but from an NPV sense having lower upfront capex but higher opex costs is likely to be a better outcome than having higher capex costs and lower opex costs - where here the change in capex and opex is gas related only.
4. Where did I say the ERA would not approve a pipeline - what I was talking about is the level of access charge which they regulate btw through among others stating the WACC. Maybe have a read of the pipeline access charge determination they did on the Dampier to Bunbury Pipeline which is an access charge that does not include the gas price (i.e. the access charge is the price paid for using the pipeline to move gas).
5. Agree with the delay, whether there is an ultimate benefit, but only the DFS will explain that btw. And yes, as per my own point benefits and costs against a mine based option need to be further detailed, given the Ann does imply a net benefit btw. And clearly the change in scope by management for me is how does it relate to meeting timeframes since the scope of the project has changed.