I was going to say, "Good for a laugh considering it states in...

I was going to say, "Good for a laugh considering it states in the ann that our facility provides":

"larger continuous scale, to support lenders’ processes, and provide potential customers with larger product samples."

and:

"recent flowsheet improvements are expected to support further reduction in costs, while increasing the purity of the material above customers specifications."

This should suggest that our PQF is engineered to different specifications to achieve improved purity and is built for commercial-scale product testing, unlike the one we have been using in Germany (supposedly).

However, I understand why Rothal came out with what sounds like a hair-brain premise! Haha... I guess any real LT holder with a good memory (and I'm not one of them) would recall that the proposed plan for ramping up the size of the JV pilot plant constructed in Germany in 2019. Mind you, that is the premise behind implementing any modular plant... the ability to expand its size readily. As for dismantling it and shipping it here... well, the concept is not that kooky! One would think that the only reason why EGR management would do such a thing is to conserve money. Would it save the co. money? I would have thought it make sense to keep the plant in Germany (even move it to a different location within Germany if they think we will end up with a purification plant there somewhere).... unless, of course, it again has something to do with the "industrial espionage" thing.

What I find odd is why EGR has not yet made any reference to the size of the PQF. What is its potential annual capacity? Are we intentionally starting off small and slowly? Urbix, for example, has a 5ktpa BAM pilot plant. It has been pumping out bulk sampling to full capacity from what I can gather for the last few years.

"The PQF will undertake a number of product campaigns which are scheduled over the remainder of the year. The plant will operate at 5-10kg/hr with the first 5 tonnes of product in place for processing."

Why is there no reference to the size of the PQF in 1,000s of tonne per annum? Is it to save face because its essentially the same as originally proposed for Kwinana (aka the Stage 1 capacity of 5,000 tpa) or is it as Rothal suggests? Not that the latter is all that preposterous - aferall, that is the concept behind modular constructions.... they can be dismantled, transported and re-assembled elsewhere. It would probably save on costs considerably to start out with a module that can then be expanded as requirements dictate. What does support the latter (and Rothal's proposition) is the fact that the 5,000 tpa plant originally proposed for Kwinana was at a cost of more than US$22m. So, the PQF that has been built, supposedly for a cost of AU$6m can't be anywhere near the size or capacity of the original plant. So, should lead us to believe that the PQF is small and the location is cheap. That is not such a big thing. However, it conveys (to me anyway) that the co. is acting conservatively (and, dare I say, more realistically)... and perhaps under the thumb of Top SHs.

Just my thoughts... FWTW