Ann: Quarterly Activities/Appendix 5B Cash Flow Report, page-5

While there could be a link, I personally don't see it as likely the DoE would be putting in conditions around the MRE in their HPMSM funding conditions. The DoE will correctly be concerned about whether a suitable ore supply exists for the project. As currently configured E25 are mining (if they were mining) something around 1Mtpa. With ~50Mt in M&I the mine life extends many decades so it is sufficient. The DoE will be correctly concerned about whether the finances work if the ore cost increases (and any number of other sensitivities). E25 will most likely have supplied alternative financials based on no upgrade at butcherbird and given the low percentage of the HPMSM that comes from Manganese ore and also lower HPMSM prices. Those financials would still work if a higher ore cost was assumed.

I suspect the DoE's primary concern will relate to how many months to allow E25 to produce a DFS on the HPMSM project, whether the Government enters an off-take or requires E25 to make a percentage readily available to the US market and how many months to allow E25 to get financing sorted and issue a FID on the project. There would also need to be discussions of what the payment schedule looked like once E25 has met precursor requirements through to FID. Is it a fixed payment schedule, money up front or money in arrears? How much is in each tranche?

The proposal to increase Butcherbird output means that ~50Mt gets used up quickly and the mine life collapses. This impacts the upgrade strategy because only a short period enters the calculations. The MRE upgrade allows the mine upgrade business case to start having something like a 20-year mine life again. The MRE is critical to any financing discussions around the upgrade but that isn't what the DoE are looking to finance.