Care factor still appears to be naught. If anything there is even less zest and information. My hope is that Paul Burton is busier with much more pressing engagements than cap in hand, spec end luncheons.
As for finance, would it really happen with only one binding offtake (the Gunvor termsheet is worth squat) and the whole project uneconomical without a TiO2 BOA.
Things I’d love an answer or explaination for in no particular order...
Peake Mining Licence (Permit to Extract):
Prior to the last round of water bore drilling and modeling the CLC raised very specific concerns regarding Mud Hut and Ti Tree Swamps. Did TNG and their consultants work to mitigate these concerns? There is no record (in ASX announcements) of these areas being modeled.
Have we met or are we in the process of meeting the water modelling conditions set down in the Fed approval, specifically those related the Mud Hut and Ti Tree seasonal swamps?
Is this water modelling data crucial to finalising the MMP and therefore coming to an agreement with the CLC/TO’s ?
Darwin Refinery EIS:
Despite GHD working through the bulk of the Mt Peake EIS it was APM who worked to finalise the environmentals. Was there a specific reason for switching environmental consultants so late in the permitting process?
APM are now working on the Darwin Refinery draft EIS. When does TNG expect to have this document submitted for pubic comment?
What risks or challenges do management see in regard to permitting on the Darwin site?
TiO2 Offtake:
Where is it?
TNG Price at posting:
13.8¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
