Ann: Vanadium Scoping Study, page-337

Thanks for that drisking! I just checked the original SS from 2012 and the projected capex was about $900m so roughly half of what has been recently proposed in the latest SS. So at first glance, it does not appear to be materially more efficient to build a plant twice the size:

5MTPA - $900m capex
10MTPA - $2B+ capex

Given the parity, I'm also assuming that the payback period will somewhat be in line in both instances. You also raise a valid point that it may be easier to optimise / reach stability with a smaller plant. All of this seems to support a staged approach.

Someone made the point that there may not be that many potential suitors for a $2B+ V investment given it is more emerging compared to bigger / more proven commodity like copper. However if as a potential suitor, forking up $900m or less for a smaller operation to start with, feels like a less risky way to approach it.

I'm not necessarily proposing that we go ahead full steam and try to get a smaller operation up and running. As an investor, the bigger the better IMO. All I am suggesting is that all options are on the menu / included in the PFS.

There is a definite sticker shock associated with the $2b+ capex: as evidenced by the market reaction and I'm also assuming this prices certain JV partners out of the market. If we can reduce this sticker shock by provide some other commercially viable options, then I say we should give it a go.