Yes, IMO the complexity of designing a novel process reveals...

Yes, IMO the complexity of designing a novel process reveals itself the ''closer you get to the sun''.

Hence QPM:
- Selecting global industry specialists in each processing area at the project's start
- Positioning a Tier 1 lead engineering firm to oversee the project (Hatch)
- Appointing an Independent Technical Expert to liaise with financiers to double check everyone's work and satisfy their due diligence, perhaps in doing so not talking so sciencey to them!

Re-read the AFS just now.
Thinking back to last Thursday's preso, I'm heartened that there is a good chance there will be lower capex, opex with perhaps increased EBITDA after:
- the value add engineering done in the last twelve months
- reduced inflation rates in equipment supplier countries such as Canada and Germany
- the fact that now two opportunities identified last year have materialised (gas supply chain savings and potential to export any excess power generated to the grid, as per MGP acquisition)
- the strong specs of the HPA pilot runs may support its inclusion in Stage 2, raising EBITDA by another $100M
- Quinbrook being added to the Lansdown roster may bring forward any rail upgrades necessary to the precinct, making utilising the rail infrastructure an even more enticing opex reducer

BTW, the US DoE is readying its chequebook with US $3.5B of fresh funding for US battery manufacturing:
https://electrek.co/2023/11/16/3-5-billion-of-new-federal-funding-for-us-battery-manufacturing-announced/
The detail is here: https://infrastructure-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaIda8b13027-1ca4-42f3-a18e-8072624b2acb


With Australia classified as a domestic source, QPM may qualify perhaps for some funds as part of the LGES-GM Ultium IRA-compliant ecosystem???

Here's to SG keeping cool while piloting us ever closer to our event horizon, and getting the QPM message out there in a fresh way at this week's event, as Chair of ausIMM's Critical Minerals Conference Tuesday through Thursday