Whole heartedly agree, that is why I call it fossil gas because...

Whole heartedly agree, that is why I call it fossil gas because it is the weak link in a western OEM export model.

I have raised the Calix process with CXO but unfortunately it was set aside as being needed by other producers who have a transport logistics problem of carting SC6 hundreds of kilometres to port in WA and 94% waste problem at the destination country.

True for them, but we should magnify our advantages.

This is short sighted as displacing a significant portion of the gas use from the early conversion stages, that lift the concentrate up to 30+% lithium, should be at least assessed in the process flow sheets otherwise a gas only chemical plant risks being a stranded asset before it is built, with only high embodied carbon OEMs as customers, limiting competition for our product and therefore average realised pricing across the life of the plant.

Low GHG hydroxide and carbonate is already a growing expectation of western OEMs. Chinese OEMs exporting to the west will very quickly follow.

As the Calix technology is demonstrated by PLS (2023 into 2024), it will set a new embodied GHG benchmark FOR hydroxide producers and buyers. It will be all about removing GHG from the lowest cost parts of the process. Don't do it and the European border equalisation GHG taxes will bite hard.

Decarbonising one stage of the plant is a logical risk mitigation approach if the technology is available.

The balance of the process still needs heat = gas, so locational advantage remains. Overtime this will be displaced by NT made green hydrogen. Again this will align with a Federal narrative and provide a technology pathway for green capital that may not be as capital destructive.

Limiting investment in flows from the world's biggest investors like Blackrock etc, because of high embodied GHG, would be a foolish and blinkered short term move.

The big funds will want to buy and hold these assets for decades as the bedrock of their new energy portfolios. The price multiples they will pay for best in class low GHG assets will be higher than when they buy new assets which adopt conventional high GHG flowsheets.

It is a known, known and it will reflect poorly on management teams that don't identify, assess and mitigate foreseeable and preventable GHG risks.

It's an area that we should be encouraging CXO management to assess in the Pre-Feasibility Study (as likely too late for the Scoping Study and tech not yet evidenced. By 2024, it will be and capital markets will likely require it.)