Come on Joe, page-286

Fair enough. I personally don't expect that management can ensure - the culmination of 7 years or so of progress in commercialising an entirely novel technology, comprising several product streams with at least a couple of levels of vertical integration from mining, processing to refinement, with multiple stakeholders including downstream buyers, inputs and infrastructure, equity and debt (including government agency sourced debt), across a supply chain of at least three countries, USA, Namibia, UAE, under Australian corporate law, in the context of an emerging energy crisis, and an increasingly chaotic macro economic outlook, and strategic interest from the US Government - to run like clockwork (though I know Government approval processes run like German train timetables so that's no excuse). Especially when the structure of the final finance arrangement is chicken and egg like in complexity, and is likely relying on competitive bids from financiers and offtakers operating in information vacuums from one another, all to be evaluated by a small team all at once, while relying on quotes for FEED against the backdrop of globally munted supply chains.. What could go wrong? I'd say a few things, but that's the nature of deals, and it will be resolved. Most project managers would expect to chew up some float if they are waiting on inputs they can't control.

I hope my feeling is wrong and the board meeting on 22 September hits FID and my sentiment all becomes irrelevant. If it is another month, in the context of 7 years it's nothing to sweat about. Rather they take the time to get it right and minimise dilution if possible.