General Discussion AGY, page-1922

Hi Jezzaaa,
My understanding is that we don't need the EIA for 10ktpa expansion approved in order to get on with the resource update.
It seems entirely plausible that the authorities could initially approve the deeper drilling component of the application/s, and this would enable the drilling to commence.
As far as the feasibility study is concerned, it would be nice to have the 10ktpa expansion approvals in place for that, but afaik it is not at all a requirement in any way. It would further de-risk the project and provide even more confidence to the market, for sure, but the feasibility study can easily be completed without it.
Arguably, "separate" announcements (feas study and EIA approval) may even be better for us...?

I'm guessing that offtakers would be keen to see EIA approval for expansions, as they should/would be keen to get their hands on far more than 2000tpa, considering the effort etc involved in (and ramifications of) product qualification.
At this stage, I think the resource update will push out a bit, simply due to the critical path relying on drilling approvals.... Even if we got that approval this month, it is likely to be another couple of months before gear is mobilised and holes are drilled, then there is the analysis and modelling after that. Hard to compress those items, and can't really do them in parallel!

Fwiw, my guess is things will unfold in the following order:

1/ 10ktpa EIA approval incl drilling approval (drilling approvals possibly slightly earlier)
2/ Drilling
3/ Resource update
4/ Feas study
5/ Off-takes for 2ktpa + non-binding off-take agreement for 10ktpa expansion product
6/ Plant built!
7/ BG Chem produced and sold!
8/ 10ktpa expansion funding secured
8/ Expansion announced
9/ 12ktpa off-takes binding
10/ Plant expansion commences
11/ etc.....

Oh, and of course.....we fly to Rincon on a chartered flight to cheers Pablo and the team in person..
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Just my guess, could be wrong.


Cheers
GCar