I had another thought, perhaps Graham could have been referencing having everything approved, including the Geraldton (Offsite) processing facility, by that timeline someone quoted (I have used the 12 Months+ as a hypothetical, but as you said, unconfirmed).
They have of course not officially confirmed offsite processing, but TMT's EPA submission,,, the one we're referencing that was appealed, does not cover anything offsite (as far as I know).
So likely that is a separate approval, timeline absolutely unknown.
AVL's submission for that site didn't require it to go through the full EPA process, but I believe permitting is still required in some form, and can't recall any announcement saying it has the go ahead.
Possibly IF Graham has talked those sort of timelines until full project approval and permitting is granted, he may be encompassing that as well as the TMT submission?
Now if so, that could also raise an interesting topic on whether the offsite approval is essential to starting serious funding talks?
I don't think it's a deal breaker given the different standards it needs to meet compared to the mine, isn't at the hands of the EPA like the mine approvals have been, so I still think balls can start rolling once our mine and whatever onsite processing will occur has been approved.
Regarding the topic raised, battery sales/production, I think a big part of that (at least until the mine has income), will be what sort of money or projects the govenrment want to put towards large scale vrfb.
AVL has positioned itself, particularly with the newest expert acquisitions, to have a foot in the door of any major plans, but getting it off the ground absent some big money going into it, either from govenrment or large energy companies,,, it might be a slow burn for a while.
Expand
(20min delay)