(For AJ. Reply feature acting up again.)That's incorrect. The...

(For AJ. Reply feature acting up again.)

That's incorrect. The IGO/Wyloo plan is more akin to PBT's processing pathway (though not entirely the same) than BHP's.

BHP's approach with their (battery precursor) Ni sulphate plant is that of a snap-on module at the end of the traditional Ni metal production pathway.

This process flow can be described in basic terms as follows:
Ni concentrate from mining ops (i.e. from mine gate) is smelted by BHP's Kalgoorlie smelter to produce Ni matte (intermediate product). It is then railed to the Kwinana industrial complex (south of Perth) to their refinery which produces LME-grade Ni metal -- the traditional final output. BHP"s recently commissioned Kwinana Ni sulphate plant takes that LME-grade Ni meyal and further processes it to produce higher-grade battery ptrcursor prodict, Ni sulphate.

This somewhat convuluted pathway to produce battery precursor product is entirely understandable for BHP, given their existing traditional mine-to-final Ni metal vertical operation.

IGO has a very different pathway in mind. It's aimed towards exclusively producing battery precusor product directly from concentrate. This promises to be far more energy- and cost-efficoent than BHP's approach and is how one would go about it if they were not already producing LME-grade Ni metal.

As I understand it, IGO's intended approach is much closer to PBT"s in that they both have in mind to use Ni concentrate to produce battery precursor product, but the processes they will each employ and the battery precursor products they will produce will be different.