I get the once bitten. twice shy. And really good to get some...

I get the once bitten. twice shy. And really good to get some balanced perspective and different opinions adding to the debate.

I know there has been some positive comments about the power required to process of the material, which must be a factor for the existing deposits (cost/benefit, and even if it’s viable).

However, when we talk about power, are we assuming we need to use electricity through ‘the grid’?

I think there are other viable power options, such as gas, ect that should do the job, just as good.

Regarding site power requirements aren’t they:

1. dig out of the ground - usually diesel powered machines
2. process what you can on the ground. Again could be electric, could be diesel powered plants.
3. Accomodation and ops. Generally these require electric, but could be run on good quality generators.
4. How to we get it to where it needs to be. Diesel powered trucks until you hit decent transport infrastructure.

I don’t think power is as big of an issue as you think (I ups be wrong). For me, key think would be understanding 4 (when it’s dug, how do we get it out of here). If there are roads or dirt tracks, that’s okay. If it’s in the middle of the bush and the nearest ‘dirt track’ is +10km way then they’re in trouble unless the size of the asset can pay for a ‘dirt track’ to be built.

I assume as they done some digging/exploration, can get in, can get out with heavy machinery, logistics/transport shouldn’t be a big issue.

That’s just on what they have and know now. I.e should be feasible and commercial.

if they find germanium, it $1,500 per KG (or $1.5m per tonne) and if it’s is as contrasted as it is (subject to the size of the asset). Hiring a private jet/chopper and having prince Harry in charge of logistics, would be cost effective.

No offence to anyone, or any comments. Just my 60,000 meter view, I could be wrong and maybe wrong. Just trying to stimulate the debate.