TLG Discussion 2022

Monkeymandan said:

The momentum feels like it is really building now.

Watched back the OTC webinar again yesterday and it struck a totally different chord second time around, with the added context of the most recent announcements.

The next 3 months are going to be game changing imo.

Click to expand...

Yep. Pretty sure I already posted in big bold letters further back just how important this one was. But worth reemphasizing.
- MC DONALDS MOMENT
- GOING GLOBAL

people need to watch it back themselves to understand the McDonald's bit but basically its a reference to identifying a new value opportunity that substantially changes the nature of the business.

Stuff like this will allow us to catch up on the delays caused by the fking Swedish beaurocalypse, potentially going even further than if we'd been entirely focused on production already.
Silver linings.

JNRB said:

Yep. Pretty sure I already posted in big bold letters further back just how important this one was. But worth reemphasizing.
- MC DONALDS MOMENT
- GOING GLOBAL

people need to watch it back themselves to understand the McDonald's bit but basically its a reference to identifying a new value opportunity that substantially changes the nature of the business.

Stuff like this will allow us to catch up on the delays caused by the fking Swedish beaurocalypse, potentially going even further than if we'd been entirely focused on production already.
Silver linings.

Click to expand...

Well the Arubis deal is for 10k per year. Assuming Atilium is something similar, that's already 20k per year, or phase 1 of our mine.

That's before the US, Japan, South Korea etc.

And this I'm confident will all be online before we can expand our mine. An expanded mine still requires a whole bunch of studies to be completed, the entire permitting process to happen (which as we know has much more opposition to just a refinery). In the meantime, we'll probably already be up and running with already permitted UCC sites being used for some recycling refineries.

Long term the mine will bring the big bucks, but short to mid term I think Talnode-R is going to be more significant than our phase 1 mine. And totally not priced in, given we're almost back to where we were before the Talnode-R and UCC announcement. The potential bags on this thing keeps on growing!

*

"How UNFC Is key to the EU’s Strategic Raw Materials Pipeline​

SDGsUNFC and Sustainable Resource Management
Circular EconomySustainable DevelopmentSustainable Energy

12 February 2026

The European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which entered into force in May 2024, is a significant step towards securing a resilient and sustainable supply of Critical Raw Materials (CRMs). CRMA mandates the use of the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) as a key instrument for its effective implementation.
UNFC serves as the classification tool for EU Member States to report on their national CRMs exploration results, new and existing projects for monitoring purposes, and closed extractive wastes as part of national circularity measures. Additionally, UNFC is required by promoters seeking recognition for their projects as Strategic, which entails special treatment. UNFC facilitates informed decision-making and policy interventions, thereby contributing to the successful achievement of the objectives of CRMA.
The first call for Strategic Projects selected a mature pipeline of extraction, processing, recycling, and substitution projects contributing to the security of supply for 14 of the 17 strategic raw materials in the EU. Only projects that include any of the 17 strategic raw materials on EU’s list of 34 critical raw materials are eligible to apply for status as Strategic Projects. Recognition brings tangible advantages: Strategic Projects are deemed to be of public interest, benefit from faster permitting, streamlined access to finance, and support to secure offtake agreements. To qualify, Projects must demonstrate a meaningful contribution to EU supply security, technical feasibility within a reasonable timeframe, and sustainable implementation with sufficient confidence. A second call for Strategic Projects closed on 15 January 2025, receiving around 160 applications, further demonstrating strong interest in the CRMA framework.
A key challenge remains. How can candidate projects communicate clearly and consistently their maturity status and potential to contribute meaningfully to the CRMA objectives, to diverse stakeholder groups? Financial institutions focus on bankability, governments on regulatory compliance, civil society on environmental and social impacts, and policymakers on timelines and strategic relevance.
UNFC offers a practical solution. UNFC has been selected as the classification tool for Strategic Projects under CRMA but not only. Its three-axis structure captures regulatory compliance, maturity, and sustainability: E (Environmental-Socio-Economic Viability), F (Technical Feasibility), and G (Degree of Confidence in product estimates). Together, these axes translate complex project information into a shared language and highlight strengths, gaps, and areas requiring action.

The following two recognized Strategic Projects provide practical examples of how UNFC communicates project status:
Talga Natural Graphite ONE, Sweden (Extraction Project – Battery Grade Graphite)
The Talga Natural Graphite ONE project is a greenfield extraction project in Sweden producing natural graphite concentrate suitable for lithium-ion battery applications. According to the project promoter, it could meet around 2% of EU demand for battery-grade natural graphite by 2030. According to EU studies on supply chain analysis and material demand and the indicated 2% delivery of battery-grade natural graphite by 2030, this means that this project is set to produce around 8,200* tonnes of graphite per year by 2030.
The Project was classified under UNFC as E1.2; F1.3; G2, corresponding to a Viable Project, Justified for Development.

• E axis (E1.2): This indicates that the project is progressing toward full environmental-socio-economic viability within a reasonable timeframe, accelerated by Strategic Project designation. In other words, activities are compliant with Swedish regulations and broadly aligned with environmental and social requirements.
• F axis (F1.3): Technical feasibility demonstrated through completed studies, with defined plans and approvals/contracts expected to support development.
• G axis (G2): Based on the project promoter's public reports3, Talga's mineral resource is estimated at approximately 36.9 million tonnes of graphite ore at an average grade of about 23% graphite, using a defined cut-off grade. These resource categories are reported in line with internationally recognized definitions, which under UNFC translates into a G2 classification. This means that the product is estimated at moderate levels of confidence. However, this confidence level can increase as the project progresses.

Overall, UNFC communicates that the project is advanced and viable, while remaining transparent on what still influences progress, especially final permitting.
Kobaloni Energy Zambia, Zambia (Processing Project – Cobalt)
The Kobaloni Energy Zambia project is a cobalt sulphate processing facility planned in Zambia, with the aim to become the first refinery of its kind on the African continent. Producing battery-grade cobalt sulphate for precursor cathode active material (pCAM), it would provide the EU with an alternate supplier. Publicly available information shows that the project is supported by a committed investment of approximately USD 100 million. The Project was classified under UNFC as E2; F2.1; G2, corresponding to a Potentially Viable Project, Development Pending.

• E axis (E2): The allocated capital signals strong environmental-socio-economic momentum and market confidence. At the same time, the resulting E2 classification transparently indicates that environmental, social, economic, and regulatory conditions are not yet fully in place, with permits, studies, or governance frameworks still under development.
• F axis (F2.1): Preliminary studies provide sufficient evidence of the potential for development, and that further data acquisition and/or studies may be required to confirm the feasibility of development. Additionally, the secured initial investment confirms that studies are ongoing to justify development.
• G axis (G2): Moderate confidence in security of supply, while acknowledging uncertainties linked to inputs or supply arrangements.

For this Project, UNFC acts as a diagnostic tool, showing technical readiness is relatively advanced, while environmental-socio-economic aspects and supply security require further measures and targeted support.
Across both cases, UNFC demonstrates its value as a common language that translates complex project information into structured, comparable knowledge. With UNFC, stakeholders can immediately understand and compare the maturity, the level of sustainability and ongoing activities of Strategic Projects, whether dealing with different commodities or located in different geographies, using a single, coherent and sustainability-oriented framework.
As CRMA implementation advances, initial UNFC classifications can also serve as a baseline for monitoring progress over time. Updating classifications as projects progress (or stall) helps detect delays, identify bottlenecks, and support targeted interventions aligned with CRMA enabling measures; strengthening confidence that Strategic Projects can deliver on their promise by 2030."

*
"The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE or UNECE) is an intergovernmental organization or a specialized body of the United Nations. The UNECE is one of five regional commissions under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. It was established in 1947 in order to promote economic cooperation and integration among its member states.

The commission is composed of 56 member states, most of which are based in Europe, as well as a few outside Europe. Its transcontinental Eurasian or non-European member states include: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Canada, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, the United States and Uzbekistan.[1]"

LLM:
"...

Why UNFC is key here

The big challenge:
How can projects be evaluated uniformly across different countries, raw materials and stages of development?
This is where UNFC (United Nations Framework Classification for Resources) comes into play.

UNFC is:
- an international classification framework
- resource- and country-neutral
- three-dimensional
- development- and sustainability-oriented

It creates a common language for:
- Governments
- Investors
- Project developers
- Civil society
- EU authorities

Without such a system, comparisons would be politically vulnerable and technically inconsistent.
...
The three axes – and why they are strategically smart
UNFC is based on three dimensions:

Axis - Meaning - Strategic function
E - Environmental-Socio-Economic Viability - Sustainability & approval status
F - Technical Feasibility - Technical maturity
G - Geological Confidence - Security of the resource base

This is extremely relevant because:
- Banks primarily look at F & G
- Authorities look at E
- NGOs look at E
- Industry looks at F & schedule
- Geologists look at G
- UNFC systematically integrates these perspectives.

...
The article describes how the EU intends to use the CRMA to strengthen its strategic raw materials sovereignty – and how the UNFC system serves as a technical, sustainability-oriented classification and control instrument to make projects comparable, financeable, politically legitimate and strategically controllable."

___________
Right, let's get the dosh flowin'.

*To put it indirectly, since you all know who is standing in the way of this climate protection project and resilience and acting against it, I will just say that it could be many times more.

There is nothing written what a toothless tiger the CRMA is in practice regarding local authorities..

the EU is a joke

bunch of bureaucrats with nothing but endless meetings and talks and lunches

no action, no progress, everyone is a nimby

given the performance of Talga maybe it's a perfect match

Semmel said:

There is nothing written what a toothless tiger the CRMA is in practice regarding local authorities..

Click to expand...

Well we can't be so sure. Would the government have stepped in to take over the detailed mining plan? It's the first time it ever happened. Without CRMA status, it's possible they wouldn't have had the balls to do so, because they couldn't point to it and say "CRMA made me do it"

BlackBeak said:

Well we can't be so sure. Would the government have stepped in to take over the detailed mining plan? It's the first time it ever happened. Without CRMA status, it's possible they wouldn't have had the balls to do so, because they couldn't point to it and say "CRMA made me do it"

Click to expand...

Maybe. But then again, it still takes forever. There was a hard time limit of what, 2 years until everything has to be gone? In that time frame, a Chinese company would have the mine up and running. Everything build. From idea to implementation. Now I don't want to live in China.. so the EU must make it work on a similar time frame, but within a good legal framework. Otherwise we will become the third world country in 50 years. It's not just Talga. Talga is just the keyhole I look through to see the pattern. It frustrates me to no end, that we are not able to keep pace.

Semmel said:

Maybe. But then again, it still takes forever. There was a hard time limit of what, 2 years until everything has to be gone? In that time frame, a Chinese company would have the mine up and running. Everything build. From idea to implementation. Now I don't want to live in China.. so the EU must make it work on a similar time frame, but within a good legal framework. Otherwise we will become the third world country in 50 years. It's not just Talga. Talga is just the keyhole I look through to see the pattern. It frustrates me to no end, that we are not able to keep pace.

Click to expand...

The EU is insane. I couldn't believe the bureaucracy when I lived there a few years.

They know they're in trouble with critical minerals, so they take 2 years to come up with a framework, 2 years to pick projects to apply the framework too, asking countries to pretty please approve the things because it's important, then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

The thing is, I strongly believe it's helped, even as slow as it still feels. The detailed mining plan was taken over by the government, which they might not have done without CRMA status. And when they took over, it became top priority at every stage. It didn't sit on someone's desk for 6 months waiting to come to the top of the queue. They were working on it straight away. That's what the CRMA status actually gives us.

The problem is they still go through all of the public consultations. It needs to be announced for consultation, the Sami will still ask for more time to complete it, they'll be given extensions (provided they apply before the deadline!), they'll submit feedback which has already been addressed, that feedback needs to be responded to seriously, otherwise they can take it to court to say they didn't have their voice, etc.

CRMA doesn't get rid of any of that, it's still the EU, paperwork must be done. But I do believe we save a lot of time by not sitting on someone's desk. That killed us with the environmental permits.

This is where China has the upper hand. The government decides "Oh this is super important. Go do it." And their mine is up and running in 1 year. Maybe not the most ethical or cleanest, but they get stuff done.

@Gvan you seem doubtful Talga will receive the full €100MM industry grant, or maybe no grant at all? what has led to this loss of confidence

curiousmagpie said:

@Gvan you seem doubtful Talga will receive the full €100MM industry grant, or maybe no grant at all? what has led to this loss of confidence

Click to expand...

I’m cautiously optimistic.

Firstly, Talga is one of Sweden’s few NZIA/CRMA strategic projects. The Industrial Leap authorities have already recognised the project's importance in the initial IL1 grant.

If you look at the Industrial Leap budget, it was 1.345 billion SEK (~€126m) for 2025, which means Talga's application (€100m), if approved, would take up a substantial amount of the program's annual budget. That’s not a good sign, is it?

However, and this is important, in June 2025, the Government approved their Spring budget, which included a substantial increase in the Industrial Leap budget, adding an additional 2.19B SEK (~€206m) to the program’s budget, for a total of 3.535 SEK.

“1:18 The Industrial Leap

In the national budget for the current year, an appropriation of 1,345,000,000 SEK has been allocated for this purpose.

The Government's Proposal: Appropriation 1:18 Industrial Leap shall be increased by 2,190,000,000 SEK.

Reasons for the Government's Proposal: The appropriation is used, among other things, for expenditures that contribute to reducing industrial process-related greenhouse gas emissions, as well as expenditures linked to strategically important industrial initiatives that contribute to the climate transition.

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry and strengthen Swedish competitiveness, further measures should be implemented to maintain the pace of Swedish innovation and industrial development regarding the climate transition. A portion of the funds from appropriation 1:16 Climate Leap (Klimatklivet) should be reallocated to appropriation 1:18 Industrial Leap. The appropriation should therefore be increased by 2,190,000,000 SEK.“


https://regeringen.se/contentassets...varandringsbudget-for-2025-prop.-20242599.pdf


https://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/ar...et_cms7b2babe0-1373-4960-8d57-ba9f0d4c9b38en/


Important to note, they are taking a portion of funds from “1.16 Climate Leap” and reallocating it to “1.18 Industrial Leap”.

What does this indicate?

The Climate Leap program is a government initiative that provides grants for local and regional projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions, and it typically supports projects with smaller capital requirements than those funded under the Industrial Leap program.

After the CRMA and NZIA, the Government are shifting priority from smaller, local emission reduction projects toward massive, industrial transformations that require much larger capex.

With that in mind, would it make sense for Talga to only receive a tiny grant of SEK 82.6 million from the initial IL grant? I don’t think so.

I believe it’d be more likely that the initial IL1 grant used to inform the engineering design would serve as the critical technical milestone that validates the project for the Swedish Energy Agency, and if reached after the June deadline, would effectively clear the path for financial close on the larger IL2 grant. That’s all opinion, but that's more or less a standard grant structure that would certainly reduce risk for the granting body.

However, despite the increase in budget, there is heavy competition for this funding. For example, Stegra is still looking for further financing to close their own gap. In that situation, we could see a partial funding of the request, enough to reduce the risk so a strategic party fills the gap, or Talga will target the ResourceEU funding that is also due this year.

But to once again counter this, if we look at Mark’s comment in the webinar:


“There’s negotiations & discussions underway. Everyone involved in the different funding parts of Vittangi anode project in Sweden, everyone wants the project to succeed, everyone wants to get the project going. From the EIB, to the EU to the grant funders themselves. Everyone wants there to be European battery materials made. Currently there is none and they want some success and this project is looking good for that success for them. It’s got all the components that they would like to see. So, we’re in discussions with them for those timelines to be extended and to be married together and we’re very confident of that.”


If Talga is relying on that IL2 grant to reach their final targets that tie into other grants such as the Innovation Fund, you have to expect all these parties to play ball to ensure the project reaches financial close by the June deadline (or whatever internal date they decide on). Surely then this would indicate that conditional approval of the IL2 grant must occur in some form to act as a green light for all other funding parties to move forward together.