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.

Gvan said:

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.

Click to expand...

thanks for the detailed response.

market also doesn’t believe Talga will receive €100MM grant approval imminently?

everyone wants this project to succeed, but capital markets are telling them good luck, your on your own

curiousmagpie said:

thanks for the detailed response.

market also doesn’t believe Talga will receive €100MM grant approval imminently?

everyone wants this project to succeed, but capital markets are telling them good luck, your on your own

Click to expand...

We have to question what level of understanding or due diligence has actually occurred. Do you think the broader market, or even broker analysts, have gone through Sweden’s spring budget amendments and identified the reallocation of funds into the Industrial Leap program? I doubt that level of work has been done. They’re spread too thin and don’t have the time.

And that naturally raises the question: what else hasn’t been looked at?

That said, the risk is clearly there - €100 m is a large request. If you were new to Talga and faced a scenario where a near-term mass dilution event was possible, would you buy today? Probably not. But as existing holders, we’ve already navigated far more material risk events, most notably permitting. I think there’s meaningful pressure on Sweden to support one of its very few designated strategic projects - or would they really prefer a half-developed site sitting idle at Lulea Industrial Park? Not exactly great optics.

If no further support, then they can answer some questions from the CRMA-financing subgroup at their next meeting and the company can find other options (ResourceEU, strategic party at project level) to push through this financing hurdle without materially harming shareholders.

...And Mark confirms my last paragraph in his recent presentation for Bell Potter regarding the funding stack. @mpk1980 Also an update on the status of ResourceEU from 15:10 in the Bell Potter presentation:

Gvan said:

...And Mark confirms my last paragraph in his recent presentation for Bell Potter regarding the funding stack. @mpk1980 Also an update on the status of ResourceEU from 15:10 in the Bell Potter presentation:

Click to expand...

Thanks Gvan. Looks like they are in negotiations now.... which is great to hear. I hope it doesn't get held up by the remaining appeals etc.

Gvan said:

...And Mark confirms my last paragraph in his recent presentation for Bell Potter regarding the funding stack. @mpk1980 Also an update on the status of ResourceEU from 15:10 in the Bell Potter presentation:

Click to expand...

re €100MM grant : “if for some reason we don’t get it”

spoke with much more confidence about this grant when they were hand out to the market for a cap raise. what changed

curiousmagpie said:

re €100MM grant : “if for some reason we don’t get it”

spoke with much more confidence about this grant when they were hand out to the market for a cap raise. what changed

Click to expand...

Could you give an example?

In both the Bell Potter presentation and the quarterly webinar, the language used was cautious. For reference, this was the wording in the initial announcement regarding the grant application:

"Talga has applied for a transformative 1.1 billion SEK (~A$180 million) ‘Industrial Leap’ grant from the Swedish Energy Agency (“Industriklivet 2”), with the outcome expected in Q1 CY2026

If approved, this grant complements the existing €70 million (~A$120 million) EU Innovation Fund grant and €150 million (~A$260 million) pre-approved EIB loan for the integrated Vittangi Anode Project, potentially providing funding required for an initial commercial 5,000 tpa plant to produce both sustainable Talnode®-C and Talnode®-R

Industrial Leap’ Grant Application

Talga has applied for a 1.1 billion SEK (~A$180 million) grant under the Swedish Energy Agency’s Industrial Leap (“Industriklivet 2”) program, as part of a 3.1 billion SEK (~A$500 million) project to construct a 5,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) anode production facility at the Company's fully permitted site in Luleå, Sweden.

The project represents Talga's "Industrial Leap" from its existing Electric Vehicle Anode (EVA) demonstration plant to commercial scale production of Talnode®-C and Talnode®-R sustainable graphite anode products. The ‘Industriklivet 2’ funding, if granted, is anticipated to be confirmed in the first quarter of CY2026 and follows Talga being awarded the ‘Industriklivet 1’ program grant in October 2025 (ASX:TLG 17/10/2025 and ASX:TLG 20/11/2025).

Integration with Existing Funding Stack

Talga’s aim is that the Industriklivet 2 funding, upon granting, could complement Talga's established funding sources, including a €150 million (~A$260 million) loan from the European Investment Bank (EIB) (currently undrawn) and a €70 million (~A$120 million) grant from the EU Innovation Fund. This combined funding stack positions Talga with a substantial amount of the capital required for the initial 5,000 tpa commercial-scale anode production line, including associated plant and infrastructure for the larger Luleå anode plant.
Negotiations are underway with funding providers to refine and finalise the packages, with completion targeting the end of the second quarter of CY2026 to align with completion of final engineering and design on the anode plant partly funded under Industriklivet 1."

Just look back at the Zachs awareness and presentation video and listen to Mark talk about it and how sure he sounds. “We’ve also from the Swedish energy agency we’ve applied for a project that is the start up of our commercial project at a cost of about 300 million euros AND OF THAT, THE FIRST 100 MILLION WOULD BE ASCRIBED TO TALGA”. Corrects himself to then say or be POTENTIALLY awarded to Talga. You don’t have to be a language expert to watch that segment of the video to feel like Mark is talking with a sense of certainty, and that the applied for amount will be granted in full. He hardly sounds “cautiously optimistic”, rather bullish in fact. When I first called out the wording of this POTENTIAL grant application success that the company was pretty much basing their whole FID around and for the reason for pushing this forever project down the road. 16th of December Gvan is also extremely bullish, “is waiting for SUBSTANTIAL free money due in the next quarter a misstep”. Should Gvan had perhaps been a bit more cautiously optimistic and said POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL MONEY. Also saying “The grant they're EXPECTING is $180m AUD, which is equivalent to 450m new shares, roughly 50% dilution, taking the share count to just under 1 billion. I think I’d rather wait a couple more months”. Yes fair enough to wait a couple of months for 180 Million, but people have waited a couple of months and been patient with your incompetent management team and how will they be rewarded? With some of this? With none of this? Pretty sad state of affairs when the company was EXPECTING the full 180 million according to your analysis. You end your reply to my post was “What would you prefer the company do in this situation? Go ahead with FID before exploring substantial grant options that they are LIKELY to receive? You mention dilution and destroying shareholder value, but how exactly would that workout”. It seems to be the chances of further dilution and destruction of shareholder value is very much on the cards. You are even recognising that “If you were new to Talga and faced a scenario where a near-term mass dilution event was possible, would you buy today? Probably not”.

Further comment from Gvan on the 16th of December. “Additionally, like the refinery, ResourceEU funds WILL LIKELY ONLY BE DRAWABLE ONCE CONSTRUCTION STARTS AT THE MINE SITE. Talga is aiming for 2029, which essentially mitigates the impact of any remaining appeals”. But from a couple of days ago they apparently can be used to fill the huge SHORTFALL that will be created by the small amount Talga is about to be awarded from the Swedish energy agency. 15/02/2026 “While I suspect Talga will aim to use this funding opportunity for the mine site, it can also importantly be used for recycling and processing. It isn’t exclusive to extraction. This provides a decent backup plan for the company if the Industrial Leap grant has a large shortfall”.

Don’t try and create a narrative in the head of posters that they were they were the ones that were optimistic in thinking Talga would receive the full $180 million. Marks tone, the company presentation slides and your posts are what got everyone hot and excited and now you and the company are backtracking. Disappointing, but what more should we expect from this incompetent management team. Even the company executives don’t believe this story look at the recent capital raising. The company shakes the tin and expects retail investors to foot the bill to fund their lifestyle, while Grant Mooney and Terry Stinson can’t even cough up $30k in solidarity with shareholders. Pathetic.

Chieftain02 said:

Just look back at the Zachs awareness and presentation video and listen to Mark talk about it and how sure he sounds. “We’ve also from the Swedish energy agency we’ve applied for a project that is the start up of our commercial project at a cost of about 300 million euros AND OF THAT, THE FIRST 100 MILLION WOULD BE ASCRIBED TO TALGA”. Corrects himself to then say or be POTENTIALLY awarded to Talga. You don’t have to be a language expert to watch that segment of the video to feel like Mark is talking with a sense of certainty, and that the applied for amount will be granted in full. He hardly sounds “cautiously optimistic”, rather bullish in fact. When I first called out the wording of this POTENTIAL grant application success that the company was pretty much basing their whole FID around and for the reason for pushing this forever project down the road. 16th of December Gvan is also extremely bullish, “is waiting for SUBSTANTIAL free money due in the next quarter a misstep”. Should Gvan had perhaps been a bit more cautiously optimistic and said POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL MONEY. Also saying “The grant they're EXPECTING is $180m AUD, which is equivalent to 450m new shares, roughly 50% dilution, taking the share count to just under 1 billion. I think I’d rather wait a couple more months”. Yes fair enough to wait a couple of months for 180 Million, but people have waited a couple of months and been patient with your incompetent management team and how will they be rewarded? With some of this? With none of this? Pretty sad state of affairs when the company was EXPECTING the full 180 million according to your analysis. You end your reply to my post was “What would you prefer the company do in this situation? Go ahead with FID before exploring substantial grant options that they are LIKELY to receive? You mention dilution and destroying shareholder value, but how exactly would that workout”. It seems to be the chances of further dilution and destruction of shareholder value is very much on the cards. You are even recognising that “If you were new to Talga and faced a scenario where a near-term mass dilution event was possible, would you buy today? Probably not”.

Further comment from Gvan on the 16th of December. “Additionally, like the refinery, ResourceEU funds WILL LIKELY ONLY BE DRAWABLE ONCE CONSTRUCTION STARTS AT THE MINE SITE. Talga is aiming for 2029, which essentially mitigates the impact of any remaining appeals”. But from a couple of days ago they apparently can be used to fill the huge SHORTFALL that will be created by the small amount Talga is about to be awarded from the Swedish energy agency. 15/02/2026 “While I suspect Talga will aim to use this funding opportunity for the mine site, it can also importantly be used for recycling and processing. It isn’t exclusive to extraction. This provides a decent backup plan for the company if the Industrial Leap grant has a large shortfall”.

Don’t try and create a narrative in the head of posters that they were they were the ones that were optimistic in thinking Talga would receive the full $180 million. Marks tone, the company presentation slides and your posts are what got everyone hot and excited and now you and the company are backtracking. Disappointing, but what more should we expect from this incompetent management team. Even the company executives don’t believe this story look at the recent capital raising. The company shakes the tin and expects retail investors to foot the bill to fund their lifestyle, while Grant Mooney and Terry Stinson can’t even cough up $30k in solidarity with shareholders. Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Good to see you’ve dropped the act of hiding behind an alias.

You seem emotionally unstable and are placing far too much weight on an opinion expressed on a forum. I’m not a company insider. I’ve provided multiple positive indicators in this thread alone as to why I still expect grant approval. Regardless of whether I’m right or wrong, you appear overexposed, so hopefully you can sell out at breakeven in the near future.