I think the key to resolve this point is to ensure the...

I think the key to resolve this point is to ensure the agreements provide professional and competent project management to be in place for plant construction, preferably provided by the other party.

Let's compare and contrast the BHP experience with the Kronos one.

With BHP, it was clear there was professional, competent project management of the plant in place, with clear plans and funding to support the test work. It was a tight run ship - just go back and look at the announcements with graphs showing % completion vs planned...just one indication of good management.

With Kronos, it was a different story, mainly because (in my opinion) Kronos was trying to pull the wool over APG's eyes. I say this because, despite both parties being aware that additional funding was required for building the plant before the initial agreement was signed (per APG's response to Kronos's statement of claim), a deal was signed for $X rather than the higher $Y amount. Kronos then decided to change the design for a more expensive plant which APG agreed to based on Kronos verbally assuring they'd provide finance. APG should never have agreed to the change without a signed agreement for funding. These are just a couple of tangible examples of poor project management (and poor leadership) in my opinion.


Hopefully lessons have been learned and APG:
- signs big license deals to fund these programs (so limited shareholder dilution) underpinned by solid costings/design.
- is careful about what project management and governance is in place, with experienced and competence professionals in charge of construction.