Previously undiscovered. Some other places they'd already discovered the lithium. In this case, it was Anson A1 Lithium that has discovered this very large resource. All major approvals and permits have been received or submitted. There are some final ones which we're working through at the moment. As of this morning, we're still working on that. One of the points here is that in the process that the government's been going through is that they didn't have any legislation in Utah which covered lithium. It's a new industry. They have oil and gas, they have coal, they have gold, but they didn't have legislation which applied to that. Last year, we worked with them on developing that legislation, and in January this year, they put that legislation to the elected members, and they signed off on that.
The second part of it is then trying to work out the procedures. Underneath legislation is public service and work out how to process the application. In our case, with our projects, we have both the Oil and Gas Division and the Minerals Division within what we call the Department of Mines or Oil and Gas. The two divisions have to approve our project because there is no lithium division, right? Now they're working on new procedures, not legislation, under what has been approved by the elected members to administer the way that these projects work. That's taking time, but everything's moved through relatively quickly. Once we moved from the Paradox project to the Green River project, the difference being that Green River is covered by the state government, whereas the Paradox was mostly federal.
The state government has proven to be very cooperative and quick in their approval process. I'll say a little bit more about that later on too. We finalised in September the definitive agreement with LG, LG being one of the major players in batteries, as you know, and they have significant investments in the United States, and we're one of those suppliers that they're looking to draw upon when they get into production. Exxon Bank, we signed up in this financial year, the 2025 financial year in September, so it's worth mentioning there. We are talking to others as well, both debt and equity strategic players, a number of different funding sources that we've been working through. Unfortunately, I can't tell you who they are at this time. Maybe at next year's meeting, we'll be able to talk about that. Moving on to market.
That's really the big change which has happened since June this year, that lithium's come back into favor again, and particularly driven by batteries which are used for energy storage. Everyone was expecting there to be a surge in demand for those batteries. That's the sea containers full of batteries next to a solar plant or next to a wind energy project, right? Those things, those projects are now working across the world, and they're looking for more lithium to go into those. Meanwhile, we've seen electric vehicles sort of have a rocky road, as you say, with Elon Musk and burning their cars, not so nice. Had an effect on everyone around the world, whether electric was the way he wanted to go. I mean, would you buy a car if someone's going to set it on fire? Probably something you'd think about twice, right?
That seems to have also changed. This part of the world, I look around when I'm in Brisbane, I see electric vehicles, but not as many as what we see in California, right, or in Nevada where we're currently located. There is a lot of potential there for electric vehicles as well. We're starting to see the market turn. This graph on the right-hand side there is showing the undersupply. Those purple bars are showing undersupply going forward, starting around about 2026, 2027. You see the red line there is the pricing, right? Pricing is on the way up. For 2025, we actually had 2024 in there before, and middle of 2025, we sort of turn. The forecasts there are all positive.
As you see at the bottom of the slide, we have a quote there, Barron Joey, J.P. Morgan, and also Goldman this week have come out with their forecast for 2026, 2027. Looking very favourable. The lithium market, because it's very young, it's very unstable, right? It changes quickly, changes on a dime, right? One minute we were $80,000 a tonne, and then we're back to $10,000 a tonne, right, in a very short period. In my experience, third wave being this one just started, we're starting to see it go up again, and we expect that it'll continue to do that. Since June, we have a 55% increase in the price of lithium carbonate, right? That's a really interesting number. I think it's still got some way to go. Looking to 2026, it's looking very favourable.
U.S. government policies, I think you'll all be interested. I live in the United States. I listen to Donald Trump's announcements regularly. Sometimes they're not quite clear, but overall speaking, he has changed the way that the government allocates funding for critical minerals. I'm sure you all saw Albanese's visit and Kevin Rudd getting a dressing down. That was quite entertaining. Overall, you can see that government is very supportive of critical minerals. They're aware of the strategic importance, and lithium is one of those which they're focused on. It's not the only one, but it's definitely one that they're focused on. What they're looking for is domestic production. They're not Canada, right? They want U.S. And our project fits very neatly into what they're looking for. Yes, we are talking to them, but I cannot expand upon that other than we're in discussions.
POSCO, we're going to talk about that. I'm sure there's a lot of interest in what's happening with POSCO. From my point of view, we're restricted by POSCO in making announcements about the progress, right? We are still talking. I can tell you we're still talking. I can't publish a photograph of us still talking or them visiting us at Green River. They're not amenable to allowing us to put out information until their board has signed off. The process that they have is that, yes, they're interested in our project, and they looked at a lot of other projects around America. The board made a strategic decision that it wants to be with POSCO board, that it wants to be in production of lithium in the United States.
If you can do your own research, there are not very many companies like us or projects like us to this stage, right? When they looked at all of them, that includes Texas, Arkansas, California, all those projects that you have heard about, they decided that ours looked the best. One of the instigators of that, one of the catalysts for that was the purity of our brine and also the infrastructure that we have available, right? It is great to have a really high lithium value project in Argentina, but if the power line is 300 km away, it is really difficult to get into production. It might sound good when you do your JORC resource, but it is actually getting into production. Green River, you have seen the slides, I am sure, and it shows that the infrastructure is there.
The engineers from POSCO have visited, and they're amazed by the infrastructure that's available, right? It's just all around. The power lines go over the property. The pipelines for water are nearby. The river is nearby. Sally-Anne's been there. She knows all about it. You can see it. It becomes obvious even if you're not an engineer. All that means lower costs because you don't have to drag a power line a long distance. It's CapEx, right? You see the economics of it. You can see and visualize how quickly you can get into production and also how much you'd need to spend. Given short distance, it would be a lot less than some of the other projects that they looked at. I think I've covered everything there. Go on to the next. Thank you, Chris.
This is a slide that you've seen before, just demonstrating the two projects we have. We started off in that Paradox Basin there with the first project. We now call that the Paradox. The second project, Green River. As I explained earlier, we found that there was a very large amount of brine between those two projects. They are 40 mi, 50 mi apart. That is how we've mapped it. We know that the brine actually extends further than that. Brine, unlike rock, moves, right? If you extract it from here, it may come from over there, right? When we do the JORC resource calculation, the ASX insists that it is calculated like a rock. It does not move, right? We can only estimate our resource based on the area that we have under our control, even though it might move from over there.
What this means is a very large resource. Even the government of Utah is quite amazed. They did not know they had this resource there, right? They knew they had brine, but they did not know it had lithium. It had a value in it. This is something that they have become very excited about as well. We did a DFS on the Paradox project, and we still use those numbers as a guide. We are working on doing another engineering study for the Green River project, which will come out next year. I think you will be pleased when you see the results. For the moment, we use the Paradox numbers there. We have an NPV of $1.3 billion and an IRR of 47%. The capital costs, the CapEx for that project for the Paradox, is around $500 million, $550 million.
It seems to us that there's ups and downs when we're looking at the project at Green River. There's inflation, of course, right? That's happened over the past few years. There are also savings there with less capital required to extend power lines, water lines, all those things. When it comes out next year, it's one of the focuses of us in 2026 that you'll be able to see what's happening. A very large resource, the 56 billion tonnes of brine, and that gives you a very big opportunity. Our current JORC resource, we're looking to upgrade with this current program at Mount Fuel, 1.5 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent. This is the resource we're talking about here. The blue line is the Paradox Basin, the outline of where the basin goes to. The basin on either side of the basin is very high mountains, right?
You have Rocky Mountains on the east, and you have the Utah Mountains on the west. All that means that there's lots of geological activity or has been in the past, which gives the Paradox some unique features, which is one of them is the pressure of 4,500 PSI and also porosity. These mountains, when they move around, it breaks up the old rocks, and that's the storage area for our brine. Just like oil, it's stored in rock. You want to have a very high porosity. Currently, we're waiting for the results. I know one of the questions that were asked by some shareholders is what's happened to the core from the drilling programmes that have been done before. We found Utah has a library where core is located.
When the companies have done drilling programs in the past, if they use diamond core, then some of it ends up in those libraries. There is one in Salt Lake City. There is another one in Denver. We can go there and we can ask for cuttings of the core, right? We did that earlier this year. That helps us to estimate porosity. Porosity is one of those measurements which helps in the estimation of the JORC resource. You think of porosity being holes in a rock. How many holes are there, right? What they do is they take it, they wash it, they inject gel into it, and then they estimate how much brine could be held by that rock. It takes a long time, right? We put that in, I think, around about September.
Last time we did this for the Paradox, it took three months, right? It's done by a company down in Houston. It's still with them. We would like to be able to announce the results of that. We think the porosity will be higher than what was used in the original job estimate, but we have to wait for the final results. We also have some other things happening. We've added on additional area. If you read the annual report, you would have seen in there that we've added on some additional claims. More claims means more area that we might have some brine in. There is some other work that we're doing on grades at the moment to confirm the grade. We used a lower grade in the original job resource.
All that's still going through the system, and we expect that that'll come later in the year. I mentioned a 3D model, which gives us information about the 3D model and the Petrel model developed by Schlumberger. That tells us that within the formation, the Mississippian formation, there's more than 40 aquifers, not one aquifer, right? Why is that important? When we come to dispose all of our brine, we have some areas where it has porous rock in the formation, which does not have brine in it. When we have extracted the lithium, we know where we will put it back, right? That's important. As we drill this next well, we'll be feeding more information into that model, which will give us more accurate information, more estimates of how much there is.
I wanted to share with you a snapshot of our competitors and why our project is lower cost. This is showing Standard Lithium, which is a project over in Arkansas. Arkansas has a very similar formation to what we have in Utah. We have the Mississippian formation. They have the Smackover formation. It is about the same depth. The grades are similar. 135, Standard has got 237. Salton Sea is the project over in California. Almost Mexico. It is on the border down there in Mexico. It is a geothermal project. It is 200 °C, the brine, when they extract it. That is important because high temperature brine can destroy your resin, which you do not want to do. When it comes to the process, now we are a chemical company, really, not a mining company.
This is the difference between what we've talked about before is becoming a chemical company. And when you have a brine of 200 °C, you have to cool it down, which means you have to store it, which costs you money, right? In our case, the brine temperature is 25 °C, a little bit hotter than outside today, I guess. What do you think the temperature is today? It's less than 30, right? About 30. About 30? Okay. So our temperature today would be hotter than what we have with brine. The optimal temperature for brine processing is 25-32 °C. These guys got to cool it down. Apart from temperature changes, you also have these impurities. The ones to look at in this table here are the bottom three: Fe, Boron, and Silica.
Those are the things that inhibit the performance of your battery. The others have to be taken out as well. You can see the Fe for us, 4.9. Standard Lithium does not want to talk about it because it is so high, we think. The other guys are looking at 1,347. All of that has to be taken out. As I said earlier, we developed our own process where we use oxygen to inject oxygen into the Fe, turns into Fe2O3, and it precipitates, falls down to the bottom. These other processes, what they use is chemicals. They use chemicals to change the pH. When you change the pH, the chemicals precipitate to the bottom, similar to what we do with oxygen, but you have to put chemicals in there. What is wrong with chemicals? It costs money, right? That is the first thing. You have spills, management, right?
Licenses, all that storage. Our process uses oxygen. Because we've got such a small amount of iron there, we're able to extract that. In fact, more recent test work has shown it's gone down to about two. As the well flows, we've found that we're getting even less iron than that, right? The iron, when it goes through the process, can attach to the resin, and that means that it's blocked from absorbing lithium, which means that your efficiency drops, right? These are really important. Tim will tell you, Tim will tell you if you want to ask him later that there's a recent feasibility study produced by Standard Lithium where the costs have gone up. The main reason for that is pretreatment, right? You have to do a lot of work. The less work you do, the lower costs.
That's why our project is very attractive, and that's why POSCO and others have come to us about working together. All right. Just a quick mention on the economics. We are still using the Paradox economics. We think it'll be similar. You can see where we are on the cost curve. This curve down the bottom is important because it shows peers, right? Comparison to peers. Some of those are hard rock, like spodumene from the Pilbara, and others are clays. Lithium Americas is one of those. The ones to the left, which have the lowest cost, are South American brines, which are shallow. That makes them less expensive than what ours are. You can see we're very well positioned around about the bottom of the second quartile or the top end of the lower quartile, right? Very cost competitive there.
The economics above there are the numbers we produce from the DFS from the Paradox project. As I said earlier, we expect them to be similar, given ups and downs, inflation, and changes in infrastructure costs, etc. It should be very similar, and you'll see that next year. I did want to mention LG. LG, we did the off-take agreement with earlier this year, 4,000 tonnes per annum. We spoke to them last year, and we signed an agreement with them. The definitive agreement, interest has come back, let's say, as the lithium prices started to move, and they're becoming concerned about where their supply is going to come from. We are talking with them in other matters as well. As we said in the announcement earlier, as you see down the bottom, there's this ASX announcement.
We did say that we were talking to them about possible investment, and that's still ongoing. They're one of the several companies that we're speaking to, not to say that we'll sign with them, but we are speaking about how that might eventually. This map is just showing how invested they are already in the U.S., wholly owned and joint ventures, a number of battery production facilities. I heard earlier today that there is an announcement out yesterday saying that LG had confirmed their investment also in Canada, right? It is not the U.S., but Canada, and looking to get supply of the raw materials out of the United States. They're not the only ones, right? Other companies have invested there as well.
As I recall, last time we did a calculation, there was something like $88 billion worth of investment in battery production by Asian companies in the United States only, $88 billion. That was maybe a year ago, and we have not updated that, but there is a lot of money coming in there. That is before Donald Trump came up with the tariffs, right? How did that work out? I am sure you watched it all. Tariffs first, and they said, "Oh, I will drop my tariff if you give me investment," right? For Korea, I think it is $300 billion, Japan more than that. Of course, they have to deliver. The countries have to deliver. The countries sign the agreement. What do they do?
They go back to their companies and ask them to find opportunities for them to invest, not just the company itself, but supported by government funding, right? Not just U.S. government funding, but Asian funding is available for critical mineral projects. I'm not sure if that extends down to Australia, but as far as U.S. is concerned, they're certainly looking for opportunities for investment. That plays very well for us in 2026. Next, I want to talk about the community. They're very important to us, having support from the local people. This is a rural part of the United States, right? It's like going out to Roma, maybe a bit further, Gundawindy, right? It's almost a one-street town, Green River, not much there, right? They did have a lot of jobs when the army was there. They're looking to get their economy back in order.
The Pizza Hut shut down, right? You can't get pizza. There's no major supermarket chain there. It's difficult. They want their kids to stay in the community. They are looking for a way of creating or someone to create employment for them. This also plays into Governor Cox's strategy. He's all about providing jobs for rural communities, right? He's from a rural area, not far from Green River. You should see him speaking here. That was with Anson Loper behind. I don't know if you can see that clearly up in the corner. It's something we did in Sydney in October that I spoke on a panel about our experience in working in Utah. The governor was down there for a whole week, and I had some opportunity to sit down and talk to him about our project.
I can say the governor is very supportive of our project, right? He likes it. He particularly likes critical minerals. He has three focuses: critical minerals, defense, aerospace, and biotech. That is the three areas that they want to develop in Utah. Critical minerals, he is close with the Trump team. He is, of course, a Republican. As Trump has been pushing critical minerals, so has he, right? You can see the synergy there between the government, both federal and state, and our own project. We are also working with local groups. We sponsor the Melon Days, very important event. I think there is a picture on the next slide. Yeah, there is. We will have a look at Melon Days at the moment. Very low-cost sponsorship, but brings us closer to the community. Now, why do we want to do that?
As far as Green River is concerned, our project is physically located within the bounds of Green River City, right? Our approvals for building approvals, stormwater drainage, all those sort of local government things, we have to get support from Green River, right? They have to approve it. It is very important that we have a good relationship, and we do have a very good relationship with them. Throughout the project, we've tried to be as ethical as possible. We do not have any indigenous groups in our area. They were there some years ago, but we do not have any. The land that we purchased has been a brownfields project, so it has been disturbed, right? Whatever there was, any heritage issues there, that is long ago, they were taken by other projects.
Even the land where we purchased, the rock itself was excavated for the I-70 road, right? Existing disturbance. Whoever lived there in the past no longer is present, right? Indigenous people. We've been very careful also about how we develop the project. We use existing roads. We use existing disturbance areas. We try to avoid anything which would make the local people upset. So far, so good. They're very supportive of us, and we look forward to creating something like 50 jobs-100 jobs there as the project starts to get in production. During construction, there will be like 500 jobs, and the population of Green River is 900. It would be very difficult for them to do all that. The people will come in, the money will come in, and the community will prosper again. Here's the pictures of the Melon Days.
They don't have a shot here. There is a big melon. I made a joke about that, actually, that we have the big pineapple, they have the big melon. It was only a slice, so it couldn't fit the whole thing on the truck, right? We have something in common. I also made a joke with them about Vegemite. Utah is known as the beehive state. They see themselves as being very industrial, not industrial, industrious, right? Hardworking like bees, right? They put that on their flag, and we see ourselves as Vegemite consumers. I told them, "If you don't like Vegemite, you can mix it with honey. It doesn't taste so bad. You can probably win yourself into it." I gave Governor Cox a jar of Vegemite, which he still declared later. He still declared it as a gift. All right.
The progress we're making. 2023, 2024 was a pivotal year. 2025 , it's been great. Not as fast developing as we would like. A lot of things happening under the water. Now, that duck paddling away, a lot of things happening there. Next year, you'll start seeing some of those, and we will be more active in getting that information out to our shareholders, right? I know that there are some people who have been asking for more information. It's coming, right? And just a minute of finishing some of these things. So the resource, I talked about that earlier, upgrading that. The engineering study is what we're doing in twenty twenty-six, right? To be able to commence an engineering study, we need approvals, and we need a joint resource. We have selected a number of companies who've done some test work. We've finished that. We understand the test work.
We know which technologies work best and what the comparative costs are, etc. All that gets fed into the engineering study, which we'll complete in this year. Sorry, 2026. Permits and community. We've finished all the major permits. Some changes I was alluding to earlier. There's some new processes that they're introducing that we need to work through, but basically all done. Financing. The finance stack is what we're looking at at the moment. You know about Exxon. We've put that out there. We're talking to others like Exxon on the debt side, but we're also talking to strategics as potential investors. Of course, then there's the markets that we are able to raise finance. We will need to raise more money, right, to go into production. We just recently completed $40 million. That's enough to get us to what we call FID, right?
Getting ready for raising the money. As you know, the cost of the plant is $500 million, right? Not $14 million. We are going to have to raise more money as we go forward. How we raise that, whether that's debt or strategic partnerships or something else, is what we will be working on in 2026. Finally, Yellow Cat. The Yellow Cat project, some shareholders have been asking about. We just have not had time to get to it. That is the situation. We have approval for it. We know what the geology looks like. We have a drilling program prepared, and we are talking to drilling companies to do that work. This year, we have been very busy with the lithium project at Green River and have not got around to doing it. That is the bottom line. As the market has tightened up on lithium, capital raisings have been more difficult.
We would have liked to have got more money in August to enable us to go out there and drill Yellow Cat. Now we have $ 14 million. That will help us in early next year in getting on site and drilling some holes there to get a larger resource. We have been there. We've seen it. We've seen the uranium in it. You can walk into a cave, and you can see the yellow, and you can see the black, yellow being the uranium and black being vanadium. There are layers. We know it's shallow, 10 m. We know the trend from previous drilling programs. Sometime probably after the harshest part of the winter, which is just starting, we will get out there and do some drilling to establish the resource. I'm going to stop there.
I've talked a lot. Any questions with the presentation? We'll come back to more at the end, but I'll take one from man with a hat.
Always dapper, drawn to airplane. You had announcements there where you outlined that you were going to be taking assays for Class 231. Just wanted to know in regards to the assays you've taken, what they were or whether they're in.
Y eah, I think the resource that we put out was for the Mississippian. When we went through the Class 231, we didn't get a substantial enough brine sample to be able to assay. We continued on drilling down into the Mississippian where we got a very large amount of brine.
Is that the same for the rest of the Class 31 that you went through?
I think it was only 31 that they stopped to have a look.
For whatever reason, it did not flow. We were under a lot of pressure at that time to get the job done, right? We went down to a depth of 10,000 ft for going into the Mississippian. We knew that the brine was there and had been recorded in the Mississippian at that depth. We went through there pretty quick. If we had a time over again, we might have stopped and done more work. It does not flow. There are various things and measurements you can take. Putting pressure on the rock to crack it up. It may be covered by too much cement around the casings to hold it in place. Maybe that did not break up, but we did not get what we are looking for. We continued on Mississippian. We did not. Right. Okay.
In terms of the same drilling campaign, the cores also went into the campaign.
We did not take core. We might have taken chips. Because it was not core, we did not send it off for porosity test work.
Okay. Not to repeat, just the actual question being asked. Okay. They can hear you, just not the actual question.
Your first question was?
In regards to Class 231, we always dabber campaign.
Class 2 31. Why was it not assayed? Why was it not assayed? I gave an answer for that. The other one was? The core results from the same campaign. Core results from the same campaign. We did not take core from that drilling program. They were not measured. For the engineering study, for the engineering study next year, how long is it going to take? Good question.
There are three parts of engineering. First part is the DLE engineering work. Second part is the purification work downstream from DLE to final product. The third part is where they bring it all together into a study looking at the inputs like electricity, water, piping, all those things have to be accounted for, right? There are three different companies, two or three different companies that do that work. We have already done a lot on the DLE. We are doing some on the downstream. I expect that we will probably finish that middle of next year for the whole engineering study, which will give us a DFS. No funding or finance can really be anchored to that stuff. That is right. No production financing.
Sorry. Which is not to say we cannot advance the conversation, which we are obviously doing, but it probably cannot be a decision until then.
For similar projects, you can advance the conversation materially. Until that point, you just need to have that as the final kind of CP or final. Where does that push me? The data last year was 2027.
We're now in 2028, 2029. Depending on the engineering study, which at this point in time, I can't say definitely it'll be done by that date. Let's say it's done by June next year. It should be 2028 that we would get in production. Is there a cut-off? Yeah. You have to go back and look at the announcement. Tim, you want to?
I can answer that. That fits entirely inside the LG agreement. The LG agreement, I recall, is flexible too. There is one year starting from the 31st of December 2027 and then extends for one year for initial supply. Because they can't wait for the drilling?
LG is a very large company, and they have multiple suppliers. They are quite flexible. I speak to them regularly. I do not see a big issue with the LG Optic, the definitive Optic agreement we have with them.
All right. We will come back to questions, all right? I want to get through this formal part. I know you have more small questions there. What is your name again?
Richard.
Richard. Okay. Moving now into the formal part of the AGM, and I am going to read the script. Otherwise, you will get trouble. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bruce Richardson. I am Executive Chairman and CEO of Anson Resources. Welcome to Anson 2025 Annual General Meeting. As a quorum of shareholders is present, I declare the meeting open. Thank you for taking the time to attend today's meeting.
Before any further, I'd like to formally introduce our Director. Tim is here. He's the Director of the company. Greg is online somewhere. He's our Geologist and Director, so he's in Perth at the moment. You met Matt already, CFO, and Chris is here as well. Our auditors, of course. Sally- Anne's down the front here. Notice of meeting. The notice conveying today's meeting was sent to shareholders and lodged with the ASX on the 24th of October. I hereby table the notice of meeting and explanatory statements, which we will take as read. As far as the form of today's meeting goes, we will deal with each of the items of business as set out in the agenda. There will be the opportunity to ask questions or make comments on each of the items of business as they are addressed.
All resolutions at the meeting will be decided by poll. Would all shareholders please ensure that they have a copy of the poll voting paper for today's meeting to enable their votes to be recorded? Anybody need one? No? Our share registry, Atomic, handles the proxy tabulation process, and we have received their formal report disclosing the proxy votes received. Proxies for today's meeting have been received from 176 shareholders for shares representing 28.55% of the company's issued capital. As indicated in the notice of meeting this Chairman, I intend to vote undirected proxies in favor of all resolutions in which the Chair is entitled to vote, except for resolution number two, which I will vote against, and resolution 10, which I'll abstain.
The proxy votes for each resolution will be set out on the screen, and as such, I won't read each of the numbers as we deal with the resolutions. A poll will be conducted after the items are considered. Let's now move forward with business at hand. Refer to the first item business is set out in the notice of meeting, which is to receive and consider the financial report of the company for the year ended the 30th of June 2025 and reports by the directors and auditor. I formally table the financial report of the company for the year ended the 30th of June 2025 and related directors' report, directors' declaration, and auditor's report.
I note the questions may be directed through me as Chair in relation to the conduct of the audit, the preparation and content of the auditor's report, the accounting policies adopted by the company, and the independence of the auditor in relation to the conduct of the audit. Does anyone have any questions or comments on the financial statements? With or without amendment, the following is an ordinary resolution: that the remuneration report contained in the director's report for the year ended the 30th of June 2025 be adopted by the company. The vote of this matter is considered to be advisory only. However, the Corporations Act provides for two strikes and re-election pressure should a remuneration report receive two no votes of 25% or more over two consecutive years. The company recorded a strike against the remuneration report at the AGM in 2024.
Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. I have been advised by our share registry that at least 25% or more of votes cast on resolution one are against the adoption of the remuneration report. Therefore, resolution two is required to put to the shareholders. Resolution two is to consider and if thought fit to pass with or without amendment the following resolution as an ordinary resolution.
That's subject to conditions and on at least 25% votes cast on the resolution one remuneration report being cast against the adoption of the remuneration report for the financial year ended 30th of June 2025 for the purpose of section 250B(1) of the Corporations Act and all the purposes approval is given for: A, an extraordinary general meeting of the company, the spill meeting, to be held within 90 days of the passing of this resolution; B, all directors of the company who were in office at the time when the resolution to make the remuneration report for the financial year ended the 30th of June 2025 was passed and who remain in office at the time of the spill meeting, except for the Managing Director, Bruce Richardson, cease to hold office immediately before the end of the spill meeting; and C, resolution to adopt persons the office vacated immediately before the end of the spill meeting to be put to a vote at the spill meeting on the terms and conditions set out in the explanatory statement.
Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? Yeah?
Were the recent issued holders included in the vote?
No, they're not. The shares are not issued yet, so they're not included.
I now propose the motion. I reiterate that as Chairman of this meeting, I am voting undirected proxies against this resolution. A poll will be conducted after all items are considered. Resolution number three, to consider and if thought fit to pass the following resolution as an ordinary resolution. That for the purpose of ASX Listing Rule 14.4 and Clause 16.4 of the company's constitution and for all other purposes, Mr. Gregory Knox, who was appointed as a Director on September 22, 2011, being eligible for re-election as a Director of the company. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting.
Resolution number four is to consider the following as a special resolution. Pursuant to ASX Listing Rule 7.1A and for all other purposes, shareholders' approval will be given to the companies having the additional capacity to issue equity securities up to 10% of the issued capital of a company at the issue date or the date of agreement to issue, calculated in accordance with the formula prescribed in ASX Listing Rule 7.1A2 and on the terms and conditions set out on the explanatory statement. The resolution is sought pursuant to ASX Listing Rules, which allow companies to seek pre-approval from shareholders to issue an additional 10% of issued capital in a 12-month period over and above the 15% already permitted. The pre-approval only lasts for one year and must be sought again at next year's AGM.
The explanatory statement contains a great deal of information relating to this item, including the restrictions around the pricing and use of funds. Please note that this is an item of a special resolution, which requires at least 75% of voting shares to be favored in the resolution to be approved. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. I have an interest in the next resolution. I now pass the chair to Tim.
Resolution five is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution. That for the purposes of the ASX Listing Rule 1014 and for all other purposes, shareholder approval will be given to issue and allot 2 million performance rights to Bruce Richardson under the equity incentive plans. Are there any questions or comments on this resolution?
I now propose a motion from specific proxies that would be the Chairman, which you will be abstaining from, and pass the chair back to Bruce.
Resolution six is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution. That is subject to and conditional upon the passing of resolution number three for the purpose of ASX Listing Rule 10.14 and for all other purposes, shareholders' approval will be given to the issue and allot 800,000 performance shares to Gregory Knox under the equity incentive plan. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. Resolution seven is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution.
That for the purpose of ASX Rule 10.14 and for other purposes, shareholders' approval will be given to the issue and allotment of 800,000 performance rights to Timothy Murray under the equity incentive plan. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting and also interest in the next resolution. I now propose the Chairperson role. I now pass the Chairperson role back to Tim.
Resolution eight A is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution.
That for the purpose of the ASX Listing Rule 10.14 and for all other purposes, shareholder approval will be given to extend the term of the loans granted to Bruce Richardson on the 27th of February 2014 and 10th of December 2014 in connection with the acquisition of the loan-funded shares under the company's employee share plan from February 2024 and 10th of December 2024, respectively, to the 1st of July 2026, as described in the explanatory statement. Are there any questions or comments on this resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. Hand back to Bruce.
Resolution eight B is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution. That for the purpose of ASX Listing Rule 10.14 and for other purposes, shareholders' approval will be given to extend the term of the loan granted to me.
You should have read that.
Oh, sorry. Yeah, go back. I apologize, Bruce. They're split into two tranches. I apologize. Sorry for wasting everybody's time. Resolution eight B is to consider the following loan granted to Bruce Richardson on the 21st of December 2015 in connection with the acquisition of loan-funded shares under the company's employee share plan from the 21st of December 2025 to the 1st of July 2026, as described in the explanatory statement. Are there any questions or comments? I now propose a motion from the specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. I now pass the chair back to Bruce. It's the same thing as the Greg. Same thing as the Greg. Okay.
Okay, nine A is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution.
That purpose of ASX Listing Rule 10.4 and for other purposes, shareholder approval will be given to the extend the term of the loans granted to Gregory Knox on the 27th of February 2014 and 10th of December 2014 in connection with the acquisition of the loan-funded shares under the company's employee share plan from the 27th of February 2024 and 10th of December 2024, respectively, to the 1st of July 2026, as described in the explanatory statement. Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. Resolution nine B to consider the following as an ordinary resolution.
That for the purpose of ASX Listing Rule 10.14 and for other purposes, shareholders' approval will be given to extend the term of the loan granted to Gregory Knox on the 21st of December 2015 in connection with the acquisition of loan-funded shares under the company's employee share plan from the 21st of December 2025 to 1st of July 2026, as described in the explanatory statement. Are there any questions on the resolution? I propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. Resolution number 10 is to consider the following as an ordinary resolution. That Mr. Richard Denham, who was nominated by a shareholder as a candidate for election as Director of the company on the 8th of October 2025 in accordance with the company constitution, be elected as the Director of the company with effect from the end of the meeting.
Are there any questions or comments on the resolution? Anything you want to say, Richard?
Thank you . I put my hands forward. I had a great rapport with quite a number of shareholders at Anson Resources. I've been involved as a shareholder for almost 10 years, 10 years next year, 10 years. I feel there's a lot that I can give towards the board. I think the core areas that I can support the board in their endeavors would be specifically around shareholder engagement, shareholder communication. No more than that. That's specifically the areas that I was looking at helping the company with. A lot of my shareholders had similar views to what I have, and it would empower me to move forward with my plans.
First of all, thank you for being a shareholder for such a long time. Appreciate that.
Those in your group that you're talking to regularly appreciate you putting your name up there. It is an open opportunity for all shareholders, of course. Wish you all the best with that. I now propose a motion from specific proxies that I hold as Chairman of the meeting. Okay. If there are no further questions, we will now proceed with the conduct of poll on resolutions 1 to 10. Can I ask that you now refer to your poll slip, if anyone's got one, and record your vote for resolutions 1 to 10 by marking the for or against box. If you wish to abstain from voting, simply do not mark either box. If you are a proxy holder, note that you are marking a box only in respect of the open votes for which you have been nominated.
The votes which have been directed a for or against vote will automatically be counted as such. Once you've completed marking your poll slips, please bring them up and hand them to me. The outcome of the poll will be announced on the ASX in due course. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Thank you very much. Mr. Soap. Okay. I declare the meeting closed. Thank you for your attendance today. I look forward to seeing you at our next AGM. Formally closed. We can go back if you have any more questions. Richard, you had one, I think, that I cut you off before.
Quite a few. You probably won't answer all of them. I understand that some things are commission confidence that's still under negotiation. Yep. Most recent announcements regarding the cost code said that we expect information from POSCO as of December.
Is that still the case?
I wanted to relay to you that we are restricted from saying very much about POSCO. I outlined the system that they have, right, where they want to have their board sign off before anything is really announced. Okay? We have been talking to them regularly. We spoke to them earlier this week. You did not earlier this week. I spoke with the manager of the project last week. They advised us that they are on, they hope to be, they are on track for December. We told them that if they are not, then they need to tell us. Right? We need to advise our shareholders. All right? Currently, they think, but subject to change. We cannot say much more than that.
addition to the initial Green R iver resources and one of the three electric funds of LCA, there was quite a low PPM amount that was 100. That was since upgraded to 134.6 PPM. Right. You'd say that resources increased as well as a result?
Yes. We have, of course, done a lot of test work since that 1994. Right? We continue to do that. We have seen a consistent amount of around about 130. To upgrade the resource, it is done by a third party. Right? That third party needs to agree with that estimate. We are talking to them at the moment about that and other aspects of the JORC resource that we think could be considered by that company.
Okay.
To clarify the question further, would we consider an interim JORC resource announcement prior to that, or include our field drilling results as well as the outstanding pool results as a larger JORC? Is that a better expectation?
It could do two. Yeah. It would do two. It would require them, the company doing the JORC calculation, to agree to do that. Right? It's not we don't do it. If we do it, we could do it tomorrow. Right? But we need to have a third party.
It's not a CD request. It could happen, but we're not sure where it will go.
We're talking to them.
Okay. What is the status of the downstream polishing that was announced in April?
Yes. The downstream polishing is still being done. Still being done. Still being done.
The aim of the downstream polishing is to get to battery grade, right, from the Green River project. That work is still being done.
To elaborate further on the question, in the past, it's actually been a reasonably quick process to convert it for ASN into decarbonate. The percentage grades we're given for that, it's taken somewhat longer this time. Is there a specific reason why it's taken longer as opposed to?
I honestly don't remember how long it took. It is a process. You need to have the specific equipment required to do that. I think that we might have done that back in maybe before COVID. I remember taking about six months to do it. You can have a look, but I know who did it.
It took quite a while for him to be able to achieve the battery grade because of the steps that are required. The difficulty here, Richard, is that we have more than one step, maybe six steps in that process. You need specific equipment for each of those steps. Previously, we did that at laboratories outside of Anson when we did that work. We went through a lithium chloride stage and made hydroxide and made lithium carbonate. This time, we're not looking to go through a lithium chloride stage, but directly from lithium LUA to the final product. It is more difficult to do that. As of this week, our laboratory in Florida is still working on it. It is not third parties that are actually doing it. It is actually the Florida Innovation Center that is conducting the tests. Yes.
I think it's called Lithium Innovation Center. Yeah, that's what it is. Yeah. He's doing that. We're doing that ourselves. Last time we did it ourselves, but it was different. We used an external consultant. He flew from place to place with our LUA as we went through the process. He was in California, and then he was in Florida, and then he was in upstate New York. Right? Then back into California again, where those pieces of equipment that he was using in that flow sheet, he had access to. Right? In this case, because we want to understand more fully the process, we have developed our own equipment to process. It's a slightly different flow sheet. We have to put more work into that. That's why it may appear to you to be slower than previously.
Okay. Fair enough. Next question is, sorry , I'll follow that. Still happening. He was an engineer, but how long is it going to take to six months now since April?
Yep. Ask me something I do not know. Right? As I know, [Roshan] did some produce some results, and they went to battery grade level. He came up with a slightly change in the flow sheet, which he thought would work. He was doing that last week. I do not know. We have not put the results out yet. If he does not get it, then he will come up with some other adaptation of being a chemical engineer. You know how it works, right? It takes time to do that. Not straightforward. No, I am sorry. It is okay. It is okay.
The next question is, what is the status of the Koch Technology Solutions convertible note that was announced in June? Considering that Koch is now a wholly owned or KTS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aquatech, does that still flow to Aquatech as a legacy purchase?
Yeah. Koch was not sold. The sister Li-Pro, they call it, the actual technology was sold by Koch to Aquatech. Quite different to what you said. With that went the convertible note. We are still in discussions with Aquatech about the process, getting the contract to provide us with that technology for the DLE, which was Koch, that is Li-Pro, and downstream. In that mix is also the convertible note. At the moment, it is no longer owned by Koch. It is owned by Aquatech. We are in discussions about that. Due to confidentiality, I cannot tell you more than that.
At this point? I only asked for a simple point that was also disclosed in our annual report in the activities post the closing of the books. The annual report. Technically, it's elapsed now.
No, it wouldn't. If you look at the annual report, we disclose the middle of the extent. Oh, okay. Fair enough. Still part of that mix.
The next question was, what is the status of the working relationship with KTS or Aquatech? In recent weeks, Aquatech mentioned that they have a full flow sheet now and are able to give guarantees on the process. Yep. That part of the discussions?
If they said that, then yeah.
Okay. It's been noted over the last few announcements and quarters that there was a substantial amount of sudden claims that were removed from the Green River initial complement of claims. Was there any specific reason for that?
Yep. Cost.
Just to maintain all those claims?
Yeah. It is different from Australia. In Australia, you pay an annual expiration amount as agreed with governments. Right? In the United States, you lease the ground. Lease it. We have been leasing that ground for several years. In the interest of controlling our costs, we decided that we could continue to do our expiration program and not have to include those areas. It did not have any impact on the job resource. Okay. All right. Thanks.
What is the status of the negotiations for private land or Paradox buying project?
The Paradox? Yep. The Paradox is not our focus. Our focus is Green River. We have put all our effort into Green River. Whatever was happening down there, we have not progressed. It is just completely still. If it progressed, we would have announced it to the ASX. Okay.
All right. It is just Green River only. Last but not least, today, you announced the Yellow Cat claims. Essentially, within that announcement, you effectively announced a JORC resource. That might have been announced earlier. Separately.
I did not know that that was Greg. Greg will have to—
This is a summary of the historical. I believe we have actually previously included that in the manifest announcement. It is not JORC compliant resource. Oh, I cannot understand. Even as an estimate, complete.
We have known about that for a long time. I do not know whether it has been announced separately. It is not JORC compliant, right? Which is one of the reasons why we have to do a drilling program. We have to redrill it to rediscover it to include it in the JORC resource.
This is a verbal burden. You tell me we are going to drill it. What happens?
It is the same. As I said earlier, the priority that we have is on the lithium project, not on Yellow Cat. Yeah. We would—so how it works—what's your name?
Justin.
Justin. How it works, Justin, is you put out that announcement saying, "This is what we want to raise money for." If you do not get all the money you asked for, obviously, some things you cannot do. Right? Back in August, we wanted to get more money for the Yellow Cat to include in Yellow Cat, but we did not get as much money as what we wanted. Right? Given our priority is on the lithium project, we focus on getting that job.
That seems like you just have to believe that we do not get told through, and then it just comes up again.
I would not say that. I would not say that.
These things are their plans that you have. Moving target. No, I would not say moving target. Because their plans are things you would like to do. You do not know how much money you are going to get until it is completed, right? If you do not get enough, then you have to readjust your plans and priorities. That is where you focus on the lithium project. That is where we need to put the money. We did a capital raising this time, and we got more than what we thought. The reason we got more than what we thought was not because the uranium price was looking better, but because the lithium price was looking better. We are raising money for lithium, but we are going to spend some of it on uranium.
Just what Justin was saying, I understand that things may not go to plan. Yeah.
Exactly planned. Yeah. Do you not think that it's worthwhile spending time to inform shareholders when they don't go to plan?
Okay. Good. Okay. Is there any—like you guys were talking like 21st or 31st of December as the cutoff date. We could run out there tomorrow and drop. Why would we announce now that we're not doing something we said we're going to do by the end of the year when it's not the end of the year yet? Your expectations are too high. Right?
It's too high. We're just asking for some status. That's all. We can readjust. Shareholders can readjust.
No, ASX doesn't ask for—doesn't ask for that. Right? They don't ask for advice about a program we said we'd do by the end of the year, which we're not going to do by the end of the year.
Or we might do by the end of the year. I mean, AUD 14 million has not hit the bank account yet. Right? Hasn't hit the bank account yet. It is subject to availability of rigs, weather, and other conditions. You guys coming in with, "It's got to be done." If it's not done by now, that means it won't be done by the end of the year. You're saying something which I don't even know.
I'm not talking about time-specific issues.
Okay. Let's move on. Is there any other questions you got? Otherwise, I'll close the meeting.
Yeah. One more question. The last question. Blackstone Resources, as well as the state engineer, reporting to a legal dispute over water rights. That still remains outstanding as far as I'm aware. Is that still the case? What's the status of that?
The water engineer has approved us using the brine from the Pozzo Devil Well. In terms of legal proceedings, where do they stand? Legal proceedings—while there's a group that opposed that, they have sued the state engineer. While that is ongoing, the approval still stands. As the legal proceedings progressed, most of us are not in the U.S. No. Right. Legal proceedings are underway.
They are underway.
Yeah. Of course they are.
We do not know that. That is why we asked.
It is nothing—it is not a—they are not suing us. It is the state engineer's decision. I want to be clear. It is not a dispute between us and the opponents. Right? It is a dispute between the opponents and the state engineer. It is actually a very peculiar arrangement that they have in Utah. All other approvals are not subject to legal dispute. Only those related to water.
If you ask a question, I'm going to give you a long answer on it. Is brine water? They think it is. State engineer considers it to be water. Right? In their case, a couple of years ago, there was a move to not have legal disputes over brine. The person who was the state engineer at the time decided not to do that, but to allow disputes over the use of brine. That is history. This current state engineer considered our application and approved it. We actually got two approvals. One is for temporary use, which is what we use for Coke and we will use for POSCO. The other one is long-term use for the period of the mine life. We have approval for both.
The opponents then sued the state engineer about whether or not they'd met all the requirements of the approval. That goes to what they call a water court, a court which specifically rules on water. They will reconsider the application that we made, reconsider the decision made by the state water engineer. Until all that happens, we can continue to use the brine, both under a temporary license and a permanent license. How long that takes is something the court will know, but we do not. Right? There is no dispute about that between us. We are supporting the water engineer in providing them with more details about how the brine is extracted and the processes that we use, etc. As we see, there's no status change in that approval, and therefore, no need to make a public announcement about that.
Will Anson Resources key stakeholders aware of the situation?
You're aware of it. So you're a key stakeholder. So the information is public. Obviously, you found it out from the public documents. Right? For us, it's not a key point to announce to the ASX. Right? You can go and find that if you want.
Is there a reason why there's no retail component for the latest raise?
Yeah. I think it's a good question. The consideration of the board is always how to maximize shareholder value. The concern with a retail component, which is to say non-sophisticated investors, like a share placement plan, is the one in the cost and two the duration. A share placement plan takes about a month to implement. It's expensive. That puts ongoing pressure on the share price. It's something that we constantly weigh up and consider with advisors.
Look, happy to engage and happy to consider that as best as possible moving forward as well.
With regards to the Utah Royalties, that was a program this year. Yeah. Yeah. That's a slightly scouted lithium price. Yep. Does that cover state land only, or does that also cover private land?
Land and mineral rights are slightly different. Right? It does not include—so the other way of saying it, it does not include mineral rights on federal ground. There is no royalty on federal ground. On state ground, the land we own at Boise Devil, the surface area, the mineral rights, some of them are owned by us, some of them are state ground.
If you see something like a Sitler block, Sitler that we got permission to have the mineral rights underneath that, we bid for that, then there's a royalty on that. Overall, if you work out a percentage of the total land area we have, then something like less than 10% would be subject to that royalty. That's how it is. Right? There is a lot of detail on that. Some of the private ground we have 100% around the Pozzo Devil area, 100% of the land we have also includes the mineral right on those blocks. On the Sitler blocks, we have to lease that. The majority of our project area, if you look at the different colored outlines, you'll see is BLM. BLM, there is no royalty for any brine project.
It's different in Arkansas and Texas where you have a lot of private owners, so people who own farms. They also own the mineral rights under the farms. When they're trying to do a project, similar to ours, they have to negotiate with each of those farmers about their royalty that they receive. That makes it really complicated and difficult to get into production. Right? We're lucky where we are. As the Europeans moved from East Coast to West Coast, they changed the system. If you're in New York and you've got a farm there, you probably own everything from the surface to China, whatever it is—gold, coal, whatever, gas. Right? As they moved towards the West Coast, they were less willing to sell land to include all the minerals. In Utah, they have mostly state government land.
The ratio is federal ground 16 to 1. And then private land is an even smaller amount of that. Right? So we're quite lucky to have found some private land in Utah, which we can purchase along with the mineral rights. But the government is very important when it comes to getting—Utah government is very important when it gets to approving the use of the land or the exploration programs. Very small part of our revenue will end up as royalties for state government. Fair enough. We've said it a couple of times around here.
Just one quick question on costs. Is there any plan to try to get costs under control, at least up until February? I know we're going to $2 million, like $2 million water and start from the second.
Yeah. So Justin, we've already done a lot of work on reducing our costs.
There is some more cost we plan to reduce as we go into the new year. If you look at our head count, I think we've gone down from 16 people to 8 people. So about half the people are gone, which also makes it really difficult for us to execute the strategy. Right? We did have two geologists. We could have used one of them to go and do the Yellow Cat Uranium-Vanadium Project. Right? We can't afford that when we don't have enough money. We have been reducing costs, and we'll continue to do that. It's a focus that we always had. With the change the past couple of weeks, with $40 million coming to the bank, we can reactivate some of those programs that we have been unable to execute because of lack of funds. It's just the way things happen.
Wages are high.
Yeah. Wages are high. I guess you're talking about my wage. It's published. It's in the annual report. Some shareholders have brought it up. At the moment, there are two people from Australia—two directors from Australia—that work out of the U.S., myself and Greg. You can see how much we get paid there. Every year, we do a review of those against peers. You could pick a peer who's based in Western Australia, and yes, I get more than what they do. I don't know the last time you went to the United States or lived in the United States, but I can tell you from personal experience that things cost more. You can put—it's easy to do, say, whatever it is in Australian dollars, that's what it costs in U.S. dollars. Right? The difference now is 35%.
When we started this project, it was one for one. Right? So much more easy to understand the cost basis there. While you think it's high, I think it's reasonable. The board, it's job to look at remuneration, and they do an annual comparison and recommendation of any increases or whatever. We'll continue to do that. That? You want to—Yeah.
Look, I think it's a good question, Justin. We're always conscious of—I'm just wondering if we've got some sort of plan to get us to the end game. Yeah. Look, without continuing to do all these little raids. Yeah. Look, I think it's a good point. I think as the POSCO kind of opportunity demonstrates, the board does constantly look at ways to get into production with as little dilution as possible. How that deal would work remains uncertain.
That is kind of an illustration of the kind of approach the company takes. To Bruce's point, we do benchmark. It is expensive doing this. A number of staff wear a number of different hats. I think a like-for-like comparison is not always valid. We do have a cash flow that takes us to fit. That is still the absolute ambition. We believe we can achieve it without additional deals or additional capital raise.
I mean, you could do higher performance rates. You could place cash in. I do not know. There are so many different ways of doing it. Obviously, we do not want DRO where you just get a performance rate from your company. Exactly. There are different ways of doing it. Just my point, when we did this raid, I was expecting this raid in December, but I did not know at all.
Are we heading out there? We think normally it happens if we think POSCO's not going to come through to do it in December, but we better raise now. While we're at $0.10 or whatever, we raise that. $0.08. If they do not do it, if they do not announce it.
The opposite argument to that is if you think we're going to do a capital raising, then shareholders start selling the shares. Yeah. Exactly. Right? Why would we wait for the money to go down to a point where shareholders start putting—so we're selling more shares. We're selling more shares than what we need. That is something that management has to deal with all the time. That is what we talk about. When to do a raise, when not to do a raise, what would the impact be?
Of course, these are considerations we take into account. Yeah. The only other thing I'd just add there is you could take a counter argument that we think POSCO is going to go ahead, and so we need the money to make sure we've got people ready to go, etc. Yeah. Exactly.
Anyway, it's all going to be talked about because I want to see us get to the other end of the raid. Exactly. As a circuit breaker, is it not possible to maybe understand the peer comparison process that goes into remuneration? If shareholders understood that process a little bit better, then maybe the understanding would be there in terms of what the cost actually—
Sometimes you have to trust the board to be doing the right thing, Richard. Right? They do not do things for nothing. Right? Yeah. I know.
You can go look it up. Pick some companies that are based in the United States doing something similar to us, and people are based in the United States, not based in Perth or Brisbane, and then you do your own.
Race the Yellow Cat, you can drill the Yellow Cat. You can communicate that to ship.
No, you said I had not drawn that. Yeah. Okay.
Look, Bruce, there is a final question. We have received a question around the proprietary iron removal cell and the status of that and whether that could be sold to other investors. Sorry, other DLE providers.
Yeah. Yes, it can. We have another company there under the A1 Lithium banner, which is called A1 Technologies Limited. We already have one patent application in there. We will have another application in there.
Should all that work out, then we'll be looking to offer it to other players.
Yes. One last question, simple question. It's been asked a lot by many, many people over many, many years. We use the area of interest to formulate our branch or resources for the catalogs. Many people have asked in the past, "Why don't we extend to the boundary of the finance?"
You're talking about the circles? All right. That's a JORC regulation guideline, whatever. Right? And the JORC calculation is done by a third party. As I understand, how it works, the formula that they use is not straightforward. Let's say you have 200 ppm and where the drill hole is. When it gets to the outside of the outer circle, there might be 100 ppm. Right? There's some exponential decrease as you go further out.
You have to have another circle which interlocks with that. Then there is all 200 ppm. Right? That is part of it. If you want to be done by a third party, they are conservative in their estimates. Right? It is not something that you need to address with me or with Anson about why it does not go out to the border. It is something you can ask the company that does the JORC calculation. As I understand, they do have flexibility in that. Right? Currently, people who have done it before, which are based in Perth, do not go out to borders.
I only ask because in the current presentation, there are two peers that mentioned Salt & Sea . Any number of two people there, they go right to the boundary.
Yeah. That is because Salt & Sea is private. Right? CTR is a private company.
They're not covered by JORC regulations. Standard Lithium is a Canadian company, not subject to JORC calculations. Your argument is with the people who run JORC. We've argued with them before about similar things. Another one is, "Why do you calculate brine like a rock when it moves?" They won't. They're not flexible on that as well. It's just on the Salt & Sea. They don't have resources. They have a right to extract lithium from brine they bring up for producing geothermal power. There's no circles, no squares, nothing. Different jurisdictions. We could raise money in the United States if we're a U.S. company without a direct resource. Just a resource. Including the uranium project. Historical resources wouldn't apply there. We could do that. We don't.
We're ASX-listed and responsible for you, the shareholders, to meet and use third parties to estimate the resources.
Another question. Some of the other projects that we had, they'll look at possibly. Some of the Western Australian projects to board, boom and well, they are.
Is there going to be a distribution in the future for maybe five to seven entities on the ASX?
Possibly? I can't tell you that. Those are just strategic questions. Of course, they could be considered. Right? Whether we do it today or we don't do it at all, I can't talk about that. I think we might call that too early. Going to call time? All right. Thank you very much.