Cleantech Lithium (LSE:CTL) — Investor Update

0:00 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the CLEANTECH LITHIUM PLC Investor Update. Throughout today's recorded meeting, attendees will be in listen only mode. Questions are encouraged and can be submitted at any time just using the Q and A tab situated on the right hand corner of your screen. Please submit your questions at any time and press send. Before we begin, we'd like to submit the following poll and as usual, I'm sure that the company will be most grateful for your participation. Daniel, I'd now like to hand over to your good self. Thank you.

0:24 Mark, thank you. As always, Ignacio, good to see you. It's I'm currently in Dubai. It's running at about 08:00 this evening. You're you're in Chile. You're joining us from Chile today? Yeah. Great to see you too. Yep. I'm in Santiago at the moment. Midday, 12PM here.

0:44 I appreciate you, and I'm sure all the shareholders too for making the time and getting on board. So, look, there's a lot to unpack here. So, really, we got a whole bunch of questions. But, obviously, we have been hoping and working towards the fast track process

1:03 with the government on the sale application, and we were unsuccessful on that in our initial one. I think we're quite good to to take a step back. And if we could, Ignacio, explain exactly what the requirements were, where we have not been successful on some technicalities, will the process that you're currently looking at to address that? And then most importantly, when I've talking to a number of shareholders is, obviously, there's a a a standard normal process, which we believe will

1:32 the company would be then get the license through, but, obviously, it's not as quick as what we were hoping to do in terms of moving forward. So could I ask you just to step back? And we've a whole bunch of questions that I'll jump into. And, also, actually, obviously, it's been you've been a month in, so we'll have a a broader conversation on a few other points of your understanding of what you've discovered so far and what you think is exciting for the company and what you think should be addressed. Let's take a step back first of all and just go through what the requirements were in the Polygon with respect to the fast tracking for the sale application.

2:05 K. So the the this, expedited or fast track application to the sale had several requirements. Mainly speaking, one was related to capital. The other one was related to the ownership of a certain percentage of mining property within a polygon that was defined by the state. And, also, it had to do with the experience of the company and its executives in the lithium industry and to develop a project.

2:34 So the reasons, or the arguments that, the government has given us to not accept our application at the moment are not in the public domain, but we've, we've addressed them. We engaged a firm that I've worked with before, very specialized in administrative and public law.

2:55 And and we've been addressing those concerns that the government has very thoroughly, I think, in a very positive manner. And we're in the following weeks, we're planning to have already we already have a few meetings scheduled with the government authorities with several ministries in order to, explain our arguments why we we believe that the CLEANTECH LITHIUM does comply with the requirements and more broadly with the founding principles of the lithium strategy and why then our CLEAN applications through this expedited process should be accepted.

3:29 So just to clarify, so we have our license areas that we have, which we've done our free scoping study for, and we're doing all the work into the PFS, which we hope to have imminently. And then the government put forward a series of proposals for people to bid for the fast track one. And over Laguna Verde, their polygons so their reference area,

3:52 which my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, they arbitrarily drew, doesn't match exactly to where we have specific licenses which have been built up over time in a patchwork of shapes, etcetera. Is that correct?

4:06 Well, we do have, as you're saying as you say, Dan, we do have a significant ownership in the whole area, in the polygon that the government drew. We believe it doesn't really reflect the resource. And we've we've done, our our hydrogeological modeling and where most of the reserves are.

4:26 So, yes, we have we have, discussed, modified polygon where we have significantly over the minimum that the government is requiring. Okay. So just so that everybody understands the shareholders. So we have our license areas which cover a large chunk of Laguna Verde, and we've been doing a lot of work. And the government then submitted an application over it, is a polygon, which was an arbitrary done shape,

4:51 which doesn't match to our exact license. So it's not that we don't have the licenses. It's just the shaping of our licenses and where we think the actual resources are doesn't match to what the ministry has published as their their their effectively their square. That's correct. Let's correct that. Okay. And so we're in discussion with them over. And on my understanding, it's slightly as part of square that they have covers areas that wouldn't be prospective licenses anyway.

5:18 Exactly. We have what we have is the most attractive area around the the salon and where the resource that we've defined is located. So the most important areas are covered by our by our licenses. Yep. And is it correct? Because I I thought some of their area that they put forward

5:39 doesn't even actually, we don't even think there will be lithium in some of that polygon that they've published. Yeah. Yeah. The the Yeah. The how the the government defined the Polygon is beyond our understanding. In in general, they they didn't have a lot of information, to define the Polygon. And that's why in in principle, they they always said it's been said that it's a referential polygon that can be modified, after an indigenous consultation process, or after dialogue or negotiation with the the, applicant.

6:09 So my understanding again, Ignacio, correct me anywhere if I get wrong, is that we've picked up all the licenses, which we think is the most productive and the most valuable area. The government has produced a square which is over a larger area, and one of the requirements was that you had to have 80% of the polygon. And we don't believe some of that area is particularly a, that valuable, and some of it indeed may not even be relevant to to lithium. And so we failed to meet the 80% of owning the licenses on the Polygon because their Polygon area is larger than where we think the lithium is.

6:46 And it's, in fact, different. We have licenses that are outside of the referential polygon area that do have, access to the resource that we're not considered. So it is Okay. Not a smaller polygon. It is just a different one.

7:01 Okay. So part of our process is to go back and then go into detail with the ministry to explain why their polygon doesn't really match what would be productive and, therefore, in the government's interest in terms of their strategy to increase lithium production in the country for junior new entrants coming in?

7:19 Right. So the appeal process, the the appeal that we already filed, should be reviewed by government and answered within, thirty to forty five days. So we are looking at an early June, response from government. And our strategy is, during this period from the filing of our appeal and and before the response, we're going to be engaging the most relevant, authorities, related to this process to explain,

7:52 among other things, the polygon, but also, again, to explain that we've been the company that our project is the most advanced project in Chile as we've done not only substantial exploration. We have defined our resource. We have an hydro hydrogeological model independent independently prepared that justifies that.

8:16 We have done downstream processing with of our brines in our pilot plant in Copiabo. And then we have further gone downstream in in US with conductive all the way down to battery recovery of high purity. So and we've also engaged and I'd love to talk about my visit to La Huerta Verde later than. We've also engaged with the indigenous communities, very early on the process, and we have a very good and positive relationship with them. And actually, I I I don't want to say the only project, but it's one of the few projects in Chile that has, decisive community support.

8:55 And not only that, my understanding in in obviously catching up with, Steve and Gordy's yourself is that there's some concern with you on the chat room saying that we don't have the ratio. My understanding is the conversations with the government is that the government is very keen for the project to go forward. They're very keen for CLEANTECH to have the project to move forward, but they are going by some technicalities of the polygon versus it. So

9:19 could you comment and give any reassurance to our shareholders about sort of the relationships and the government's desire to see this go forward and the relationship with CLEANTECH?

9:29 And then maybe we could just discuss in the event that the appeal was not successful, what the standard process would be to go through the normal the normal tendering process, etcetera, to get it, and how the fact that we have all the licenses, which would effectively block anybody else being able to come in anyway.

9:47 Yes. The government has been very supportive all along. It's, it's it's been, I would say, a very legalistic and simplistic, response to our application that and that's why we believe there is a lot of merit in reviewing that that refusal, and that's why we filed the appeal. We believe we have very strong arguments, to justify our case and to get a different response from the Ministry of Mining. Very early on, my, my incorporation to CLEANTECH, I already met with some authorities, and they are all very supportive.

10:22 They understand that we are very, far on the the path to production. We are about to deliver a PFS. We are, as I said, with our, resource that has been defined. And they see that our project could be the next

10:41 project to be, built in Chile. In fact, I was, I we were we had a meeting yesterday with some folks in Australia, and they were, telling us that they the Chilean ambassador in Chile sorry, in Australia had she went to a seminar, and she was speaking about investment in Chile copper lithium. And the only company that she mentioned as and highlighted was CLEANTECH LITHIUM.

11:06 So all the signals that we've seen are very positive from government, and I we are very optimistic. While while there's a technical legalistic failing, to do with the perpetration of how they've done it, that should in no way be interpreted in terms of any negativity, in terms of relationship with either the ministry, the government, or their desire to see the project or CLEANTECH move forward, which is obviously some of the concern and speculation. But my understanding is we're we're purely into legalistic detail of definition.

11:38 Yes. Your understanding is correct then. It it is extremely legalistic and and not nothing political about the decision, and we believe we have good arguments to overturn that legalistic decision. Okay. So so you put in an elaborate on the tender process, etcetera, and fast track application for the potential cost. I don't think where there would be a cost. There wouldn't be funds needed for a bid, so I'm not quite sure on that. But there's a lot of things with a similar version, so we'll go across here. I wanna make sure I do try and address shareholders' questions as much as we could. So I do one second there, Ignacio. But

12:15 who is the ultimate who are we appealing to? Is it the legal department of the ministry? Is it to the minister of mining? Who what is the appeal process,

12:25 and who is it within the government that we appeal to? We and then what is the the timeline for them to consider that?

12:35 K. Yes. The authority that will be signing the response will be the minister of mining. But reality is that this the the lithium strategy is driven by a commission comprised by several ministries, and that's why our strategy is to engage with with the most relevant authorities within that committee commission and not only with mining, but, of course, mining is going to play an important role. The the process is somewhat lightly regulated. It is, as well somewhat fast. So we should expect to have a response, as I said before, early June.

13:14 The first fifteen days of June, no no later than the fifth first fifteen days of June. Okay. So And as sorry. Just Yeah. As a additional context, as I mentioned, we've we engaged, very highly respected law firm here that supported us with the as as we discussed before, it is a legalistic response. So we are,

13:37 we developed a lot of arguments against the the those very, weak, I would say, arguments that the ministry, gave us, and we believe that we prepared a very strong appeal, and now are going to, start engaging with the stakeholders in order to to let them know our our view about the case. I know from from our conversations yesterday and then with, with Gordon and Steve, I mean, we're we're very happy with the arguments. Ultimately, though,

14:07 you know, Chile is a very rule and legalistically bound country and government. So we're into technicalities, and, obviously, I've been doing mining for twenty five odd years now. You you hope for the best, but it's the arbitrary. And even if the best will of the world, they won't do it. If the rules are there, sometimes we have a problem. So we're working on it. We think that's solid. Now if we don't get that through,

14:33 obviously, we're just into a straight normal one. Could you explain for the shareholders and interested parties how that works?

14:41 And I think what everyone wants to understand is given that we have all these licenses, what is the risk that somebody else could come in? What are the qualifying aspects that you need to put forward? Obviously, we've done all the work. We have the license areas. We have the support of the community. What is the process? When will they announce that? And what do you think is a realistic risk, or how much assurance can you to give to shareholders that there isn't a risk in terms of somebody else coming in to trying to piggyback off the work that we've

15:12 already done? Okay. So the the even though the government has not given a lot of details about the tender process, we do know that it will be, once it's launched, it it will be finished within this government's term, which is, March 2026. We believe, it should be, awarded even earlier bef I mean, during the this year, so before December, probably. They have said publicly that licenses are not going to be a fundamental requirement, though they are going to be important. But we have a position a unique position in Laguna Verde. I I honestly don't see how another party could come and try to bid for Laguna Verde with the position that we have regarding the licenses and also the all the work we've done.

16:05 Yeah. I mean, even though there might be other applicants, we would have the best opportunity, and the we would be in the in a privileged position anyways. Okay. Finally, qualified companies have to bid. Have into all state company shares too. Okay.

16:27 So some of are pre subscribed to the one, but, yeah, most of that is fine. Now so the other one was the the financial resources. So we one of the requirements was an arbitrary number to show 30,000,000 of equity. Now we have spent well over $30,000,000. I mean, we've spent over $3,040,000,000 pounds in country. But the other one is I think there's a technicality, in my discussions with Steve and and Gordon is that at the moment, we have put the funds from the Topco into Chile

16:59 as debt because that allows then once the company was and that's that standard course of procedure when you're going from Topco to subsidiaries is that you put it in debt, which allows them when the company is revenue generating and make profits to repay that debt in a tax efficient way rather than out of post tax dividend income effectively is what you'd have to do. So my understanding is we're also looking to demonstrate that, but our fallback position was would be that we could convert that loan

17:30 from CLEANTECH PLC into equity in the subsidiary company. Is that correct as well from understanding?

17:38 What the government wants then is assurance that the company that gets a CLEAN awarded will develop the project. And that's, that's been our argument, and that those are the lines that we are using. It is pretty standard, as you say, how we've, how the company has funded, the local entity to develop this project. We have raised well above, what the government's requirements were. And and once the project has the sale,

18:07 we've already publicly said we're looking into an in the process of listing in the ASX. We also have AIM listing, and we will be raising capital, and looking for a strategic partner to develop the project. So all of the these are arguments, in front of the I think so. So on on that one is so, you know, that they understand companies will raise capital at the appropriate time when you get that, and that's most likely to be debt and project finance and bring in strategic partners. And some of the conversation I have with individual shareholders is what they're looking for is the comfort that we have in, you know, the wider board there in in people such as Steve and his experience. So, obviously, Steve is hugely respected in the country from having previously run Escondida and Coiawasi, so the relationship's there. And those started again with very small projects of, you know, twenty, thirty people and then built up to teams of several thousand, and Steve brought in the external financing on that. So the one of the concerns you're saying is how can we share the balance

19:05 sheet? In my experience, governments and ministries are not looking for a company to show that they have it. Otherwise, no junior company would ever get a license anywhere in the world. What they're looking for is to demonstrate that you've expended the capital in country and then to look and show that you have a clear path, which will be a combination of project and debt finance and bringing in a strategic partner, and that comes down to competency. In many ways, the ability to bring in external parties far outweighs than having a company that might have $500,000,000 on the balance sheet, but doesn't necessarily have the expertise to put a project into production. And that's why, Dan, one of the other requirements that the government set was regarding the experience of the people that were in the company in order to develop projects. And in that regard, Steve's experience is very highly regarded, as you mentioned, in the country as well as our our other board members.

19:57 So trying to address the question I can. I'm sorry, everybody. There's there's a lot of overlapping and various sort of theme. But for a public tender process, when any technically and financially qualified company be able to bid, they can seek to, but, obviously, we have the licenses, and those licenses are valid, and it would be very difficult for anybody to come in. So we're talking about the process, and, obviously, the company and all of us as shareholders are disappointed that we didn't get the fast track for the first hoop. But that doesn't mean that somebody would come in. It would be incredibly difficult

20:26 for another party to come in because we are the license holders over the vast majority of the polygon and certainly the most interesting parts of the polygon. So my answer would be sort of no. I'm sorry. I don't have people's names here. I've just got presubmitted. I'm sorry. It doesn't show me who's who. We've addressed, I think, here, Ignacio. Somebody's asked about the current relationship to the ministry of mining and the relevant government departments, but there's the company's relationship. And do just wanna maybe touch again, you know, how many years you've been in country and your relationships with the the mining ministry from your previous roles? Sure. So I've I've worked in the mining industry for, in house for the last ten years. First, for Freeport McMoran, which is a copper and gold pro global copper and gold producer that has, one operation in Chile called the Labra, and the last seven years with Albemarle, which is one of the largest lithium producers in Chile, in the world. Apologies.

21:23 And that has its most, important operation, managed operation, in Chile. So and I led that operation for the last three years. So I've I know how the the government works, and I've met most of or all of the authorities that are that we are not going to be engaging, in this process. So the relationships are very good. I've met we also know people that that could form part of future government. So we have a very broad network of people that we've, either met or worked with before, that that, that should be in support of our strategy.

22:04 I think probably what investors want know, obviously, is that you you've had a long and distinguished career within the lithium sector in country. You've had many years of your own relationships with the ministry. And while, Steve is extremely respected and well known from his history, obviously, Steve is not in Chile, but you're in Chile. It's much easier for you to go and have those. But through Ignacio now, we have direct in country relations, and there is nothing to suppose that the government has any reason not to want

22:35 CLEANTECH LITHIUM to be successful in producing this asset. It's a question of just how we get that procedure and process right in terms of awarding the sale. Exactly. Exactly. I've, I've met every every officer or government official. We have long standing relationship with with them. I I am blocks away or a couple of subway stations away from downtown where most of them work. And, actually, next, sorry. Tomorrow, I'll be taking the subway, like, a ten minute ride to get to a meeting with the Ministry of Finance. Well, we very much appreciate it. I think it's a very good move, and we'll see you before, but I'm I'm delighted that you're on board, and we have your presence in country to strengthen the team there.

23:22 On the prescribed questions I can ask you, so, obviously, we've had the ratio with conductive energy. We're working through various parties there. They've got some interesting corporate, activities going on. I think it's been has been put in the press that they they've recently announced a potential relationship with DuPont. Maybe just wanna talk obviously, you've been engaging a little bit with Conductive Energy. They've got some interesting things happening corporately. My understanding is that what they're up to actually would be highly beneficial for us, but maybe you could just give a a quick reference to that. You're correct. What I can share is is precisely, in the line of what you're saying. We, as it's public, we have already gone and produced, lithium carbonate high purity with conductive, and now they are undergoing some some changes.

24:13 We believe they will be very positive to us, to process the the remaining eluet that we have with them in The US. So it's just a matter of waiting, and and and when once that is done, we'll continue to process the LIT. Okay.

24:33 Can you clarify the company's worth of PFS? Sorry. Give me one sec. I'm just catching up. Right. So this question here we've got, Ignacio, about can we clarify the coverage for the PFS, particularly if it's contingent on the sale progression? And then what options does the company have with respect to publishing it? Is it permissible for the PFS to contain both polygon scenarios? So the the other polygon that the government's put doesn't include licenses that we have. So we can't put a PFS out with the government described one. We can and again, the requirement for the fast track was to have 80%, which we fall slightly short of. But even in their fast track one, an entity wouldn't necessarily have that. So the government just prescribed polygon isn't relevant to a PFS. And for the PFS, you could only look at the licenses that you actually have as a company.

25:26 What we may choose to do is pick up additional license in due course and update it. So that was there. In terms of contingent, it's not contingent per se. And, Ignatius, again, I'll turn to you in a second and correct me if I'm wrong. But there's some parts going into it and in terms of the timeline and what we need to do is stay whether we are fast tracked or whether we're going through the process because that will impact in the development time and the lead time. And so that's going gone and being reviewed as I understand it, but we want some clarification. Certainly, think the a clarification on the appeal to be fast tracked before we'd look to publish the PFS, so that's just pure commercial sense from the company's point of view. But, Ignacio, do you wanna comment on that and adjust as you feel necessary?

26:12 Dan, actually, the the polygon the the final polygon is important for the PFS as that polygon will define whatever we can exploit. And so the resource is is actually Constrained. Or Yeah. Or constrained exactly by the by the final polygon. And that's why both are are tied together. So once we have a definitive polygon, we can, we can update the PFS, which is, almost ready. So we are it is a matter matter of finalizing the sale process and, updating that that area to the PFS. But that's the potential resources. But my understanding is that from the PFS, from the numbers in terms of the economics, we can only give claim to what we have.

26:59 Montgomery what Montgomery is saying is that they will attest to what is in the polygon. So even if we have properties that are outside the polygon mhmm. Yeah. So it it's dependent on the polygon even though we have a defined resource that is larger than the the polygon. Ah, okay. So that comes into so there's a bit of number crunching coming around. But, yes, I mean, it's in good shape. It's ready to go, but let's go through the the appeal process, then we can give an update fairly shortly to shareholders after that. Thank you. That's actually very informative for me. Right. Does the company perceive any impediment out of the recent rejection, and what measures are the company taking to put a deeper appreciation of the wider benefits to all the stakeholders? I I I think that's fairly clear. I mean, I don't think there's any wish from the government not to see this go forward. I mean, lot of people have put in the chat rooms, and I try not to get sucked into too many of them because there are some people very good, and some of it is just wild speculation, and and you could spend your whole day going into there. But there is nothing in terms of this process that should lead anybody to think that there is any reason why the government does not want to see CLEANTECH have the licenses and to progress the project.

28:22 It's not in their interest. We are the most advanced. They stated that they want to have these projects up and running, think, in last year. 2027 is the government's goal. Was it '26? Yeah. '26. At '26, which, I mean, they're going to miss. So they want to create jobs. They want to create revenue for themselves. They want to have money going back into the local communities. What we're discussing is a technicality from a bureaucrat in the ministry over a polygon's definition size. And it's unfortunate, and it's regrettable, and it's frustrating, and it's disappointing. And it is painful for all of us who are shareholders, and I'm a shareholder as everybody knows in every single round. I maintain, and I maintain all my shares from day one. So are we pissed off to be candid? Yes.

29:11 But the speculation that there's a government and there's some conspiracy and there's some of these other people that post stuff in there, which is just wild conjecture, has no basis. And I don't think we need to promote the wider benefits. The government knows the wider benefits. They want to see this project happen. We've had nothing but support from the government day one. What we're facing is a technicality over a polygon definition of a line in the sand effectively and where we are. But we believe we have some very good arguments as to why what they're proposing doesn't meet their wider, lithium objectives. Would that be correct, Ignacio? That's absolutely correct then. Thank you. I think it's easier. I'm pretty sure sorry for paraphrasing it, but it sometimes helps us out.

30:00 There's one about the next raise. Look, guys. We we've we've the last raise pays for the PFS and everything. We actually have a fairly de minimis running cost. The guys are very good at making things stretch. The next raise is the the plan is still to go to the ASX. As you can understand, we need some clarity just around these current events, but we do see a future on the ASX. We have over 40% of our shareholders there. The valuations are still doing much better. You saw Galan, which is in Argentina, recently get got bid for it a couple of times. It's market cap that the board put down. There's another of other rumors going around about speculation for m and a activity. So I think rather having conjecture about that, let's let's wait and see. There's a comment that AIM is driving the company to zero.

30:48 I think it's a combination of AIM, frustration in The UK market, flow out of funds. There has been a softening of the lithium price. It's not only CLEANTECH. The vast majority of lithium companies are down 80% over the last couple of years. Sadly, we are very much, beholden to the global lithium price. Trump's discourse doesn't really help us, but I and I know Steve and Gordon and Ignacio remain firm believers in the overall march towards net zero and the increase in EV battery demand and battery storage and the wider applications of lithium. And I think if you take a two to three year view, the lithium price has extremely positive outlook, which will then, I think, carry out a number of the junior companies until until you can get to a point where you're producing and you can look at the revenues and the numbers and get from a multiple.

31:44 As a junior, you are very much driven by the underlying commodity price. But again, we reiterate our view that we're very much at the bottom of the market here, and we think the market will go into a net deficit in the second half of the year, and it should lead to a price increase. But, Ignacio, you've been following this, and you're far better informed and educated than I am. What's your views on where the lithium price is going? So look. First, regarding, regarding price, I I want to point out to everyone that not only junior companies, but also already producing companies and actually the two largest companies, lithium producers in the world have also experienced 75 or 80% reductions in their market cap to date, and that's mainly driven by price. And as you said, Dan, the price forecasts going forward are and the demand forecast going forward are very optimistic. They are very positive.

32:43 Demand today is slightly above 1,000,000 metric tons per year, and it is expected that by the end of the decade, it will more than double. It will be between 2.5 or 3,000,000 metric tons. And as you all know, lithium projects are smaller. So they are not a new project that comes online in the future that does not really impact offer. So as you say, there will be a rebound in prices in the future. And we our project is looking and longer term is looking to that demand that is not only for EVs, but also for energy storage for, other applications like, electricity, renewable energies that can be supported with lithium batteries. And the demand is there. EV growth is also very attractive, very impressive at the moment in in mainly in Asia and and developing countries.

33:38 And that's why we're pointing for. We're sure that that when this project comes online, the reality will be very different. And, again, what I'd like to reiterate to to our shareholders is that, Chile is a free trade country with The US. And even if The US resolves the current, temper tantrum over tariffs that they're having with the rest of the world, which I think they probably will do, It has certainly awoken the rest of the world and and most of the major industrial companies in the world about the need to really address the security of supply and their supply chain, whoever you are, car manufacturer, battery, and industrial partner.

34:25 And so while it's been painful for the global economy, I think Trump's actions in his first hundred days really strengthens the position of somebody, or a company like CLEANTECH in terms of being able to supply directly into The US market and for The US and Canada and to a large extent Europe, which would get dragged into any trade war with China to make sure that they have supply outside China, to facilitate their, ambitions within the technological rare earth lithium net zero, sectors. So to that degree, while we can never discuss, anything and I get bits of information, you know, I'm aware that that we we are being approached as a company by a lot more companies from North America and from Canada in terms of potential corporation.

35:17 And so, Dan, just to add to that, Chile has a free trade agreement with The US and also a bilateral tax treaty, also with Europe, with China, and all is also part has ratified the TPP. So there are many economies that the company can sell to utilizing Chile's free trade agreements. It's open to the world, not only to one or two countries. Thank you. That's very helpful. James, because over the fundraiser, we need to go forward progress. James, nobody's on invested anything the moment. We we're taking some longer term views. As you know, we're talking to a number of of potential partners, strategic partners, joint venture partners. We we've paid for the bulk of the things that we need to pay for. So we paid for all the the testing work with conductive energy. We paid for the PFS.

36:11 Now, obviously, if this was to drag on for a year or something, go forward, but the company has actually a very light burn rate now that we've paid. The PFS was several million dollars. The the conductive energy work was not cheap. That ran into, I think, almost a million and a bit dollars. But in terms of the actual operating cost, we're very, very light. So and we can make things stretch while we resolve this when we find out. But the the goal would be to make sure that we find the most nondilutive scenarios possible, for all shareholders. And you've gotta remember that, you know, the board all put money in, at the pre IPO sorry, the IPO, which I know would have been 60. Most of the management have been taking their salaries in equity at much higher prices. So everybody is very focused to minimize any further dilution, and to take the steps to actually make sure that we get the the stock price back up to something before we entertain anything like that.

37:14 Right. Steve m was asking, due to the sale application, the share offering is now about the will the company look to make any adjustment to the offer? Steve, you can't legally do that. Why would you you can't retrade an offer and go back to those parties in the same way that if we did the offer, then suddenly we had a bid and the share price doubled. We we couldn't go back and then sort of up the share price that we suddenly went to. So just legally, it wouldn't be possible. We are very appreciative of all the shareholders that come in. We appreciate that everybody is, frustrated, and disappointed, both at the timelines and the results on the sale. And even in respect to results of the sale, we're all very disappointed and frustrated by the a market and the liquidity and the market makers and the the rush that people have to try and find the price. And all I can say is that we're working very hard, in terms of approaching potential new investors on market. This is not for a fundraise, but to market the benefits and why we think the company is so incredibly cheap.

38:24 I haven't been actively doing that just yet because we wanted to get the application in for the sale. But once we have some clarity on that, depending on which route it is, and and they're both very valid, one's just a little bit quicker than the other, we'll be putting some effort back into going out to market the company because we see incredible value in the share price or in the company the today's share price. Right. Sorry. Joseph O. They they wanna see it. They don't require capital. Ignacio, so would you just wanna explain for Joe? We have a question of whether we have the capital, and we don't. None none of the smaller companies have the capital to put these projects in. You're talking hundreds of millions of dollars. That's not what they're looking for. And Chile has hundreds of smaller junior mining companies that come in and pick licenses.

39:17 What they want to see is that you have the managerial, the technical expertise to put in plan actually, in effect, the financial expertise to put in a plan to develop a project from early stage exploration, which is where we are now, through the PFS, through the DFS, through bringing in the project partners and the project financing and then into production. So it's not that they have a requirement that you must have x on the balance sheet. There was a requirement for expenditure and then for demonstrating that you have a clear path. But do you wanna talk a little bit, Ignacio? Sorry. Just some of these are undressing for you easier. Do But you wanna know just about that, what what the government's looking for from companies in terms of financial partnership and resourcing? Yeah. Dan, you're absolutely right. The the government is not looking for companies to have the money in the bank to build a project that is pretty unlikely and that would be unique. Chile has a lot of experience developing mining projects, mainly in copper and but also in lithium.

40:20 What the government wants to see is certainty that the company has the know how and the managerial experience to get through from exploration, get the funding, and then develop a project properly. And we have we have, those credentials, and that's been, admitted by the government. So they're not questioning that. There's questions about whether too detailed. Our application covered off the requirements of the application. It's it's not that it was too detailed or not too detailed. The the question is is around the polygon. So we have our licenses. Somebody in the ministry published a polygon over the area. That didn't quite fit with what we've got, and we have think we have a very good case as to why they're wrong. And if not, we go through the public, but it's not that the application was too detailed. So that's very valid question here about how many other companies been successful in the sale, and there's a question about hostile bids.

41:17 Let me come back. So, Ignacio, who who else has been successful in the fast tracking? Three companies or three sellers were approved to move forward to negotiations, and one belongs to a company called Aramed. It's a French a large French miner. And the, second one is a joint venture between several parties, including Codelco and Eramet. And the third one is two junior companies that that that joint ventured, in, Salar close to the Bolivian border called Coipasa. Not very well known companies. Yeah. So the two junior ones were there. So their their license area did meet the Polygon definition, but again, just to reiterate to shareholders, they were two junior companies. They don't have a market cap, much larger. They don't think financing wasn't the issue. It's the path, and the government 's not looking for that. It was in their case, their their licenses matched the polygons and ours didn't.

42:19 So we've covered that off enough. Vulnerable are we are to a hostile bid? Somebody may make a bid, whether you're not vulnerable to that. So, obviously, the manager has a big position. Regal's got a big position. Has got a big position. So, I mean, look. If somebody offered us ten, twenty times, we'll probably have a look at it, but it would be up to you as shareholders. And I can't see that the the board would have to evaluate any bid on its merits and feel whether it was anywhere close to something that they thought was beneficial for the shareholders. But we believe that we will be successful in obtaining the sale, whether that is through the fast track process after appeal or whether that is a slightly longer duration, in terms of the standard public tender process, the board is very much at the position that we still maintain, that we have a belief that we will be successful in obtaining the sale.

43:20 And at that point in time, that will give us significantly more value into the company and allow us to enter into conversations with potential offtake partners and strategic partners. We're very confident that this is a robust project, which is economically viable at not only, today's lithium price. I think our breakeven was four and a half a little bit more. There'll be some inflation in costs, but we'll be among continue to be among the lowest cost producers of lithium in the world in terms of DLE projects. Obviously, the sea, evaporation ponds are slightly lower costs, but when you look at the rest of the world's projects, we're extremely well positioned. We think that having a project in Chile of the reasons that Ignacio said in its location to North America and being a free trade country is extremely value valuable.

44:13 So I can't I can't personally see a scenario whereby Maher, Steve, Gordon, and Johnny would would get together and consider anything, remotely close to anywhere where we are today. They are as frustrated as all the other shareholders are in terms of the process, but our option is to push forward and continue to argue our case until ultimately we believe we'll have a successful outcome for the company and for our shareholders. And let me Dan, let me add a little bit of flavor to what you just mentioned. Please. Please. Don't know how much, our investors know, but, but there are mainly two routes to produce lithium chemicals. One is through brines and, or through hard rock. Several types of hard rock, spodumene, lepidolite, and others.

45:04 Brine is by far the lowest cost route to produce lithium carbonate. Today, carbonate also is in more demand than lithium hydroxide, which is what you can produce from hard rock. So one of the beauties of of brine is that you you are in the lowest side of the cost curve. No matter what the lithium price is, it is an attractive project that that can move forward. And in terms of our specific project, I which I visited two weeks ago, infrastructure is very good to get to the project. I actually you can actually go from the ocean, from sea level to the project in three and a half hours. That's something that you will not find in Australia or in Argentina or in Bolivia.

45:54 So through a paved road that is roughly one kilometer away from the project site, there is there are other mining operations in the vicinity. So there is access to electricity. There's access to specialized labor. There's ax there's water. So the the the project itself is very attractive. It is brines, which are lower cost. We have gone we have proven the process. We have gone all the way to lithium carbonate. In fact, that's why we have have told the government that we are very far how far advanced we are. And that's why we believe we can be the next project to get online what if we get the sale. And we're very optimistic about our arguments regarding the sale appeal, and we believe that we can, overturn that decision and have, approved and go to direct negotiations with the government, to to sign a sale.

46:51 Thank you. So just addressing the so the release of the PFS, a couple of are asking about the PFS again. We're waiting for the Fast Track application, and we'll look. We'll come back, but there are some things that would need to be updated based on what we're doing. So the the ASX listing is, again, is slightly interdependent on the sale. We couldn't publish a prospectus without having clarification of that, so that does impact on the timeline. So we'll know fairly shortly, whether, we are successful or not and we can move forward. Sorry. I got the same question from a number of people, so we're putting out that one. There's a question here from ENG about tariffs on Eliot. We're not selling the Eliot. The Eliot is what we were shipping up to conductive energy, but then to do downstream processing into lithium carbonate.

47:48 And that was at the moment just for internal. We weren't looking to sell that. But as a free trade country with The US, I don't know, Ignacio. How how is the tariff conversations impacting on free trade countries with The US, and how would that potentially impact on lithium supply from Chile? So what's happening with Albemarle and SQM, etcetera? The the conversations are ongoing between governments, so between the Chilean government and the US government regarding how any tariffs could apply in the light of a free trade agreement and a BTT agreement between the countries. And there are, look, there are many other countries beyond The US, but also The US, that that buy lithium. In fact, 90% of demand of lithium today is in Asia.

48:38 Outside of Asia, we believe Europe is a very strong there's a strong demand today and also to the end of the decade. So the The US is not the only country that can buy our lithium. Okay. Thank you. That will address from there. So I'm just replying to some of these questions in. Yes. So, Mark, h, no. It wasn't to do with having adequate capital. It wasn't to do with adequate management. It really is just a somebody drew a line, and the line didn't match for us, and we'll go through that process. The PFS, yes. So I know we're hoping for at the end of April, but, obviously, we were hoping for the resolution for the sale application at the early April, and then the government took a few days longer, and they're the government. And so we needed to get some clarity around that for the PFS. So the PFS is in pretty much final form. I think that some things going back and forth, but we do need to get some clarity on that before we release it.

49:35 So that would be, I think, you know, in the coming couple of weeks, but will depend on where we stand on the sale. John A. Has been to work out the cost of not being fast track. I don't think that's been done yet, John, to be honest. Obviously, the company's been very focused on working with Ignacio and the lawyers and the application and things on the ground, and there's some conversations with some potential parties who might like to sort of come and get involved with the company. But I don't think anyone sat down at this point in time and and calculated it out. I just not that it's not a valid question or that it's not a valid thing to do. I just don't think there's been a chance to look at it per se. So see that no. The PFS and the ASX listing are not contingent on a positive sale resolution in terms of the fast tracking resolution.

50:32 But if we're gonna go on to the ASX, we need to say the process. So we put an application, and it's been rejected. So that needs to be resolved. So as we think it would be beneficial to the company to be going down the fast track process and given that we expect a resolution from an appeal to be quite quick, it makes sense for the company and it's prudent to delay to find what the result is because then we know where we stand. And then when we know where we stand, we can go out to investors in Australia telling them either whether we have the Fast Track application or we're going through the standard tender process. And then we can explain why we believe that we have the best possible chance through the tender process because we have all the licenses and effectively, it's almost impossible for anybody else to realistically come in. It's just a delay time. It will also have a slight impact on the timing and the financial model in terms of when we would expect to be into production.

51:32 So they they are not dependent on it. They, however, do have an impact on the prospectus. It's just the prospectus. Mean, we can get marketing from there tomorrow. And I know who we're gonna go to. We've done a lot of pre marketing, but you have to have a published prospectus. So, all these things do to a degree interrelate. Right. Good question for JC. So, Ignacio, if the government is keen for us to go and do it, why is somebody in the ministry published a polygon over the entire area? I I think the really, the question is here, there's a difference between having a good relationship and having a legal department that defines up and doors contracts.

52:21 It's it's not like you're sitting and having coffee every day and the government approaches things for a standard procedure for everybody. But, Ignacio, think you can see the questions here as well. The question was, if the government is so keen for CTL to progress and set up a mine, why has their ministry set a polygon that has parts of it with no lithium or, in fact, the implication is outside our area? CTL had discussions with the ministry before submission, regards to shape of the polygon. Was this not resolved then? Do you just wanna explain what the government will and will not do in the discussions that you can and cannot have with the government? Well, it is it is actually a good question because, it's it's obvious that if you want to develop the industry, you sell a polygon, someone can comply with. In this case, not only not only for us, but for most of the companies, the government defined a polygon or someone within the administrative body of government, let's call it I think it's better that way, to find a polygon that no company could meet.

53:21 So, our our exercise, our our energies have been focused on explaining why our polygon, which we comply with, is better than the government's and why the government find that it is possible to reshape the polygon. Why does this happen? Sometimes people within administration don't have all the details or the information that they should have in order to, when they set the rules. And that's why some use yeah. Usually, this can be modified or adapted to reality. And that's why we also believe that there's a good possibility for us in this appeal process. No. Thank you. Well, Ignacio, listen. We are coming to the end of questions. We are under an hour, which is pretty freaking good for us, to be honest, as it runs on. And it's late. It's almost 09:00 here in Dubai. So, I think the last thing I wanted to bring first, actually, the last comment was Ben Y, did a very nice comment.

54:23 Michael, know that there's no there's no possibility the polygon definition is a deliberate blocking action. We we covered those earlier on, so I just submitted. The polygon was the polygon. It it's all these statements about them, they're in government and this thing and some sub diffuse there is is quite frankly just not it's it's not credible. And just briefly, it's important to remember that this process started with an RF RFI. Chile has 50 something Salars, and the RFI process after the RFI, the government defined six Salars that were attractive for perspective for this, expedited process, and Laguna Verde was one of those, and it was because of CLEANTECH's position in it. So there's no blocking action by anyone.

55:11 And just remember, Ben Wise put in the sale decision outcome does not reflect the hard work and effort put into the submission. I think it's something like 1,200 pages of a document that went through, and we haven't come this far. So we have progressed. There is there are times when you have a huge disconnect between the share price and the work on the ground. And a lot of these things and processes are quite intricate, and some of them are fairly complex. I obviously get short of the company a great deal, and and I still, to be honest, find some of this quite difficult to fully understand the processing and the mechanics. And, obviously, we're very grateful to have Ignacio now who has the experience on the. So I I think, Ben, thank you for that because quite frankly, you know, the company management's come into a bit of kicking.

56:00 I had some one on ones with some large institutional investors. I've come in for a bit kicking as well, which is part of the role of being a broker, but it's also painful. I mean, I bought stock in the last round, and then I bought more at eleven p. I think it's $30 or something. So we're down at 7. So it's it's disappointing professionally, and it's painful personally. But we are doing everything we can, and we believe that we're in a very strong position. And I think Ignacio is doing a great job. And that's the last thing I'm gonna say. So Ignacio, you've been around for a month, and apart from this sort of baptism of of fire straight into the sale process, You know, what else or else do you have any sort of comments about your first month in the role? Well, it's been a a great first month, than baptism of fire. I've been in situations like this before. Oh, for not getting the pass back and us coming in for loads of reviews.

56:56 It's it's but it's look. It's it happens. We just need to deal with it. My previous job, we we transformed an international arbitration with the state into a huge opportunity for a company to increase production through DLE. So these things happen. We can with with it being smart, having the right relationships, explaining the benefits for the country, we cannot turn these decisions. I visited the site. It is it is awesome. Beyond being beautiful, the the infrastructure is great. I met with the indigenous communities. They are very supportive of the project, which is, by the way, not easy at all in this country to have support from the indigenous communities, even public support from a few of these indigenous communities. I've met with regional authorities.

57:49 I've met with national authorities already. We have a great team. We have prepared a very strong appeal. I think, in all, it's been a great month. The the future would bring many more good things for those who wait, and I'm sure that, that we'll put all of our efforts into this appeal. And, hopefully, next next meeting, done with our investors, we'll have much more news to talk about. Ignacio, thank you so much. I know you're going straight here into another meeting with a very interested party in the company. So we thank you very much for your time. And to everybody that's listening, we appreciate the ongoing support, We and will try and do it. We couldn't do one immediately because there were too many open ended questions, but we will try and do one again in about two weeks' time or so.

58:40 With that, thank you very much to Investor Meet. That's great, Daniel and Asher. Thank you very much indeed for your time this afternoon. Please don't close this session as we'll now automatically redirect you so that you can provide your feedback in order the company can better understand your views and expectations. Thank you once again for your time, and good afternoon, good evening to you all.