Just a theory deary3 Dec 2025 21:20
Having watched a lot of Mike in interviews, I think I’m starting to pick up on how deliberate his wording is. Looking back now at the breadcrumbs he dropped on the DFS timing and size, I’m starting to read a lot more into his recent comment about funding — specifically when he said it “may be one party who funds both P1 and P2.”
To me, that wasn’t a casual line. That was Mike hinting that we already have a strategic partner lined up who wants the whole package — the mine and the downstream US purification. The more I think about it, the more it suggests:
• one party wanting full control of the value chain
• one clean funding structure rather than two separate deals
• a strategic who doesn’t want BRES talking to anyone else
• a fast, turnkey finance solution rather than a drawn-out process
And when you look at the type of groups who typically want a vertically integrated graphite supply chain, the potential candidates aren’t random — they tend to fall into three clear buckets:
(1) US government-linked financing bodies
Such as DFC-style groups who are under pressure to secure US battery supply chains end-to-end.
(2) Large industrials or battery-supply-chain players
Big US corporates who want guaranteed purified graphite feed for decades.
(3) Major private equity / strategic funds aligned with US critical minerals policy
Funds who specialise in “take the whole project” financing rather than piecemeal deals.
I’m not saying it is any specific group — but the pattern definitely fits these types of players.
Add that to the DFS now being out, the offtakes already secured, the US trip immediately after the conference, and the way Mike has been positioning the project publicly… and it feels like everything is already lined up and we’re just waiting for him to get back from the US to announce it.