India has the second largest network of roads in the world. The 4,689,842 km network of roads in India, second only to and USA (6,586,610 km), is long enough to go around the Earth 117 times! The Earth has a circumference of 40,075 km, and perhaps that should give readers a perspective of the size of this mammoth network. Building and maintaining this crucial infrastructure is a huge task for the government. And the choice between concrete and bitumen for road pavements will be one of the most critical decisions that the government has to take.
The recently published white-paper on road infrastructure in India by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways clearly underlines the huge challenge faced by the country. Of the total road tracks in the country, 1277791 km of roads in India (roughly 30 per cent) are yet to be surfaced. India has more than fifty-three National highways, but the total length constitutes only 1.5 per cent of the total road network in India. The short stretch carries nearly 40 per cent of the total road traffic, most of which is of heavy vehicles. The country has abysmal length of expressways. If India has to keep up with the growing traffic, the government will have to construct around 15,000 km of expressways in the next ten years. 25 per cent of villages in India still have poor road links. India also has the lowest kilometre lane road density per 100,000 people among G-27 countries leading to traffic congestion. The government has to give priority to upgrading road infrastructure if it envisages any sort of economic growth. There is a long way to go ahead.
No significant steps were taken in building this critical infrastructure during the last three decades. The rate of new highway construction across India accelerated after 1999, but had slowed later to the extent of total neglect in past few years. Policy delays and regulatory blocks reduced the rate of highway construction awards to just 500 kilometres of new road projects in 2013. The new government at the Centre realises the importance of good road network and has chalked out an ambitious plan to relay the road to development. After all, the national network carries over 65 per cent of freight and about 85 per cent of passenger traffic. Indian transportation sector contributes 4.7 per cent towards India?s gross domestic product.
In a country that is so immensely rich in its mineral resources, connecting the resources to the industry, and the industry to the end consumer is extremely necessary for the economic development of the nation. According to 2009 estimates by Goldman Sachs, a leading global investment banking, securities and investment management firm, India will need to invest US$1.7 trillion on infrastructure projects before 2020 to meet its economic needs. A major part of this investment should be in upgrading India?s road network.
The last three decades have seen the country slipping into a service-based economy while the manufacturing sector took the backseat. Now with the government focusing on reviving the manufacturing sector, road building and infrastructural support automatically becomes its top priority, since the infrastructure has to be in place before the manufacturing and distribution of the produce can be kick started. Apart from building more roads the government will have to start with the upgradation of the existing network. Only 2 per cent of the existing network is surfaced with concrete. Now that the government is looking at ways to better the existing infrastructure, it is of crucial importance that it moves in the right direction to tackle the challenge. While the most popular approach would be to lay bitumen on mud, it would be a much more sensible decision if the government opts for concrete pavements. The benefits of concrete road over bitumen road are well established and well known (also elaborated in Part I and Part II of this story published respectively in the July 2014 and August 2014 issues of ICR).
India was one of the earliest countries in the world to start building concrete roads. The first concrete road in India was built in Madras (Chennai) in 1914, which remained pot-hole free for a very long time despite the heavy rains in the region. The results encouraged engineers at that time to construct the Dehradun-Mussoorie Highway that had perennial problems of roads getting damaged due to extreme weather conditions. Soon the trend picked up and more and more concrete roads were laid in India. The original Delhi-Agra (NH2), Bombay-Poona (NH4) and Bangalore-Mysore roads were all built of concrete. Then in 1939, about 120 km of the Bombay-Poona road (present NH-4) and 110 km of the Bombay-Nashik road (present NH-3) were concreted. In the same year, Mumbai?s Marine Drive was constructed out of cement concrete. Marine Drive is still giving excellent service, even in its sixtieth year. The road has stood the test of time and the onslaught of saline sea water and humid climate. It is a perfect example of the value offered by concrete roads over bitumen. The Cement Manufacturers Association has communicated several benefits to the governmental bodies on plenty of occasions. If nothing, the potholes on the bitumen road alone are sufficient to convince the case of concrete over bitumen.
India?s annual expenditure on the road sector is around Rs 20,000-30,000 crore, 70 per cent of funds of which are spent on just maintaining the existing roads. This is a sheer wastage of the tax payers? money when better and well established technologies for building concrete roads are readily available. The country has both the raw material and the necessary expertise to build such roads ready at hand. Why should then tar roads be built by importing costly bitumen?
Those in favour of bitumen road often point to the initial cost of laying concrete roads, which is apparently 15 per cent higher than that of bitumen road. But with the rising cost of crude oil in the market, the gap is fast getting narrow and the difference now is negligible. The life cost advantage of concrete road far exceeds the initial cost difference between the two types. When it comes to cost comparison, the directive issued by Bureau of Indian Standards states that whenever an asset has to be created or built, and competing technologies/methods/materials for building the assets are available, the technology/method/material which gives the lowest life-cycle cost will be selected. Initial cost will not be the guiding factor. And in life-cycle cost, concrete roads with their low maintenance requirements, invariably turn out to be cheaper than bituminous ones. Today with fibre and steel fillers reinforced concrete available, the life cycle cost of the concrete roads may extend way beyond 60 – 70 years. Fly ash can substitute 30 per cent of cement in the concrete mix and can bring down the material cost dramatically. Cost is no longer an issue with concrete roads. On the other hand the maintenance of tar roads is expensive because they need to be resurfaced once every three years.
Having better roads built using indigenous raw material has its own benefits, but the merits go far below the surface performance of the pavement. One rough estimate is that even if only 50 per cent of the highways in India were to be resurfaced with concrete, it would engage the unused capacities of cement plants at least for the next decade. That will give a big boost to the sluggish cement sector which is currently struggling to raise a rupee in its cost per Kg just to stay afloat. In-fact the government may very well negotiate a mutually agreeable price with the cement companies and start rolling out cement-concrete highways. A long-term deal can help reduce the cost per of a bag of cement, which costs upwards of Rs 270 – Rs 300 a bag , by Rs 100 a bag, which is a discount of over 33 – 37 per cent.
With the assured business in hand, the industry can invest in plant upgradation, capacity building and employment generation. The industry today has 40 per cent of its installed capacity lying idle. The demand of cement and concrete will allow optimum utilisaton of the installed capacities. Imagine the domino effect of concrete road building activity on employment generation. Generally, every one- million-tonnes per annum (1 MTPA) of cement production requires around 400 skilled technical workers. The additional 40 per cent capacity utilisation will create employment for around 6000 skilled technicians in cement industry alone. It is estimated that the cement industry will require a total of 43,000 skilled technical workers for about 108 million tonnes of greenfield expansion, 17,000 for about 42 million tonnes of brownfield expansion and 6, 000 for 3000 MW captive power plant operation in this sector.
Consequent project upgradation will lead to employment of additional hands by the equipment manufacturing plants, component manufacturing units, concrete manufacturer and suppliers, logistics service providers, etc. Additionally the increased logistical needs of transporting raw material and the cement and concrete will boost employment for truck drivers. And finally the activity will perhaps create largest employment opportunity for the daily wage workers engaged in the concrete road building activity.
These new roads will open investment opportunities for new real estate projects, smart cities and industrial corridors along the new roadways and would infuse the growth cycle with new energy.
Road building is a longterm investment and a lot depends on the performance of these roads. It is imperative that as we commit to better infrastructure we do so in a well informed manner, that we derive value for hard earned tax payers? money. Yes we can look at our neighbours, USA, China, Russia and can take cues from them. Cement and concrete today is omnipresent and their is no reason to move in traditional fashion of building tar roads, tolerating potholes and then laying them with concrete on top.
The technology of laying bitumen road is fairly simple, at least for the way in which these roads are laid in India. And for precisely this reason, this sector is filled with unorganised and often unprofessional contractors who grab projects based on factors other than their technological merits. Laying concrete roads on the other hand requires significant technical expertise and creates a barrier for unprofessionals to enter. Shifting to concrete roads will offer a clean slate to begin with, where the babu-contractor nexus will come to an end, and where the government too will be able to present a corruption free road building authority to the public.
Looking over the merits of concrete over bitumen as a construction material and as a technology, which was discussed in the last two issues of ICR and also considering the social implications of the shift to concrete, it is clear that concrete roads will take us toward economic growth.
Why Concrete?
Durability and maintenance free life
Concrete roads have a rated service life of twenty five to thirty years (more in reality), whereas asphalt roads theo- cratically last for ten years at the most.
Frequent repair and associated costs
Concrete road do not require frequent repair or patching work like asphalt roads.
Vehicles consume less fuel
Vehicles on concrete roads, consumes 15-20% less fuel than that on asphalt roads since, a concrete road does not get deflected under the wheels of loaded trucks.
Inert nature
Concrete roads do not get damaged by the leaking oils from the vehicles or by the extreme weather conditions like excess rain or extreme heat.
Greener construction process
Bitumen produces lots of highly polluting gases at the time of melting it for paving. Also, less fuel consumption by the vehicle running on a concrete road means less pollution.
Conserves natural resources
Bitumen is produced from imported petroleum, a non renewable resource. On the other hand, concrete (cement) is produced from abundantly available limestone. Precious foreign exchange is saved if we opt for concrete pavements.
Durability
Heavy rain and other extreme weather conditions damage the asphalt road, and the roads need to be repaired frequently.
Light reflectivity
Concrete reflects light better than the black coloured bitumen road. As a result the requirement for road lighting is reduced by half saving electrical energy and giving better visibility at night.
Two cement concrete pavement roads covering a total stretch of 2.2 km in Akhoya village were inaugurated on 27th June 2026 by MLA Nuklutoshi Longkumer, who attended as the special guest. The project comprises the one km L Pangersowa Road and the one point two km Longchara Junction to RC Chiten Jamir Memorial Government High School road. A formal programme followed the inauguration at the school auditorium.
A technical report was presented by Er Waloniba of the Urban Engineering Wing-III, Kohima, which stated the project was sanctioned in March 2026 under the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment scheme for 2025-26 at a sanctioned cost of Rs 29.1 million (mn). The work order was issued to M/s Ensign Construction on thirtieth April 2026 with a stipulated completion period of 12 months. Work commenced on fourth May 2026 and was completed on sixth June 2026, with the contractor and team finishing the tasks in around two months. The project included a single-lane cement concrete pavement with side drains, two slab culverts and breast walls at required locations.
Longkumer acknowledged the Chief Minister, the advisor for urban development, contractors and other stakeholders for the allocation and support, and he commended the contractor for early completion. He noted that cooperation from landowners and the community had been important in resolving land related issues that can otherwise delay developmental works. He emphasised that planned developmental activities carried out with collective effort would enable more projects to be implemented successfully.
The headmaster of RC Chiten Jamir Memorial Government High School, I Chubasenba Longkumer, outlined the school background, noting it was established in 1962, was earlier known as Government High School Changtongya and was renamed in 2014. Local representatives said the improved approach roads would ease access for students, staff, patients and the general public and fulfil a long standing aspiration of residents. A dedicatory prayer was offered by the pastor and the programme concluded with a ribbon cutting attended by village council and town council representatives.
Indian Cement Review (ICR) and Fuller Technologies brought industry, policy and technology leaders together to discuss how cement innovation can drive green construction at scale, writes Rakesh Rao.
India is building at a pace few countries can match. Highways, airports, housing, logistics parks, industrial corridors and urban infrastructure are reshaping the country’s economic geography. But beneath this growth story lies a difficult question: can India continue to build at scale without locking itself into a high-carbon future?
That question formed the core of an online panel discussion titled “Driving Green Construction Through Cement Innovation”, organised by Indian Cement Review (ICR) in association with Fuller Technologies as the Presenting Partner on June 25, 2026. The webinar brought together experts from cement technology, R&D, global industry platforms, building performance policy and international development cooperation to examine how low-carbon cement and material innovation can accelerate India’s green construction transition.
The discussion came at a crucial time. India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and reducing the carbon intensity of its economy by 45 per cent by 2030. At the same time, the country’s construction sector is expanding rapidly, driven by urbanisation, infrastructure development, housing demand and industrial growth. Cement, as one of the most widely used construction materials, sits at the heart of this transition. It is indispensable to development, but also central to the challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings and infrastructure.
Moderated by Nitika Krishan, Senior Urban Infrastructure and Sustainable Policy Consultant, the panel featured:
Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer, VP and Head R&D, Nuvoco Vistas Corp Ltd;
Devika Wattal, Innovation Lead, Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA);
Dr Sunita Purushottam, MD, GBPN India (Global Buildings Performance Network); and
Vaibhav Rathi, Senior Technical Advisor, GIZ (the German Agency for International Cooperation)
Setting the tone for the discussion, Nitika Krishan underlined the scale of the challenge before the sector. “The question before us is no longer whether we build, but how we build sustainably,” she said. She pointed out that construction accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global energy-related carbon emissions when both operational and embodied carbon are considered. Cement production, she added, remains one of the hardest industrial processes to decarbonise.
For India, this is not merely an environmental issue. It is a development issue, a competitiveness issue and increasingly, a market issue. As one of the world’s largest cement producers and among the fastest-growing construction markets, India’s material choices will influence the carbon trajectory of its built environment for decades. As Krishan observed, sustainability solutions in economies such as India must not remain limited to laboratory success. They must be scalable, commercially viable and practical at national level.
The innovation gap: From technology to market
Experts believe that there is a need to bridge the innovation gaps for making decarbonisation in cement and concrete scalable. Devika Wattal of GCCA, explained, “The starting point must be the core cement manufacturing process itself. The first and foremost is the heart of our process, the heart of cement manufacturing. How do we reduce clinker? That is always a topic where industry is working very intrinsically.”
Clinker reduction remains one of the most important pathways for lowering emissions in cement. Since clinker production is energy-intensive and chemically emits carbon dioxide, reducing the clinker factor through supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), blended cements and new chemistries can have a significant impact. Wattal also noted that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) will have a role, though it may not be the first lever for all markets.
However, she stressed that innovation cannot stop at technology development. A solution that works in the lab must also be adaptable to industry, scalable in production and acceptable in construction practice. “It is important for that innovation to be adaptable, to be scalable, and so that it can be executed in real time,” she said.
Wattal also called for stronger enabling systems around innovation. These include performance-based standards, product-level embodied carbon databases and clearer frameworks for evaluating green materials. Without these, low-carbon cement products may struggle to compete with conventional materials in procurement and design.
R&D must balance carbon, cost and performance
Bringing in the R&D perspective into the discussion, Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer of Nuvoco Vistas emphasised that low-carbon cement development cannot be treated as a single-variable exercise. Cement must perform in real construction conditions. It must deliver strength, durability, consistency and cost competitiveness, while also reducing carbon.
“The root of understanding and balancing all these aspects lies in materials, and knowing the materials,” he said.
According to Dr Aiyer, R&D teams must understand the variability of raw materials such as fly ash, slag and clinker. Different sources produce different material behaviours. This makes mix optimisation, material characterisation and processing-property relationships critical. When performance is affected, cement manufacturers must understand how strength enhancers, admixtures and other performance chemicals interact with the material system.
He also linked material science with process efficiency. Clinkerisation takes place at extremely high temperatures, around 1,400 to 1,450 degrees Celsius. Any improvement in raw mix design, process control or energy optimisation can, therefore, help reduce emissions and cost. Dr Aiyer pointed to artificial intelligence-based optimisation, Cement 4.0 tools and advanced software as important enablers for real-time process and material control.
“The more you understand the materials, the more you can control it,” he said.
LC3: The promise is proven, the sequencing is not
Limestone calcined clay cement, commonly referred to as LC3, has attracted global attention because it can reduce clinker content significantly by using calcined clay and limestone while maintaining performance in many applications. Kiranmai Sanagavarapu of Fuller Technologies said the technology itself has already moved beyond proof of concept. Fuller Technologies has worked with calcined clay technology for nearly two decades and has seen plants running in France and Ghana. These plants, she said, are meeting local and national specifications, while the economics are beginning to make sense.
“The calciner is performing, the economics is stacking up, it is making business sense to produce,” she said.
But if the technology is viable, why has adoption not scaled faster? For Sanagavarapu, the answer lies in project sequencing. Too often, clay characterisation happens after equipment is specified. This, she warned, is a backward approach because calciner design depends on clay mineralogy, kaolinite content, iron levels, reactivity, moisture and other variables.
“If you don’t know what your deposit looks like before you commit for the equipment, you are, in a way, going blind into designing,” she said.
She also identified permitting and plant integration as major bottlenecks. Environmental clearances, mining permissions and local regulatory approvals must begin early. Similarly, calcined clay must be integrated into existing grinding, blending and logistics systems from the design stage, not treated as an afterthought during commissioning.
India already has IS 18189:2023 standard for LC3, but Sanagavarapu pointed out that the standard is not yet visible enough in procurement documents. “The gap between what is technically being permitted and what the procurement is asking is the single biggest bottleneck,” she said.
In her view, successful scale-up depends on getting the sequence right: clay characterisation first, permitting in parallel, standards aligned with construction, and integration built into plant design.
India’s LC3 journey: Progress, but demand remains thin
Providing details of India’s LC3 commercialisation experience, Vaibhav Rathi of GIZ noted that JK Cement carried out the first commercial production of LC3 at its Rajasthan plant, followed by JK Lakshmi Cement three months later. These initiatives were supported by the International Climate Initiative of the Government of Germany, with IIT Delhi contributing deep institutional knowledge on LC3 research and BIS certification.
Rathi said India’s early experience has produced clear lessons. One of the biggest was the need to build capacity among regulators. While BIS certification existed, State Pollution Control Boards were unfamiliar with the technology and unsure about the approval pathway.
“The capacity building is not just needed amongst the producer and the users of the cement, but also the regulators who are working with this technology for the first time,” he said.
He also highlighted the need for better information on China clay deposits. Since China clay is currently classified as a minor mineral, centralised data on availability, quality and location is limited. If cement manufacturers are to adopt LC3 at scale, stronger mineral intelligence will be important.
The third issue is demand. LC3 has already been used in projects such as Palava City in Mumbai and Noida International Airport, but these remain limited examples. “It is in a chicken and egg situation,” Rathi said. “Cement companies are saying we need more demand, and users are saying there is not enough cement available.”
Public procurement, he suggested, could help break this cycle. If agencies such as CPWD and other public bodies begin testing, accepting and specifying LC3, it could create the market confidence needed for cement companies to invest in production and storage.
Building codes must catch up with innovation
Dr Sunita Purushottam of GBPN India argued that material choices will determine built environment emissions over the long term, but India’s current policy signals remain fragmented. Although LC3 has received BIS recognition, she pointed out that building codes, municipal bylaws, schedules of rates and sustainability codes do not yet provide uniform guidance on low-carbon cement.
“The current cement regulations are largely prescriptive and favouring traditional materials,” she said. This limits the ability of alternative materials to compete on performance, durability and emissions.
Dr Purushottam also raised the issue of taxation. Cement, including LC3, currently falls under the same GST bracket as conventional cement. A differentiated tax structure, she argued, could help accelerate market adoption. “In order for the market to demand LC3, that differentiation in the GST could go a long way,” she said.
She noted that green building certifications such as IGBC and GRIHA are already creating demand for low-carbon materials by assigning points for embodied carbon and sustainable material use. However, she said large-scale adoption will require regulatory mandates, particularly through building codes and state-level notifications.
She also cautioned that low-carbon cement alone does not solve the entire building performance problem. A material may reduce embodied carbon, but the operational carbon of a building depends on thermal performance, design, insulation and energy use. “The energy part has two elements,” she said. “One is the embodied carbon of the material itself, and the other is the operational carbon.”
Collaboration is the bridge between invention and impact
Wattal said GCCA sees innovation as a strategic priority and works through platforms that connect industry with academia and start-ups. “There is no way we will decarbonise our sector without innovation,” she said.
However, she stressed that research must be connected to actual industry challenges. Innovations developed in isolation may fail when they encounter real-world barriers such as raw material variability, plant integration, cost, standards and finance. Start-ups, too, need industry mentorship and scale-up pathways.
Wattal also flagged the importance of finance. Even strong technologies may struggle to attract investment if there is no common understanding of bankability. “We have always put projects into, is this a bankable project? But the definition of a bankable project has never been defined,” she said.
For India, she saw strong potential in its academic and start-up ecosystem, but said the challenge lies in alignment and prioritisation. The country has the research base, industrial capacity and market size. What it now needs is a coordinated route from innovation to deployment.
There is a practical concern for cement manufacturers: how can existing plants be adapted for lower emissions without compromising reliability or commercial viability?
Kiranmai Sanagavarapu addressed, “The reliability risk in calcined clay retrofit is definitely real, but it is almost always self-inflicted. The risk arises when a new process is added to an existing circuit without properly redesigning grinding and blending configurations.”
Existing cement plants, she explained, can take two broad routes. The first is external sourcing of calcined clay combined with mill optimisation. This requires lower capital investment and can potentially move in 12 to 18 months if other conditions are in place. It may reduce emissions by around 20 to 30 per cent. The second route is integrated calcination on site, which requires higher capital expenditure and longer lead times, but provides greater control over quality, supply and emissions reduction potential.
For Sanagavarapu, the principle is simple: low-carbon retrofits must be designed with intent. “Design it with an intent properly from the start. Start in the market conditions where the economics are already working,” she said.
Circularity: The overlooked advantage
According to Vaibhav Rathi, fly ash and slag are already well established in cement and construction (C&D), but construction and demolition waste remains underutilised. “C&D waste is a growing business opportunity which not many have taken up,” he said. India’s continuous construction and demolition activity creates huge volumes of waste, much of which contributes to air pollution, land degradation and material inefficiency. With the right processing and standards, this waste can be converted into useful construction products.
Rathi also pointed out that LC3 has a circular economy dimension that is often overlooked. It can use low-grade kaolin-rich clay left behind after high-grade clay is extracted for other applications. “LC3 is not only a low-carbon solution, but also a circular economy solution,” he said.
At the same time, he cautioned that LC3 in India is not yet cheap because it has not reached scale. Site-specific techno-commercial feasibility studies, supported jointly by development agencies and industry, could help companies assess whether LC3 production makes technical and financial sense at a given location.
Dr Purushottam added that India must address both low-carbon cement and construction waste together. “Both low-carbon cement and C&D waste go hand in hand. India does not have an option but to work on both,” she said.
Dr Aiyer called for policy shifts from both government and industry, including preferential purchasing of sustainable materials, minimum supplementary cementitious material requirements in public and public-private projects, and faster regulatory implementation. “If we can fast-track the regulatory standards and their implementation on the ground, that is the way to go,” he said.
From green ambition to green construction
Cement innovation is no longer only about chemistry. It is about systems. Low-carbon cement will scale only when technology, standards, procurement, finance, regulation, education and construction practice move together.
LC3 and other low-carbon technologies have shown promise. India has early commercial examples, strong research capability and growing market interest. But mainstream adoption will depend on whether demand can be created, regulators can be capacitated, standards can be embedded in procurement, and manufacturers can see a clear business case.
For a country building at India’s scale, the opportunity is enormous. Cement will continue to be central to infrastructure and urban development. The challenge now is to ensure that the cement used in India’s growth story carries a lower carbon burden.
Rakesh Rao
Participate in Cement Expo 2026 and discover how next-gen infrastructure can be built with innovations in cement.
JK Cement gained after being declared preferred bidder for the Gilund Limestone Block in Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, a lease area of 370.96 hectares. The firm saw its shares trade at Rs. 5550.05, up by 28.45 points or 0.52 per cent from the previous close of Rs. 5521.60 on the BSE. The scrip opened at Rs. 5569.15 and touched a high of Rs. 5625.00 and a low of Rs. 5531.00.
The stock recorded turnover of 1742 shares on the counter and the BSE group A stock with face value Rs. 10 has a 52 week high of Rs. 7565.00 on 20-Aug-2025 and a 52 week low of Rs. 4670.05 on 12-Jun-2026. Last one week high and low stood at Rs. 5625.00 and Rs. 5329.00 respectively. The promoters holding in the company stood at 45.66 per cent, while institutions and non-institutions held 40.61 per cent and 13.73 per cent respectively.
The e-auction conducted by the Government of Rajasthan resulted in the company being declared preferred bidder for the mining lease, and the allocation will enable the company to plan phased development of the deposit, subject to regulatory approvals. The Gilund block spans 370.96 hectares and its allocation is intended to support raw material security for the company’s cement operations in the region. The designation follows the government auction process and will allow the company to plan development and integration of the deposit into its supply chain.
The current market capitalisation stands at Rs. 430.38 billion (bn), reflecting market response to the mining news and prevailing valuation levels for the sector. Investors and analysts will watch for formal allotment and related disclosures that can clarify timelines, capital expenditure and expected production profiles. The report is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice, and market participants are advised to consult advisers before making decisions.
