Integrated Silicon‑to‑Wafer Platform — Master Plan
A wafer‑first industrial platform connecting resource validation, energy, silicon metal, captive polysilicon and solar‑grade monocrystalline wafer manufacturing — structured as a multi‑partner, stage‑gated development, not a single‑owner mega‑project.
Executive Summary
Uz Silicon Tech is a development‑stage concept for a multi‑partner industrial platform in Uzbekistan, built around solar‑grade monocrystalline wafers as the strategic output. Upstream polysilicon — up to a conceptual 100 kt/year — exists to feed that wafer output, not to be sold as a standalone commodity. The platform is organized as independently evaluable work packages — geology, energy, silicon metal, polysilicon, crystal growth, wafer manufacturing, EPC, and finance — rather than a single vertically‑owned mega‑asset.
This version (v2.0) supersedes the earlier polysilicon‑centric master plan. It repositions the primary product toward wafer output, converts fixed calendar dates into gate‑linked milestones, separates confirmed facts from candidate assumptions, and removes any implied partner commitments that have not been documented. It is written to be read at two depths: an executive layer for rapid orientation and an evidence layer inside each section for technical and financial due diligence. This is Uz Silicon Tech's current conceptual Master Plan.
Strategic Thesis
Standalone polysilicon is a commodity business with thin, volatile margins set by the lowest‑cost producer. Wafers capture the value that raw polysilicon sales do not — crystal growth, slicing and finishing are where format, quality and customer qualification create defensible margin. The platform's logic follows from this: build validated, cost‑competitive upstream capacity, but size and govern it primarily to feed captive wafer production, with open‑market polysilicon sales treated as a secondary, opportunistic channel rather than the core business case.
Wafer‑first positioning
- Crystal growth, slicing and finishing are the value‑capture stages.
- Polysilicon quality specification is set by wafer/cell qualification requirements, not by commodity‑grade minimums.
Captive feedstock logic
- Up to 100 kt/y polysilicon is a conceptual upstream scale, sized to the wafer platforms' feedstock need.
- Not presented as an approved standalone plant capacity.
Multi‑partner by design
- No single EPC contractor, technology supplier or state guarantor is assumed.
- Each work package can be evaluated, financed and contracted independently.
Primary Product — Monocrystalline Wafer
The platform's commercial product is a solar‑grade monocrystalline silicon wafer, produced via Czochralski (CZ) ingot growth followed by diamond‑wire slicing and finishing. Exact wafer format (dimensions, thickness) will be set during technology selection to match qualification requirements of prospective cell‑manufacturing customers, and is not fixed in this document.
Why wafer, not polysilicon
Commodity polysilicon pricing tracks the lowest‑cost producer, currently Chinese integrated capacity. Wafer manufacturing adds a qualification and format layer that is harder to commoditize and carries materially higher margin per kilogram of contained silicon when product is qualified with a downstream customer.
What remains open
- Exact wafer thickness and format — technology‑dependent
- Monocrystalline (CZ) confirmed as target route; alternative routes not evaluated
- Customer qualification pathway — see §15
Integrated Value Chain
Eight work packages connect candidate quartz resources to a qualified wafer product. Each is independently evaluable — select a stage below for its technology route, energy demand, current Gate 1 status, principal risk and the partner profile it requires.
Circular view
The same eight stages, shown as a closed loop — output flows clockwise from resource to market, with enabling infrastructure (energy, water, logistics) serving the ring from the center.
Uzbekistan Upstream Platform
The land‑use table below is an illustrative legacy envelope carried over from earlier planning work — not engineering‑derived. Solar land area in particular scales directly with the firm‑capacity figure that §7's load study has not yet produced; until that study is complete, every figure below should be read as a placeholder shape, not a site plan.
| Land use | Legacy indicative area | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated solar generation | Legacy placeholder: ~1,800 ha | TBD — depends on load study |
| Wind buffer zone | Legacy placeholder: ~500 ha | TBD — depends on load study |
| Polysilicon + MG‑Si core | Legacy placeholder: ~250 ha | Candidate regions only |
| Wafer plant | Legacy placeholder: ~120 ha | Site TBD |
| Gas / BESS / substation | Legacy placeholder: ~40 ha | TBD — depends on load study |
| ZLD / water / logistics buffer | Legacy placeholder: ~90 ha | Site TBD |
Resource Validation
Candidate quartz sources require independent sampling, beneficiation testwork and a JORC‑ or NI 43‑101‑compliant resource statement before any resource claim can be made. Chemical composition data exists for two candidate sources; a bankable resource statement does not.
What is confirmed
| Source | SiO₂ | Al₂O₃ | Fe₂O₃ | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nurota vein quartz | 98.74% | 0.45% | 0.02% | High purity — candidate |
| Jerdanak quartzite | 97.72% | 0.77% | 0.12% | Illite impurity present |
Source: Tashkent Chemical‑Technological Institute (Nomazov & Aripova, 2025). SiO₂ levels are consistent with MG‑Si feedstock requirements; this does not by itself confirm polysilicon‑grade suitability.
What Gate 1 must still establish
| Item | Requirement | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Boron & phosphorus (B/P) | Most critical impurity for polysilicon; target <0.1 ppm B, <0.3 ppm P (indicative) | Not yet measured |
| Post‑beneficiation purity | Pilot beneficiation test to confirm route toward 6N | Not started |
| JORC‑compliant reserve | ~12+ drill points, 150–200 m depth, ~6 months | Not started |
| Extraction cost | $/tonne, to validate feedstock cost assumption | Not started |
Energy & Utilities
The full chain — MG‑Si, polysilicon, and wafer growth — is power‑intensive and requires firm (uninterruptible) supply; CZ crystal growth in particular cannot tolerate second‑scale outages. A dedicated power pathway, not grid‑only supply, is treated as a hard requirement rather than an optimization.
| Component | Status | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Firm industrial capacity | Load validation required | No figure is quoted until an integrated load study is complete — see below |
| Electricity cost contribution | Load validation required | Depends on the load study and generation mix, not yet fixed |
| Energy platform CAPEX | Load validation required | Scales directly with firm‑capacity requirement once known |
| Indicative CO₂ intensity | Generation‑mix dependent | Directional only; depends on the gas/renewable split, not yet selected |
Energy portfolio — generation is not the same as firm industrial power
A critical distinction this platform must not blur: a solar farm rated at a given nameplate capacity is not the same as an equivalent amount of continuous industrial power. Solar and wind are variable; CZ crystal growth and CVD reactors require firm, uninterruptible supply. The generation portfolio must be converted to firm capacity through storage, grid firming, or dispatchable backup before it can serve the industrial load.
Industrial load categories
Six load categories make up total platform demand. Energy quantities are not stated here — each requires its own energy‑intensity benchmark and mass‑balance calculation, to be produced as part of Gate 1's Energy Model. Each card also shows what that stage produces and where it goes next, so energy‑in and product‑out read together in one place.
Water/ZLD is grouped under Balance of Plant here because it is a utility serving all production stages, not a production stage itself — see §9 for its own process architecture.
MG‑Si & Polysilicon
Five process stages convert quartz to polysilicon feedstock. Route and equipment supplier are not yet selected; figures below are industry‑typical, not vendor quotations.
| Stage | Process | Core equipment | Energy (kWh/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Carbothermic reduction | SiO₂ + 2C → Si + 2CO, ~1800°C | Submerged arc furnace | ~11–13 |
| 2 · TCS synthesis | Si + 3HCl → SiHCl₃ + H₂ | Fluidized‑bed reactor | ~5 |
| 3 · Distillation | Fractional purification — removes B, P, metals | Distillation columns | ~8 |
| 4 · Siemens CVD | SiHCl₃ + H₂ → Si, ~1100°C, rod growth | Siemens‑type reactors | ~45–50 |
| 5 · Sizing & QC | Crushing, quality sorting, packaging | Cleanroom, automation | ~2 |
| Total, to polysilicon | — | — | ~70–75 |
Closed‑loop by‑product recovery
STC → TCS recycle
~96% target recovery, indicative — reduces purchased chlorine and feedstock cost.
H₂ / HCl recovery
~99% / ~90% target recovery of off‑gas streams, indicative.
Zero Liquid Discharge
~98% water reuse target, indicative — expected requirement given water constraints at candidate sites.
Ingot & Wafer Technology
Wafer conversion is expected to be delivered through a prospective international manufacturing structure rather than built solely within the Uzbekistan platform — see §11–12. The process route itself is common industry practice regardless of which entity operates it.
| Stage | Process | By‑product handling |
|---|---|---|
| Ingot growth | Czochralski (CZ) monocrystalline pulling | Off‑cut / seed remelted into feedstock |
| Slicing | Diamond‑wire sawing to wafer thickness | Kerf loss recovered where technically viable |
| Cleaning & sorting | Wash, quality inspection, packaging | Connects to ZLD water system where co‑located |
Capacity & Material Balance
How a conceptual 100 kt/y polysilicon scale maps to an indicative 45–55 GW/y wafer output. Every conversion factor below is a range, driven by technology choice, yield and product format that are not yet fixed.
| Variable | Depends on |
|---|---|
| Wafer thickness | Technology and market segment selection — not fixed |
| Kerf loss | Wire diameter, slicing technology generation |
| Crystal‑growth yield | CZ puller technology, operator experience curve |
| Process yield (upstream) | Furnace/reactor design, feedstock consistency |
Industrial modules & internal demand architecture
Each stage below is shown as a self‑contained module: energy input, feedstock, and external‑sale option as text fields, followed by a compact input→process→output→next‑stage flow diagram. The pattern is consistent across the chain — each module's flow ends in designed downstream demand inside the platform, not an open‑market sale. This is a structural design choice, not a signed commercial guarantee: it becomes real only as each module is actually financed, built and qualified.
Material flow with internal demand
International Wafer Platform #1
Candidate geography: Türkiye
Türkiye is under internal evaluation as a possible location for wafer manufacturing and EU market access, based on its customs‑union corridor to Europe. This is a strategic‑logic assessment on Uz Silicon Tech's side only. Uz Silicon Tech has not initiated outreach to any Turkish company, institution or government body in relation to this concept. No location, partner, or financing exists.
What would need to happen next
- Energy cost and availability for CZ‑grade firm power
- Site logistics to feedstock and to EU export corridor
- Incentive and customs regime confirmation
- Initiate dialogue with a credible counterparty
- Market access terms into EU solar demand
International Wafer Platform #2
Candidate geography: MENA
Egypt and the wider Gulf/MENA region are under internal evaluation as a second possible manufacturing location, positioned to reach Gulf, African and South Asian demand. This is a strategic‑logic assessment only — no specific country has been selected, no counterparty has been approached, and no jurisdiction is confirmed.
How Platform #1 and #2 would be compared
- Delivered energy cost per kWh
- Logistics cost and lead time to feedstock
- Investment incentive regime
- Customs/trade terms to target export markets
- Availability of a credible, financeable counterparty
Consortium Architecture
The platform does not depend on a single EPC contractor, technology supplier or state guarantor. The nodes below are open capability packages to be evaluated and contracted independently — none is pre‑assigned to a named organization unless a documented agreement exists. Select any node for a short summary — nothing here opens a new window or leaves this page.
Gate 1 Framework
Gate 1 is the validation stage that must be substantially complete before any scale, siting or financing commitment. Each line below states what question is tested, what evidence or test is required, who validates it independently, the pass/fail criterion, indicative duration and cost, and the consequence of a negative result.
Status count only — no completion percentage is calculated or implied. Each area is either evidence‑based or not; there is no partial‑credit methodology behind this count.
| Validation area | Independent validator | Pass criterion | Duration | Status |
|---|
Market & Qualification Strategy
Output routes to market predominantly as qualified wafer product, not as open‑market polysilicon. Two demand pathways are under internal evaluation: a candidate Türkiye‑based platform accessing EU solar demand under customs‑union terms, and a candidate MENA‑based platform accessing Gulf, African and South Asian demand. Neither is a confirmed location or agreement.
| Route | Demand driver | Status |
|---|---|---|
| EU (via candidate geography: Türkiye) | Non‑China supply diversification, EU solar manufacturing incentive programs | Candidate geography — no agreement |
| Gulf / MENA / South Asia (via candidate geography: MENA) | Regional solar buildout, country not yet selected | Candidate geography — no agreement |
| Open‑market polysilicon | Secondary, opportunistic — not the core case | Not pursued as primary |
Development Scenarios
Three scenarios replace the single fixed‑figure model used in v1.x. Figures not yet supportable by evidence are marked TBD rather than estimated.
| Parameter | Conservative | Base | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Polysilicon scale | 30 kt/y | 60 kt/y | up to 100 kt/y |
| Wafer output | ~14–17 GW/y | ~27–33 GW/y | ~45–55 GW/y |
| Firm electricity demand | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Water demand (ZLD basis) | TBD | TBD | TBD |
| Own‑scope CAPEX | ~$1.8–2.2 bn | ~$3.0–3.6 bn | ~$4.0–5.4 bn |
| Build duration (illustrative) | ~2.5–3 yrs | ~3–3.5 yrs | ~3.5–4 yrs |
Build‑duration ranges are indicative post‑FID construction estimates only. They are not yet linked to permitting timelines, grid‑connection lead time, water infrastructure delivery, long‑lead equipment procurement, technology licensing, financing close, workforce ramp‑up or customer qualification — each of which can independently extend the schedule.
Financial Framework
Revenue depends on realized wafer price, polysilicon‑to‑wafer yield, kerf loss and qualification status — not on a polysilicon commodity price alone as in v1.x. The polysilicon cost basis below remains a useful cost anchor even under wafer‑first positioning.
| Polysilicon cost basis | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Cash cost | ~$5.8/kg | Indicative, energy‑model dependent |
| All‑in break‑even | ~$7.8/kg | Above typical China commodity pricing (~$6/kg) |
Wafer economics — status of the model
The polysilicon cost basis above is the only cost anchor currently modeled. A wafer‑first strategy requires a wafer‑level economic model, which does not yet exist. The components below are listed to be transparent about what is missing, not to imply figures that have not been produced.
| Wafer economics component | Status |
|---|---|
| Wafer ASP (average selling price) | TBD |
| Ingot conversion cost | TBD |
| Slicing cost | TBD |
| Consumables (wire, crucible, etc.) | TBD |
| Kerf‑loss value / recovery credit | TBD |
| Yield sensitivity | TBD |
| Product rejection / scrap rate | TBD |
| Customer qualification cost | TBD |
| Ownership split (candidate manufacturing structure) | TBD — no agreement exists |
| Wafer plant OPEX | TBD |
| Wafer‑level EBITDA | TBD |
| Uzbekistan — international platform transfer price (feedstock) | TBD |
| Logistics cost to candidate international wafer geographies | TBD |
Sensitivity framework (structure only — no point estimates)
Until real figures exist for the table above, the direction and rough leverage of each variable can still be stated honestly. This is a qualitative map of what will drive the model once it is built — not a substitute for building it.
| Variable | Effect on wafer‑level margin | Leverage |
|---|---|---|
| Wafer ASP | Direct, linear — the single largest revenue driver | High |
| Crystal‑growth yield | Higher yield lowers effective feedstock cost per wafer | High |
| Kerf loss | Every point of kerf loss raises polysilicon consumed per wafer | High |
| Qualification outcome | Binary‑like: unqualified product cannot access premium ASP at all | Gating, not gradual |
| Electricity cost ($/kWh) | Compounds across MG‑Si, polysilicon and CZ stages | High |
| Ownership split (candidate manufacturing structure) | Determines what share of wafer‑level margin returns to Uz Silicon Tech | Medium‑high |
| Logistics cost to candidate geography | Erodes margin on feedstock transfer; smaller effect than the above | Medium |
| Product rejection / scrap rate | Direct loss of otherwise‑sunk processing cost | Medium |
Own‑scope CAPEX (Target scenario)
| Component | Indicative CAPEX |
|---|---|
| Quartz resource development | ~$0.1–0.2 bn |
| MG‑Si (arc furnace) | ~$0.4–0.5 bn |
| TCS synthesis | ~$0.5–0.7 bn |
| Distillation / purification | ~$0.5–0.7 bn |
| Siemens CVD reactors | ~$1.8–2.2 bn |
| ZLD + closed‑loop STC | ~$0.4–0.6 bn |
| Land + core infrastructure | ~$0.3–0.5 bn |
| Own‑scope total (sum of above) | ~$4.0–5.4 bn |
| Wafer plant (candidate‑geography structured) | ~$2.0–4.0 bn — prospective international manufacturing partner scope, not Uz Silicon Tech balance sheet |
| Energy cluster (PPA‑structured) | ~$2.5–3.0 bn — proposed energy‑partner scope, PPA basis |
Risks & Mitigation
Risk positions below plot likelihood against impact. The single largest risk is coordination, not any individual technical unknown: four largely independent commitments — polysilicon route, international manufacturing structure, energy supply, and offtake/qualification — must align, and no single participant can force that alignment alone.
The heatmap above is a visual summary — each point is keyboard‑focusable and touch‑friendly, with an accessible label, and clicking or activating it jumps to and highlights the matching row in the table below, which remains the accessible, authoritative version of the same data.
| Risk | Category | Likelihood (1–5) | Impact (1–5) |
|---|
Roadmap & Decision Gates
No calendar date is committed. Each stage begins only once the prior gate's evidence requirement is met — scroll to view the full sequence.
Employment, Skills & Industrial Footprint
The integrated silicon‑to‑wafer platform could create a significant industrial employment and skills‑development requirement across its upstream, core‑process, utility and downstream manufacturing activities. At the current Pre‑Gate 1 stage, however, employment and land requirements cannot yet be presented as approved project KPIs.
The ranges below are preliminary order‑of‑magnitude planning assumptions intended to define the scope of further workforce, localization and site‑engineering studies — not commitments. Actual requirements will depend on process configuration, automation, plant scale, shift structure, outsourcing strategy, localization, technology selection, site layout and the final geographic allocation of crystal‑growth and wafer manufacturing capacity between Uzbekistan and candidate international platforms (see §11–12).
Top‑level planning indicators
An earlier internal hypothesis of 8,000–15,000 for peak construction workforce is not shown as a project indicator here — it requires package‑level validation before being usable for any purpose.
Preliminary operational staffing envelope
| Module | Preliminary FTE range | Geography | Scope note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quartz & Beneficiation | 120–320 | Primarily Uzbekistan, subject to resource location | Direct module operations only; avoids double‑counting shared services | LOW |
| MG‑Si | 250–650 | Uzbekistan — conceptual | Direct plant operations; shared central maintenance/logistics excluded | LOW |
| Polysilicon | 600–1,200 | Uzbekistan — conceptual | Direct process operations for conceptual scale up to 100 kt/y; shared services reconciled separately | LOW |
| Crystal / Ingot Growth | 400–1,000 | TBD | Direct crystal‑growth operations only; automation level not selected | LOW |
| Wafer Slicing & Finishing | 550–1,300 | TBD | Direct wafer manufacturing only; linked to the conceptual ~45–55 GW/y wafer conversion architecture | LOW |
| Energy Platform | 80–250 | TBD / potentially distributed | Direct energy‑platform operations; construction workforce excluded | LOW |
| Water / ZLD / Utilities | 100–300 | Co‑located with relevant operations | Water treatment, recovery and shared utility operations | LOW |
| QA / Laboratories / Logistics / Warehousing | 180–450 | Multiple sites possible | Shared support functions only; must not duplicate module‑level staffing | LOW |
| Engineering / Administration / HSE / Security | 180–450 | Multiple sites possible | Central/shared functions only | LOW |
| Total preliminary range | ~2,500–6,000 | — | Sum of the above, full platform, all geographies | LOW |
Geographic allocation
Uzbekistan Platform
- Quartz / Beneficiation
- MG‑Si
- Polysilicon
- Shared infrastructure
- Potential additional downstream scope — under evaluation
International Manufacturing Platform(s)
- Potential crystal growth
- Potential wafer manufacturing
- Market‑access‑related downstream configuration
Construction workforce
Peak construction headcount is not presented as an approved KPI here. It requires a specific calculation chain, shown below, that has not yet been performed.
Peak construction headcount is different from permanent operational FTE, and different from cumulative job‑years — adding construction phases together to produce a single employment total would be misleading. Future reporting should distinguish peak construction headcount, construction job‑years, permanent operational FTE, contractor FTE, and indirect/induced employment as separate figures.
Gate 1 / pre‑FEED workforce study requiredIndustrial land envelope
- MG‑Si
- Polysilicon
- Crystal/wafer where applicable
- Shared utilities, water/ZLD
- Substation/energy interface
- Warehousing, internal logistics
- Administration, safety buffers
Legacy planning reference: approximately 2,000–3,000+ ha, depending materially on solar/wind mix, generation capacity, capacity factor, storage/firming architecture, grid connection, PPA structure, co‑location strategy and site geometry.
Simple conceptual arithmetic combining the industrial‑core envelope and the legacy energy‑land reference suggests an order‑of‑magnitude range of approximately ~2,400–3,700+ ha before site engineering.
Skills architecture
Operations
- Process Operators
- Technicians
Engineering
- Electrical Engineers
- Mechanical Engineers
- Chemical / Process Engineers
- Automation & Controls
Technical Services
- Maintenance
- Water / Utilities
- Data / Digital Systems
Quality & Safety
- QA / Laboratory
- HSE
Support Functions
- Logistics / Warehouse
- Management / Administration
Role categories only — no percentage split across groups is assigned at this stage.
Workforce development pathway
- Local recruitment potential
- Vocational training requirements
- University / technical‑institute cooperation
- Specialist international recruitment during ramp‑up
- Technology‑supplier training
- Operator certification
- Maintenance capability development
- HSE training
- Process‑control and automation skills
- Progressive localization of specialist roles
Workforce localization strategy is to be developed once process and technology configuration becomes clearer. No university, ministry or training institution is named as a partner without a documented agreement.
Gate 1 deliverables
| Area | Deliverable | Basis | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment model | Module‑by‑module staffing model | Technology configuration + automation + shifts | To validate |
| Geographic FTE allocation | Uzbekistan vs. international platform staffing | Final value‑chain allocation | To validate |
| Construction workforce | Peak headcount + job‑years | EPC labour‑hours + schedule | To validate |
| Industrial land | Site‑layout‑derived land requirement | Process layout + utilities + logistics + safety | To validate |
| Energy land | Generation footprint | Integrated energy model | To validate |
| Skills / localization | Skills‑gap and localization plan | Final staffing model | To validate |
Legal Disclaimer & Evidence Register
Evidence register
"Documented" below means a specific, checkable source is identified. It does not certify that Uz Silicon Tech has independently verified the citation against the primary document. Items without a checkable citation are marked "Reference identified — verification pending", not "Documented".
| Evidence ID | Claim | Source / basis | Verification status |
|---|---|---|---|
| GEO‑001 | Nurota / Jerdanak quartz composition (SiO₂, Al₂O₃, Fe₂O₃) | Tashkent Chemical‑Technological Institute — Nomazov & Aripova, 2025 (institutional study, not yet data‑room linked) | Reference identified — verification pending |
| GEO‑002 | Uzbekistan Critical Minerals List includes silicon / HPQ | Public strategic minerals classification — Mirkamalov et al., 2025 | Reference identified — verification pending |
| ENG‑001 | Process energy intensity figures (kWh/kg by stage) | Industry‑typical benchmarks, not a vendor quotation | Estimate — not project‑specific |
| FIN‑001 | CAPEX ranges by component | Industry‑typical benchmarks and comparable‑project data | Estimate — not project‑specific |
| IMP‑001 | Counterparty identity for either candidate international manufacturing geography | No outreach initiated, no counterparty approached | TBD — no counterparty |
| ENR‑001 | Energy partner identity | No documented counterparty agreement exists | TBD — no counterparty |
| GOV‑001 | Ministry of Investment, Industry and Trade engagement | Formal written response, Ref. 05‑94‑94‑1‑1184/18, dated 15 July 2026 | Documented — reference on file |
| GEO‑003 | B/P impurity levels at candidate quartz sources | Not yet measured | TBD — not measured |
| GEO‑004 | JORC‑compliant reserve statement | Not yet commissioned | TBD — not commissioned |
This public conceptual document is a summary, not a complete evidence package. A structured evidence log (document title, author, date, page/table reference, data‑room location and reviewer) remains to be compiled and maintained as validation progresses. External users should not treat the summary register as independent verification.
Sources: TKTI quartz study (Nomazov & Aripova, 2025); IEA / pv‑magazine / Bernreuter polysilicon industry data; public comparable‑project benchmarks. This v2.0 document supersedes the previous v1.x Master Plan and is the current conceptual Master Plan. Its project metrics remain subject to appropriate validation, engineering and independent feasibility work.