Conducting Project Feasibility Studies

After the dinner I organised between Chinese investors and Saudi officials, a Saudi advisor messaged me. "The dinner was excellent. But the Chinese laughing loudly at how the Arabs were eating hot pot was inappropriate. It could damage the partnership." I had already noticed this during dinner and quietly addressed it with the Chinese delegation. They were genuinely surprised, in Chinese culture, laughing together over food mishaps builds rapport. They thought they were being warm and inclusive. But in Arab business culture, laughing at someone's unfamiliarity with food can be read as mockery, not friendliness. Both sides had good intentions. Neither understood how the other would interpret the moment. This is why I spend so much time on cultural briefings before bringing delegations together. One moment of misunderstood laughter can undo months of relationship building. The Saudi officials remained professional throughout, and the Chinese investors sent enthusiastic follow-up messages about collaboration. To an outside observer, the dinner looked successful. But I know that trust develops or breaks in these small cultural moments, not in formal negotiations. My Saudi contact is now arranging cultural training for Chinese workers joining an Aramco project next month. We'll use this as a case study, not as criticism, but as learning. After twenty years of facilitating cross-border partnerships, I've learned that cultural intelligence determines deal success far more than financial terms. The consultants who studied the Middle East will never catch these moments. Cultural fluency comes from being in the room, reading the signals, and managing both sides in real time. Successful partnerships require someone who understands what each side actually means, not just what they say. #CrossCulturalBusiness #MiddleEastBusiness #SaudiArabia #ChinaBusiness #CulturalIntelligence #InternationalPartnerships #BusinessStrategy #GCCMarkets #DealMaking #BusinessNegotiation #GlobalBusiness #MarketEntry #BusinessLeadership #StrategicPartnerships #CulturalAwareness

I’ve watched companies spend £500k proving they could build it... ...and £0 proving anyone would buy it. Here’s how feasibility over-investment plays out… → They form a squad → Design the architecture → Spend weeks testing if it can be built And 99% of the time? It can. Engineers are smart, they'll find a way. But here’s the part no one talks about: Feasibility is the least risky part of any new product bet. The real danger? ↳ No one wants it. (Desirability) ↳ It can’t make money. (Viability) And that’s where most teams take blind leaps. If you’re serious about becoming product-led; this is where it starts. ❌ Stop betting the roadmap on conviction. ✅ Start testing your riskiest assumptions before a single line of code is written. When I coach teams, we do three things: 1️⃣ Write down the bet we’re making 2️⃣ Map out what must be true (desirable, viable, feasible) 3️⃣ Test the biggest risks fast and cheap Because the most expensive way to learn… ...is to build the wrong thing beautifully. --- I'm curious, how much are you investing on testing desirability and viability?

Japan scores 92 out of 100 on Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance Index. That's not a fun fact. It's their operating system. Ever since I came across Geert Hofstede's work in business school, it's been with me when I deal with Japanese clients. (For context: Hofstede surveyed over 100,000 IBM employees across 40 countries to map cultural dimensions in business. The research began in the 1970s and spans decades — his son still continues it today. The patterns hold. Japanese organizational behavior hasn't fundamentally changed, especially when you deal with large companies.) While Western companies reward "moving fast and breaking things," Japanese organizations are built to prevent things from breaking in the first place. Here's what that actually looks like: → Extensive feasibility studies before any project starts → Multiple internal reviews across departments → Requests for certifications, references, and test data → Questions about what happens when things go wrong This might feel bureaucratic. But the fact of the matter is: This is how the Japanese protect themselves — and their careers. The Japanese language doesn't even have a direct word for "risk." But it has multiple words for "uncertainty" — all including the character for "safe" (安). That tells you everything. When your Japanese counterpart says "we need more information," they really mean it. They're trying to answer the question their boss will ask them: "What could go wrong — and how will we handle it?" What you can do: → Provide local case studies and references upfront → Show detailed implementation plans, not just benefits → Explain your after-sales support structure → Be transparent about past failures and how you resolved them → Offer pilots, factory visits, or trial periods Most companies see Japanese due diligence as an obstacle. Smart negotiators see it as a roadmap to exactly what their counterpart needs to say yes. Reduce their uncertainty. Move projects forward. That's how you actually get to YES in Japan.

In every household, there is a person who stacks the dishwasher like a Scandinavian architect and a person who stacks it like a raccoon on meth. In every cross-cultural project, there are people who follow systems and templates and people who creatively forge a path. How do you load the dishwasher? Silverware up or down? Bowls in the front or the back? For some, it’s just domestic comedy. For others, it’s a frustrating debate. And what does this have to do with dealing with emotions and cultural differences? I once worked with a project team including people from Brazil, Germany, and the United States. They got stuck on something as simple as a product launch checklist. The German colleagues insisted: every step needed to be documented, signed off, and followed in order. The Americans were focused on speed and outcomes – “good enough” to hit the deadline. The Brazilians? They improvised, adjusted in real time, and expected the others to stay flexible. This is where Justin Bariso's 𝘿𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙍𝙪𝙡𝙚 can be helpful: There’s more than one way to load a dishwasher. That’s Emotional Intelligence (EQ) in action: recognizing that people have different styles, and our job as leaders isn’t to micromanage, but to create psychological safety. Stanford professor Michele Gelfand extends the dishwasher metaphor to Cultural Intelligence (CQ). Some cultures (like Japan or Germany) are 𝙩𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 with lots of rules. Others (Greece or Brazil) are 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚 with more flexibility. That’s why what feels 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 to you might feel 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙚 to someone else. Jessica Stillman sums it up nicely in a recent article for Inc. Magazine (🔗 link in my comment below). Now, let’s add the third element I work with every day: AQ (Adaptability Quotient). What happens when your way of loading the dishwasher – or running a project, or leading a team – clashes with someone else’s? Do you double down, or do you adapt so collaboration can move forward? Without Adaptability, global projects stall. What makes a team successful isn’t deciding whose “dishwasher method” is right. It's about adapting to blend structure, speed, and flexibility. In global business, the dishwasher isn’t the only thing on the line. M&A deals, cross-border teams, and leadership trust often falter not because of strategy, but because of mismatched expectations and an inability to adjust. That’s why I talk about 𝗔𝗖𝗘-𝗤, the trinity of power skills: AQ+CQ+EQ Because whether it’s dishwashers at home or deadlines across continents, leaders who combine all three move things forward. 👉 When have you had to adapt your “default setting” to make global teamwork actually work?

If there’s one thing I’ve learned working on geospatial programs around the world, it’s this: technology is essential, but it cannot carry a GeoSpatial project on its own. The cultures around it determine whether the investment delivers real value. We focus a lot on platforms, data standards, cloud, and AI. These are all important pieces of the puzzle. But even the strongest technology struggles when the environment doesn’t support the behaviors needed to make it work. Across governments, national mapping agencies, and large-scale initiatives, the same lesson repeats itself. Geospatial projects thrive when a few cultural foundations are present: 🔹 A culture of sharing Teams that treat data as a shared asset move faster than those that guard it for influence. 🔹 A culture of inclusiveness Engaging voices beyond the GIS team leads to solutions that reflect how the country or organization truly operates. 🔹 A culture of collaboration Geospatial work crosses sectors by nature. When ministries and partners coordinate, alignment becomes a habit rather than a challenge. 🔹 A culture that accepts imperfect data Progress comes from iteration. Organizations that wait for perfect data rarely move. 🔹 A culture of trust Trust in leadership, governance, and each other is what keeps collaboration going when things get difficult. These cultural elements matter whether you’re building an NSDI, a satellite program, a digital twin, a national mapping platform, or the next wave of GeoAI capabilities. Technology accelerates. Culture sustains. Without both, the project simply doesn’t reach its potential. The true indicator of geospatial maturity isn’t how advanced the platform is. It’s how ready institutions are to work together around a shared understanding of place.

Renewable-Powered Battery Swaps: Unlocking Ship Electrification At Global Canals When discussing maritime electrification, the idea of mid-ocean recharging frequently emerges. It's a good notion except for everything about its feasibility, costs and operations, but there is a variant that makes sense. Full article: https://lnkd.in/guSKaB9r The Maersk McKinney Moller Center's recent analysis correctly concluded that battery-electric ships are viable and increasingly competitive, driven by falling battery prices, rising energy density, and easy integration of containerized battery packs onto vessels. However, their assumptions were already outdated. They used battery costs of $300 per kWh, whereas current grid-scale battery packs in China are available for $51 per kWh, dramatically improving the economics and expanding where hybridization will take hold to transoceanic ships. The recharging concept that was mooted again by several commenters when I published on the Maersk study suggests placing large wind farm and charging facilities in mid-ocean locations, allowing ships to carry smaller battery packs. Though attractive in theory, the harsh economic reality of offshore infrastructure quickly sets in. Marine engineering costs escalate exponentially. My rule of thumb is that infrastructure that costs $1 onshore typically rises to about $10 offshore, $100 subsea, and potentially over $1000 for deep ocean locations. Offshore projects only succeed under highly favorable or strategically critical conditions, such as offshore wind near dense energy demand centers or over high-value oil reserves, not in isolated, storm-prone regions like the Aleutians or mid-Atlantic. However, the broader concept of intermediate charging shouldn't be dismissed entirely. There's significant practical and economic potential for containerized battery exchanges at existing maritime choke points like the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Strait of Malacca, and possibly Gibraltar. These locations offer strong renewable resources, existing port infrastructure, predictable ship stops, and operational simplicity. Containerized battery swaps could easily integrate into routine ship operations, drastically cutting onboard battery requirements, vessel weight, and costs. The maritime industry should prioritize developing standardized containerized battery exchange solutions at these established chokepoints rather than chasing economically unfeasible mid-ocean charging stations. Collaboration among maritime stakeholders — ship operators, port authorities, regulators, investors, and suppliers — is essential. Pilot projects at locations like the Suez or Panama canals could rapidly prove the economic and operational case, paving the way for wider adoption and accelerated maritime decarbonization.

𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐕 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐚 𝐃𝐚𝐦 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 ⚡🚜 At Diamer Basha Dam, our fleet includes Volvo FX400/440 dump trucks, Hyundai 40Ton excavators, Volvo front-end loaders, telescopic handlers, drilling machines (DTH, TH), and a range of utility vehicles. Currently, around 40% 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒍/𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒇𝒖𝒆𝒍– c̳o̳s̳t̳l̳y̳ ̳a̳n̳d̳ ̳e̳n̳v̳i̳r̳o̳n̳m̳e̳n̳t̳a̳l̳l̳y̳ ̳c̳h̳a̳l̳l̳e̳n̳g̳i̳n̳g̳.̳ We have been evaluating how 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬 (𝐄𝐕𝐬) can transform our operations. The benefits are clear, but the key question remains: 👉 How do we sustainably charge these EVs? Charging through diesel or HFO generators is not a real solution. Instead, we are exploring a complete ecosystem: ·       𝐇𝐲𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 (solar + wind integration at site) ·       𝐁𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲-𝐬𝐰𝐚𝐩 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬(already proven in large mining operations worldwide) ·       𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 balanced against financial feasibility Our fleet operate 20-𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐬 (10 + 10) making 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐞 critical. While a 60-minute charge could fit into break time, if one cycle cannot cover haulage of 8-9 trips/dump truck, we face operational constraints. This opens a larger discussion: ·       𝐁𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 via 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞 vs 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 within 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞? ·       Is 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐰𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 the viable path forward for continuous operations? ·       How do we balance 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐯𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲? ·       What 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 can 𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐠𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 learn from each other on 𝐄𝐕 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

Feasibility of a utility-scale BESS project: 1. Site Selection Location Suitability: Evaluate the site for physical space, accessibility, and proximity to the grid connection point. Consider factors like land ownership, zoning regulations, potential for expansion. 2. Grid Connection and Integration Interconnection Requirements: Analyze the technical requirements for connecting the BESS to the grid, including voltage levels, power capacity, and grid stability. Grid Compatibility: Ensure the BESS can handle grid dynamics, such as fluctuations in voltage and frequency, and assess the system’s ability to provide ancillary services like frequency regulation or reactive power support. 3. Battery Technology Selection Technology Suitability: Compare different battery technologies (e.g., lithium-ion, flow batteries, solid-state) based on energy density, cycle life, efficiency, and response time to ensure the project’s needs. Thermal Management: Consider the thermal management requirements of the selected battery technology, including cooling systems and potential for thermal runaway. 4. System Sizing & Scalability Energy & Power Requirements: Determine the optimal size of the BESS based on the project's storage and power output. This includes peak load demands, duration of energy discharge, and frequency of cycling. Scalability: Assess the potential for future expansion and whether the system design can be scaled up to accommodate increased demand or additional storage capacity. 5. Performance and Reliability Cycle Life & Degradation: Evaluate the expected cycle life of the batteries and their degradation rate over time, considering the impact on performance and maintenance costs. System Reliability: Analyze the reliability of the entire system, including power conversion systems, inverters, and control systems. Ensure redundancy and fail-safes are in place to maintain continuous operation. 6. Control & Communication Systems EMS: Evaluate the control systems responsible for managing the charge/discharge cycles, ensuring optimal performance, and integrating with the broader energy management strategy. Communication Protocols: Ensure compatibility with existing grid communication protocols and consider the need for secure, real-time data exchange between the BESS and grid operators. 7. Energy Efficiency & Losses Round-Trip Efficiency: Calculate the round-trip efficiency of the BESS, considering losses during charging, discharging, and energy conversion. This impacts the overall economic feasibility of the project. Self-Discharge Rate: Evaluate the self-discharge rate of the batteries and how it affects long-term storage efficiency, especially for applications requiring extended storage. 8. Integration with Renewables Renewable Energy Compatibility: If the BESS is intended to integrate with renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind), assess the compatibility of the system in terms of variability in generation and storage. #BESS #Powersystem #renewable

Building Simulation cover article Informing electrification strategies of residential neighborhoods with urban building energy modeling Electrifying end uses is a key strategy to reducing GHG emissions in buildings. However, it may increase peak electricity demand that triggers the need to upgrade the existing power distribution system, leading to delays in electrification and needs of significant investment. There is also concern that building electrification may cause an increase of energy costs, leading to further energy burden for low-income communities. This study uses the urban scale building modeling tool CityBES to assess the electrification impacts of more than 43,000 residential buildings in a neighborhood of Portland, Oregon, USA. Energy efficiency upgrades were investigated on their potential to mitigate the increase of peak electricity demand and energy burden. Simulation results from the calibrated EnergyPlus models show that electrification with heat pumps for space heating and cooling as well as for domestic water heating can reduce CO2e emissions by 38%, but increase peak electricity demand by about 9% from the baseline building stock. Combining electrification measures and energy efficiency upgrades can reduce CO2e emissions by 48% while reducing peak electricity demand by 6% and saving the median household energy costs by 28%. City and utility decision makers should consider integrating energy efficiency upgrades with electrification measures as an effective residential building electrification strategy, which significantly reduces carbon emissions, caps or even decreases peak demand while reducing energy burden of residents. Details of the research can be found at https://lnkd.in/gSCi-W3k The article is co-authored by Tianzhen Hong, Sang Hoon Lee, Wanni Zhang, Han Li, Kaiyu Sun & Joshua Kace             #BuildingSimulation #CityBES #decarbonization #electrification #cover

Pre-Feasibility Study: A Key Step in Mining Project Development The PFS is a comprehensive analysis that evaluates the technical, financial, environmental, and social aspects of a mining project. It refines earlier scoping studies and determines whether a project is feasible enough to proceed to a detailed Feasibility Study (FS). 1. Geological and Resource Analysis Ore Geometry: Detailed modeling of orebody shape, size, and continuity using advanced geological software Resource to Reserve Conversion: Based on extensive drilling, sampling, and assaying, with classification of reserves following JORC, NI 43-101, or other international standards Grade Variability: Assessment of grade distribution and ore variability to ensure consistent production 2. Mining Design and Planning Mining Methods: Selection of suitable methods (open-pit or underground) based on orebody characteristics. Production Planning: Development of Life-of-Mine (LOM) plans, annual production schedules, and mining sequence optimization. Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Studies: Analysis of slope stability, rock mechanics, and water management for operational safety 3. Processing and Metallurgical Studies Processing Routes: Bench-scale and pilot-scale testing to determine recovery rates, beneficiation methods and concentrate quality Processing Plant Design: Preliminary design of processing flowsheets, equipment requirements, and mass balance calculations 4. Infrastructure and Logistics Site Infrastructure: Planning for access roads, power supply, water sources, waste management, and site facilities Logistics: Assessment of transportation routes and supply chain logistics for moving materials and products 5. Environmental and Social Studies Initial Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to identify potential impacts and mitigation strategies Regulatory and Permitting: Review of legal requirements, permits, and licenses needed for project development Social Impact Assessments: Engagement with local communities and alignment with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards 6. Economic Evaluation (Capex: Detailed estimates for infrastructure, equipment, and plant construction, including contingencies Opex: Comprehensive forecast of operating costs, including labor, energy, consumables, and maintenance Financial Metrics: Calculation of NPV, IRR, payback period, and cash flow analysis Sensitivity Analysis: Evaluation of project viability under different scenarios, such as commodity price fluctuations and cost variations 7. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Identification of technical, financial, and environmental risks, along with robust mitigation strategies to minimize potential impacts Purpose of PFS The PFS evaluates a mining project’s feasibility from technical, financial, and environmental perspectives. It equips stakeholders with data to decide whether to advance to the Feasibility Study phase or refine project aspect . #PreFeasibilityStudy #MiningProjects #Geology