A plant can be 70% built and still be risky: how to assess Québec megaprojects
Construction percentage measures only part of risk. Québec2035 now tracks ten dimensions without hiding them in an average score.
Physical progress is one of the most visible indicators of a major project. A plant that is 30%, 50% or 70% built appears naturally closer to completion.
But in complex industrial projects, physical progress does not mean risk declines at the same rate.
Nemaska Lithium's Bécancour plant provides a useful example. In March 2026, Rio Tinto said engineering was complete and construction was more than 70% advanced while announcing a slower 2026 construction pace to optimize the execution plan. Some activities would continue, others would pause or be deferred, and contractor staffing would be temporarily reduced.
Source: Rio Tinto, March 13, 2026
The case illustrates a basic rule: a megaproject must be de-risked as a complete system.
Building the plant is only part of the equation
A processing plant depends on reliable feedstock, cost and schedule performance, logistics, product quality, customers and continuous financing. All of those conditions must work together.
A project can therefore advance rapidly in construction while retaining substantial risk elsewhere in the chain.
Compare different stages through the same gates
An advanced plant and a mine still in feasibility may appear incomparable. Yet events affecting them can be read through the same logic.
Funding road and power studies at Bégin-Lamarche reduces some uncertainty around future infrastructure. It does not secure permits, construction financing or sales. At Bécancour, physical progress is high, yet the proponent still identified a need to optimize execution.
Risk is not linear and cannot be reduced to a construction percentage.
Ten dimensions to track
Québec2035 now tracks each project across ten dimensions: resource or feedstock, studies, CAPEX, financing, permits, power, infrastructure, construction, market and offtake, and execution.
Each category retains its own maturity and risk status. An aggregate score would be misleading: a project advanced in nine dimensions can still be blocked by the tenth.
Four different risk configurations
Bégin-Lamarche has a resource and PEA plus support for studies and infrastructure, but feasibility, permits, complete financing and commercial proof remain open.
Terminal 5 has a defined core port need and scope, but authorization, out-of-scope interfaces, tenders and construction remain open.
PPAW2 has contracted capacity and a defined partnership, while the BAPE process, authorization, roads, collector system, grid connection and delivery remain on the critical path.
Crater Lake has a distinctive resource, but pre-feasibility, access, power, market and financing must still converge into an integrated plan.
These projects should not be ranked by one average. They should be tracked by the gate that can prevent the next decision.
From news tracking to maturity tracking
Most information feeds track announcements: a new study, funding, permit or agreement.
A maturity view asks what each event actually changes. A feasibility study can improve confidence in CAPEX, process and schedule. Infrastructure funding can reduce access risk without financing the whole project. An investment decision changes the capital dimension. A regulatory delay increases schedule risk.
This approach separates projects that cross real gates from those that merely accumulate releases. That distinction is essential to understanding what may actually be built in Québec by 2035.
The Québec2035 matrix is an analytical tool based on dated public sources. It does not replace technical or financial diligence, an authority decision or an investment recommendation.