Green Iron Investment Fund

$200M is available to scale green iron production in Australia. Must be Australian-based to apply.

Most applications fail at the merit stage — not eligibility. Let’s see if yours is competitive.
Google logo ★★★★★ 4.8 from 250+ reviews

If you’re working in green iron, steel decarbonisation, or large-scale downstream processing — this fund could accelerate your project. Up to $200 million is available for projects that reduce reliance on traditional blast furnaces, cut emissions, and build Australia’s role in the global green steel supply chain.

What Is It?

The Green Iron Investment Fund – National Development Stream is a $200 million program run by the Australian Government.

It backs projects that move Australia beyond raw iron ore exports and into green iron production — a critical step for global decarbonisation.

Why? Because steelmaking is one of the world’s biggest carbon emitters. If Australia can prove commercial-scale alternatives, it cements its role as a clean energy superpower.

This is the first funding round, with grants supporting pilot and large-scale green iron projects.

Who Is It For?

The program targets:

  • Large miners – looking to demonstrate low-emissions pathways for iron ore.
  • Steelmakers – aiming to decarbonise production or shift into green iron.
  • Technology developers – hydrogen-based direct reduction, electrified furnaces, or breakthrough processing methods.
  • Consortia – bringing together miners, energy suppliers, and end-users.

Applicants must be Australian-based and able to demonstrate scale, partnerships, and funding leverage.

What’s Eligible?

Funding covers projects that:

  • Develop green iron processing facilities (pilot or commercial scale).
  • Trial hydrogen direct reduction or electrification technologies.
  • Build enabling infrastructure — e.g. renewable energy, hydrogen supply, or transport logistics linked to iron production.
  • Strengthen supply chains and domestic processing capability.

Not eligible: research-only projects, very early-stage concepts, or business-as-usual upgrades that don’t transform emissions.

How Much Can You Get?

  • Up to $200 million is available across the program.
  • Co-funding is essential — applicants should expect to contribute at least 50%+ of project costs.
  • Projects must demonstrate deployment within a set timeframe, aligned to decarbonisation targets.

See program details on business.gov.au

How To Apply

  • The process is competitive — expressions of interest (EOIs) will be assessed, with shortlisted applicants invited to submit full applications.
  • Deadlines are strict — missing an EOI cut-off means waiting for the next round (if there is one).
  • Expect to provide:
    • Technical and commercialisation plans
    • Risk and project delivery strategies
    • Partner commitments
    • Detailed budgets and financials

How to Nail the Green Iron Investment Fund Application

Here’s the deal: strong applications read like construction is about to start. Clear plan, numbers that reconcile, evidence ready. Use the three headings the assessors score against, but don’t write like a brochure—write like a project manager who’s across the detail.

  1. Strategic alignment (40%)

    Open with one crisp paragraph that says what you’re building, where it sits, and the emissions it will remove. Name the pathway plainly—hydrogen DRI, electrified smelting, or your credible low-emissions route—and link it to Future Made in Australia, the National Hydrogen Strategy, and green-metals priorities using the program’s language.

    • Put place and permissions on the record: site, tenure, zoning, DA status, grid/hydrogen connection path, with dates.
    • Name partners and what they’re doing: energy supplier, EPC/EPCM, OEM, offtaker, research support—one line each is enough.
    • Show readiness: concept/FEED/design maturity, any pilot validation or referenced benchmarks.


    Then attach the proof the panel expects: letters of support (state/council/utilities/partners), DA evidence, consortium/MOUs. Use file names that map to the claim so an assessor can verify in one click.

  2. Economic value (40%)

    Lead with the money. Total capex (ex-GST), grant ask, your cash, and the leverage ratio at the top. Follow with throughput and impact—tonnes of green iron per year, $/t at steady state, and tCO₂e avoided per tonne against a blast-furnace baseline. If you’re export-facing, say where it goes (Asia/EU), at what indicative price, and the status of offtake (signed or in-principle). Jobs matter: construction job-years and ongoing FTEs, plus any local supply-chain uplift.

    In the form, keep the tables tight: split eligible vs ineligible capex, lock a commissioning date inside the window, and make sure benefits copy matches the model. The numbers must reconcile—scope → QS → CBA. If they don’t, you’ll bleed points.

    Back it with evidence: an independent QS (escalation and contingency tied to drawings), a CBA showing NPV/IRR/payback with two sensible sensitivities (e.g., ±hydrogen cost, ±steel price), offtake letters or market reports, and a workforce plan with method, not guesses.

  3. Risk & cost allocation (20%)

    This is where you make the Commonwealth feel comfortable. Call out the three big risks—technology performance, approvals/tenure, and cost/schedule—and show how each is contained. Outline the delivery model (EPC/EPCM), who holds what risk, how you’ll procure, and when. A believable program matters more than an optimistic one: a Gantt with milestones, critical path, long-lead items flagged, and a commissioning date that lines up with funding and offtake.

    What to upload: a risk register with owners and actions, a procurement/contract strategy (e.g., fixed-price after 30% design), governance chart with key CVs and decision rights, plus your environmental and cultural heritage evidence. If it isn’t evidenced, it isn’t de-risked.

Before You Hit Submit – Five Blunt Checks

  • Funding is evidenced (bank/facility/guarantee), not promised on letterhead.
  • Approvals are dated, with a realistic path to the rest.
  • QS, scope and CBA agree—no orphan numbers.
  • Offtake and energy inputs are credible on paper.
  • Commissioning lands inside the program window and long-lead items are accounted for.

Want a straight read on where you’ll score—and where you won’t? We’ll tell you in 15 minutes. If we can’t see 80%+ competitiveness, we’ll say so and show you what to fix before you burn weeks on a maybe.

Straight Talk: Eligible vs Competitive

Eligible just means you can lodge the form.
Competitive means you look like an A+ applicant with an A+ project. That’s the bar.

We know what that looks like because we’ve written hundreds. The difference is in the detail: no waffle, no generic promises — just tight writing against the merit criteria, numbers that reconcile, approvals with dates, funding evidenced, and demand locked.

Got a “B-grade” project? We can often frame it so it looks like an A — but that only works if the fundamentals are real. Weak alignment or vague funding won’t fly.

At Bulletpoint, we only back projects we rate 80%+ competitive. We either show you how to pitch it properly, or we tell you straight it’s not worth your time. That’s the choice: do you want to roll the dice with an internal writer, or go up against people who do this for a living?

And if you’re still reading — you’re already competing with us. 

The 10 Projects You’ll Be Up Against (Our Read of the Policy + Pipeline)

We’ve gone through the government’s green-metals policy line-by-line and mapped it to what’s actually moving on the ground. The Green Iron Investment Fund is built to back early-mover, scalable, low-emissions ironmaking that builds local supply chains—not science projects. It sits inside Future Made in Australia with a $1 billion envelope, including a significant Whyalla allocation but > $500 million for projects nationally. Prime Minister of Australia+3Industry.gov.au+3Industry.gov.au+3

Here’s the shortlist of project types we expect to compete hardest in Round 1. If your concept looks like one of these—and you can evidence it—we should talk.

  1. Brownfield steelworks conversions (BF → DRI/EAF) — Retooling an existing site to hydrogen-DRI feeding an electric arc furnace, with firm renewable/hydrogen supply and staged emissions cuts. Whyalla’s transition signals exactly this direction. Prime Minister of Australia+1
  2. Greenfield “green steel” complexes — New build DRI + EAF integrated with renewables/hydrogen, designed for rapid commissioning and export-grade product (rail, bar, plate). Policymakers are explicit about backing early movers that unlock private capital at scale. Industry.gov.au+1
  3. Export-oriented HBI (hot-briquetted iron) plants — Pellet + HBI trains sized at ~2 Mtpa with a pathway from gas to green hydrogen, positioned at deep-water ports for Asia/EU demand. EPA and state announcements show this class is advancing. ABC+1
  4. Magnetite-to-DRI precincts (renewables-anchored) — WA Mid-West style hubs using high-grade magnetite, large-scale wind/solar, and hydrogen to produce DRI domestically (value-add to ore; cut freight of waste). This is textbook “move up the value chain” policy. Industry.gov.au
  5. Mine-site green iron pilots — On-tenement demos coupling electrolysers + renewable power to prove ore-to-iron flows, de-risk technology, and build offtake confidence before scaling. Early Pilbara pilots fit this pattern. The Australian
  6. Electric smelting of Pilbara ores (ESF/NeoSmelt-class) — Electric smelting furnaces tackling Australia’s lower-grade ores; state support already committed for a national pilot at Kwinana. Expect copycats/variants. Western Australian Government+2ABC+2
  7. Queensland green iron (ore + hydrogen in Gladstone-type hubs) — Magnetite + planned hydrogen supply, leveraging established heavy-industry infrastructure to stand up exportable green iron. The fund explicitly welcomes projects beyond SA. Prime Minister of Australia
  8. East-coast decarb pathways at legacy sites — Interim hydrogen injection and staged DRI/EAF transitions at traditional steelworks to keep jobs, cut intensity, and create a bankable pathway off coal. Industry.gov.au
  9. Bio-carbon smelting routes (biochar/HIsmelt-style) — Replacing fossil coke with sustainably sourced bio-carbon in smelting, tied to firm biomass supply and credible LCA. It’s not mainstream, but it squarely fits the “innovative green metals” brief. Industry.gov.au
  10. Regional “green iron clusters” (multi-party supply chains) — Port-anchored ecosystems that bundle hydrogen, power, pellets/DRI, EAFs and offtake into one investable program—jobs, exports, sovereign capability. That’s the policy north star. Industry.gov.au

Our take: the winners won’t be the shiniest decks—they’ll be the projects that can show bankable energy inputs, credible offtake, QS-tight costs, approvals in train, and commissioning inside the window. The government has been clear: this fund is to bridge the first-of-kind capital gap and create real supply chains here, not subsidise business-as-usual. Industry.gov.au+1

If your project genuinely maps to one of these—and you can prove it on paper—we’ll give you a blunt competitiveness read. If it’s 80%+, we’ll back it. If it’s not, we’ll tell you what to fix before you burn months on a long shot.

If You’re Still Reading…

You probably already know what’s coming. Your job now is to herd the cats — finance won’t send numbers until the last minute, the approvals letter will get lost in someone’s inbox, and you’ll end up pulling it all together at midnight with a strong coffee and a weak smile.

That’s the reality of these applications. They’re always written at the last minute, with everyone promising “we’ll get you that by Friday” and you chasing like a sheepdog. If only there was a way to make it all go away — to have a running start, to know exactly which sections matter, and to avoid wasting nights wordsmithing “strategic alignment” until your eyes blur.

Here’s the thing: we know what you’re in for. We’ve lived it. And we also know how to short-circuit the pain. While you’re bracing for an all-nighter, we’re the ones who’ve already drafted, locked the evidence, and submitted a day early. We even leave in the odd spelling mistake on purpose — because this isn’t an English essay, it’s a grant application. You don’t win by hyphenating perfectly; you win by proving delivery.

So ask yourself — do you want to be the person in the boardroom at 11pm arguing over commas, or the one who handed it in already and is getting some sleep?

We only take on one client per round. One shot, one application, full focus. Will it be you — or the “other guy” she told you not to worry about?

We’ll be sitting by the phone.

Grant eligibility or competitiveness? Get a straight answer. Book a Free Strategy Call
Scroll to Top