"at a competitive cost (also assuming it would under cut MP, LYC...

"at a competitive cost (also assuming it would under cut MP, LYC and match China)"... that's the crucial question isn;t it. Lots of assumptions in a SS (which is really just a process +/- 50 to 100% capex/opex) to decide if the project has a chance of being economic and worth funding more detailed studies. Lots of assumptions that HCk is comparable to Mt Weld or Mountain Pass, which imo it is not. Right location, what we don;t know yet is where costs eventually fall when pilot plants are run and firm cost quotes are inserted into a bankable study that financiers independent experts will sign-off on...

The last minute improvement in met flowsheet performance (7% mass pull to leach-con) was a big lift in potential cost competitiveness verses the previous flowsheet of 16% mass pull. While I might opine that there is no data released on this improvement, and commentary in the SS from Stantec and met guys sounds more than a little circumspect on U Kent's flowsheet results, there is upside and downside risks. Why would LYC or MP buy into a risky unknown cost/margin deposit and risk their preeminent place as Tier 1 lowest cost ex-China producers until they were sure such a deposit was worth it? Not just that, where does the RE market prices and supply go over the next 5 years... they want to be sure that any acquisition fits into the market dynamics as well as their strategic plans.

Majors rarely move early on M&A for early stage, pre-permit projects unless they are lay down misere top tier, or have some compelling strategic fit imo. ARR look to have the classic Lassonde FS period ahead of them after a great run up on new met work and big MRE. This view doesn;t make me popular obviously, but that is the reality for most developers...

GLTAH