External News & Commentary, page-52

It's not about meeting the resource world's definition of a producer. Its fact they have "produced" or were in "production" to get samples to clients/customers. Thus meeting the dictionary definition of "production"

Again that's down to interpretation, an I personally as an investor would say that it required production to obtain samples and based on pfs scale study will be a producer at the lowest cost globally.

We have a UNIQUE mineralisation here that allows extraction at lower cost than Brine or Spodumene. Looking at a closer relative to a clay based mineralisation LAC's Thacker Pass. LAC lacks the boron component. Thats what makes INR such a gem. Its not a bi-product its a co-product. An if LAC is running the same/similar mining flow chart to what we are, we have two products to their 1. Assuming that they get lithium out of clay we then also can grab the stockpiled clay based lithium only component and run that through for additional lithium production, making it an almost 3 to 1 outcome.

Based on the above information, if you put aside obtaining remaining offtake, sourcing finance or the possibility of new technologies that change that. At this point in time the product will be produced at a far lower cost than current methods. That's a non-debatable fact.

Yes offtake may see lower revenue or finance may see higher costs or a new technology could see a $500p/t producer in the future but the above remains at this point in time as a non-debatable fact.