@tendoji the other thing I would like to add, in my first embedded post I wrote this:
"
at the back of my mind, as I have asked a few times is how watertight are those third party supply contracts to WFE, but at this stage would appear they are ‘water tight’"
Now, your argument falls a bit if your saying WFE were constrained by the ASX in that they didn't have the licence, whilst I have suggested if they had the end market buyer Offtakes the licencing issues would self resolve IMO.
If you took your view to the other side - focus on inputs as against outputs - WFE has claimed it had watertight contracts with suppliers of ore feed to WFE to be used in the facility. If that is true then that suggests the issue of the licence was not a concern to the sellers of the inputs for WFE (and therefore the same concept applies to the Offtakes IMO). If that is not true, and therefore the lack of a licence, i.e. ownership of the facilities, was the condition that prevented Offtakes been settled, then the same must be said for the third party feed contracts supplying ore to WFE for the facility IMO (which by definition means IMO WFE were misinforming the market on how 'water tight' IMO IMO IMO those third party contracts were, which I doubt they were misinforming there, given the views expressed in the various Anns on that issue).
So at the end of the day, the fall in cobalt prices IMO is the issue why end market buyer Offtakes were not entered, and that sealed the fate of the deal IMO (not the ASX). And then the next question becomes why did WFE's twitter accounts and statement continue to suggest a 'deal and relisting' was around the corner for so long when without Offtakes there was no hope of meeting the ASX conditions etc etc.
We will never know, so IMO no point dwelling on the past IMO
All IMO
