Ann: Company Update - Key Developments, page-124

“Also it's 100% on the company in the delay of the EIA approvals. No if or buts about it. It's been ~1.5 years and the Government continues to ask for additional information in the application. It's clear there were details missing or not sufficient if the govnmt is asking for clarification.”

This is a clear illustration, imo, of a lack of understanding of the iterative process of govt review and approvals processes. Others have explained this to you and Rob, pay attention.
There are people on these threads who have direct experience with govt approvals processes, direct experience with mining operations and govt bodies including in South America, etc etc etc . They are explaining to you that those doing the reviewing of the EIA reports are sometimes/often relatively inexperienced and/or not very knowledgeable when it comes to specific factors relating to the content of such reports. This is completely understandable, considering the resource pool and relatively small nature of the specific Li Brine industry in Argentina. It is to be absolutely expected that there will be RFIs to clarify various aspects of the EIA, to enable the “pen pushers” to cross all the Ts and dot all the Is during their review and assessment process, as well as to help them communicate key points up the chain to the various “bigger wigs” that actually sign off on these things, but usually have very limited knowledge of the subject matter in any real detail.
The fact that the govt still requires some clarification is being pushed here as some “proof” that the company somehow hasn’t provided all the information required…. What a negative and nonsense oversimplification, especially when it it implied by some that the company has simply dragged its feet in adddessing these RFIs….!! The mind just boggles.

Get involved in the industry, get some experience with actually engaging with govt departments etc etc and actually SEE and EXPERIENCE what actually goes on…. Or otherwise refrain from making such nonsense and irrational claims like
“it's 100% on the company in the delay of the EIA approvals.”
That is absolutely an absurd claim afaict, and basing it on the fact that there are still some items requiring clarification, is actually ridiculous imo.
How about the far more reasonable “assessment” being that the govt reviewers have been taking their sweet a$$ time to get their heads around the detail, and are finally discovering some things they don’t properly understand as they are getting to the pointy end of a process that should have wrapped up already…? Oh, that’s right, the company should’ve just explained it all in simpler terms so that anyone could understand it all, yeah..?!
Riiiiighteo.


How about discussing the points made?????