Yeah nice try rob.
I'm simply pointing out some facts, while you're off making new assumptions about what future expenditure might be.
There has been a significant amount of progress already made towards the feasibility study, btw. eg.MRE updates and hydrogeological dynamic modelling.
You are simply guessing with comments like this:
"To cover those costs, they’ll need to take steps to generate capital at some point."
...which you again present as a statement of fact when it is not necessarily so.
You like to do that; case in point is claiming that ATL can "do whatever they want" wrt their holding, when in FACT this is specifically contradicted by formal announcement by the company, and not necessarily supported simply because an escrow (third party) is not involved in the associated agreement.
Amazing what some people will do to push a FUD narrative!
Is it deliberate or just due to ignorance...?
DYOR everyone.
(20min delay)