That’s exactly the absurdity this legal action is highlighting. Auric (AWJ) doesn’t want to process lithium — but if they disturb ore containing lithium while mining gold, they don’t have a choice. Under the terms of the royalty, and subject to legal scrutiny, if lithium is encountered and disturbed, they are compelled to process it or face consequences. It’s not about wanting to process lithium, it's about the obligation triggered once it’s uncovered during mining operations.
This is what makes the situation a nightmare for Auric. Their gold pit overlaps a block of ultramafic rock — the same geological setting often associated with nickel and lithium mineralisation. Even if their focus is gold, they’ve already negotiated for access to mine through nickel ore suggesting the presence of complex polymetallic geology.
Now throw in ESR’s retained rights to lithium and associated royalty claims, suddenly, what was a “straightforward” gold project becomes a multi-commodity legal web.
As for your second question: no, ESR doesn’t need a mill or a full block model to assert their royalty. That’s not the legal threshold. All they need is for lithium-bearing ore to be intersected and moved. And once that happens, royalties are triggered. ESR’s position is backed by precedence, courts have enforced royalties on by-product minerals *even when they are not economically processed*.
The original $30,000 value was for the nickel rights, not the lithium. Those lithium rights were retained by ESR for a reason. Now they’re coming into play, and it’s Auric who will likely end up either settling out of court or being compelled to comply — at a much higher cost than 30k.
Bottom line? This is no longer about strategy. It’s about compliance.
