I was simply referring to the legal response to such derogatory...

I was simply referring to the legal response to such derogatory HC posts. Surely unnecessary posts, but surprised there was any recognition paid at all. Not sure how your third point is related...major shareholders behind the legal response?

I think most shareholders appreciate the value of vertical integration, major and minor. A BAM producer having security of natural flake supply will obviously be better able to navigate price volatility in the event of likely supply crunches. Not to mention improved efficiency afforded by a centralised mechanical shaping hub to feed multiple BAM facilities, as alluded to - albeit a very long way off.

The 'change of plan' was not so simple. Kwinana appeared likely to proceed prior to Epanko production. BAM #1 is now evidently planned for elsewhere and dependent on Epanko. A major shift, which is fine if adequately reasoned and justified - it was not. I suspect a prospective major partner is directing from the sidelines, but that is speculation. A NA/EU BAM facility backed by a major partner seems preferable to going it alone in far-flung Kwinana. The change of plan itself is not a problem, the lack of clarity and poor execution/communication was. Holders are still in the dark and the SP is reflective of the damage. My sentiment will not improve until a detailed, cohesive BAM facility strategic plan is outlined. A gaping hole in the business model for 4 months now.