"the US of A is not going to let an Australian company, albeit a...

"the US of A is not going to let an Australian company, albeit a frickin huge one, own or control that entire chain."

No, it will encourage other countries to join the supply chain also. From a Reuters story today: "Another key issue is strengthening supply chains of critical minerals, especially rare earths, of which Vietnam has the world's largest deposits after China, according to U.S. estimates, officials said.Two people familiar with the plans said an agreement on rare earths was expected during Biden's visit, which ends on Monday when he flies back to America."

I hope you aren't spending your children's inheritance while under the misapprehension that the US government can dictate to its capitalists where they can buy raw materials. This is not Russia, Apple and Tesla are not run by oligarchs. Well, at least not Apple. Trade with North Korea is prohibited, and Cuba does not have the "most favored nation" status that China has held for decades. But otherwise, even the supply chain for Russian uranium is alive and well. (Because Australian and American miners think of it as a "penalty.")

How much does it cost to put ore on boats from Australia to China, compared with putting it on trains from Wyoming to Texas? And once it's on the boat, how much more just to keep going to Texas? And how much carbon is burned by that train? They're putting sails back on ships, you know. But I agree that freight from Hudspeth County, Texas, would cost less than freight from Laramie, Wyoming. So let's go green, with the mythical plans to dictate supply chains.

You don't need me to tell you the value of Halleck Creek (where "resumes" is a better word than "commences"). The market is telling you that, with your ADR's meant to pass muster with Nasdaq at $4 selling for only $3.75.