Great points raised by everyone, but I think the broader picture needs more attention. In my view, I totally agree with @ProCapitalism the sale of Mt Marion was a massive strategic failure. Retaining even a minority stake could have provided consistent cash flow and a secured feedstock for developing and commercializing our lithium chemical process. Instead, we’re left relying on expensive external trials and partnerships, which seem to deliver little tangible progress.
Had NMT invested in building its own R&D facility in Perth, it could have worked consistently on improving its process while keeping full control of the IP. With Mt Marion, we would have had a clear integration of tangible assets and cost-effective innovation -> a strategy that aligns with the future of mining: combining real assets with processes that have a greener CO2 footprint.
The current approach—relying on trials at external parties—poses significant risks. While patents protect some aspects of the process, we’re constantly sharing knowledge with these paid R&D organizations, potentially enabling them to create new insights outside of NMT’s reach. This weakens our competitive edge and limits the value of our IP in the long term.
At this stage, I struggle to see how NMT will achieve sustainable commercialization. We’ve seen 15 years of pilot trials, shifting focus from spodumene to brine, from carbonate to hydroxide, yet no real momentum toward consistent revenue. It feels like we’re perpetually educating others on our processes while burning through cash.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
