Now for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about the...

Now for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about the mining industry, and has granted him/herself a self-imposed right to determine what qualifies to represent an entity and what doesn't, you don't seem to know much at all.

You mention, "negotiating access to state-owned resources on new code concessions is not standard across these companies" on your chart. Well I hate to break it to you but in most mining jurisdictions around the world a country's mineral resources are the property of the state, not the concession holder. And LPI was granted access to the Maricunga salar via its privately-owned mining concessions. It didn't negotiate access. In terms of a development and export quota (CEOL or CCHEN quota), LPI makes application for a quota with the respective government agency based on the size of the resource/reserve, which it has the right to do for both the old and new code concessions.

You go on to say "These negotiations may result in terms which have a significant impact on the economics of the resource (e.g. providing a 50% free carried interest to a state owned mining company). This is completely different." What a load of garbage. LPI does not have to negotiate with anyone. You are confusing new entrants and government owned leases on salars controlled by government agencies or corporations eg Atacama and Perdenales with what applies at Maricunga. I will say it again, LPI's old and new code mining concessions are privately owned.

LPI established a JV with Codelco years ago to jointly develop the Maricunga salar but because Codelco dragged its feet, LPI decided to go solo for stage 1 of the project. Part of the JV deal was Codelco had to define its resource at Maricunga. It only completed is first exploration program in May 2023. There will be no free carry for Codelco, none. Any transaction will be based on project valuation, with Rothschild currently conducting DD on behalf of Codelco.

LPI's position at Maricunga has not changed as a result of the new lithium policy and what you wrote in your last post is just another misrepresentation of the facts. Being honest, a number of LPI top or near 20 holders would prefer if you dropped LPI from your charts as we vehemently disagree with how the resource/reserve is represented. If the numbers are NI 43-101 and ASX compliant for reporting purposes than who are you to say differently.

Please remove the LPI data form your charts