That's a good perspective, thanks. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that fresh eyes took a look and realised (as we all did long ago) that JP's communications around chloride vs carbonate have not been overly clear and that it needs to be completely demarcated into separate documents. I would like very much for this to the case, but perhaps am a little cautioned by how many junior projects I've seen where holders are blinded by the (real or apparent) excellence of the resource. That often resulted in holders overlooking the challenges of the economics, notably around capex requirements vs size of company (small companies simply don't have the asset base to take on large amounts of debt, or raise huge amounts of capital). It can't be ignored here either.
One thing they've definitely done well is the engagement with the local government and the local communities.
I was previously undecided whether they were dressing it up for sale (especially after the debacle over the performance oppies) or whether they were genuine about wanting to take it to production. The recent executive hires suggest the latter to me.
(20min delay)