Interesting point you make (Hawk70)There is a "scattergun"...

Interesting point you make (Hawk70)

There is a "scattergun" pattern there for sure.
Possibly similar to this "Surefire" scattergun attempt to suggest that shipping Surefire con to the Middle East has any value in it.

remember an MOU is not binding.
so it's a document outlining a discussion with out commitment.
Unless there is a binding MOU with some meat on the bone. - which this does not seem to be the case.

Wack through the weeds and the lay of the land clears up.

With respect, what really do these Parties know about Vanadium production and more to the point, the cost drivers of V production.

Anyone can have an MOU to claim something.
it's only an "understanding" nothing binding nor does it show any reliable level of study to justify a solid bussiness case.


What are the assumptions behind claiming that this MOU has any merit to progress further. ?

we think, surely the company has done the work and crunched the figures to back up a bussiness case to support this " Understanding".

if so, let's see the bussiness case behind the MOU.

and hopefully we don't hear that the "dog ate the homework", when they need to show some details.

all this MOU does is keep people talking and keeps some hopes up that this MOU is progress.

When really, if you crunch the numbers from first principles it shows nil value, even at long term pricing of us$10/lb V2O5

Time will tell.

A possible suggestion - crunch the numbers and see what you get.

I hope that this is not to dismissive, but the numbers nor this concept of shipping con simply don't stack up.