The obvious potential problem with the new tenements is the...

The obvious potential problem with the new tenements is the relationship APC may have with the NT claimants and whether things have improved since the NT claimants appealed the EPA approval of LSOP. With the need to negotiate and the requirement to undergo the full EPA process again, access to the tenements is years away, not that this matters much with LSOP probably 3 years from production (based on the companies own presentations).
In the grand scheme of things the new tenements mean very little, investor interest and confidence in the sector is APC's main problem (as it is for the other WA potash companies). Despite company claims, the existing project is more similar to the existing (and struggling) projects than it is dissimilar. This is the problem in my opinion. Note APC and KLL are both using Corey Milne Consulting, this suggests similarities and the need for expertise related to processing techniques similar to those used by Compass Minerals. If CMC can sort out Beyondie it should give investors confidence that APC can do better from the very start.
Regarding the FID, I thought part of problem, as reported by the company, was the need to firm up technical parameters.
Would an official FID actually do much to improve the SP? You wouldn't want to see the company try and raise up to $200M at the current SP.
I think it's a question of waiting for the tide to turn. The SOP price, dollar, new tenements, revised NPV etc mean nothing at this point in time. If KLL, which is substantially bore field, using flotation separation, can ramp up, NAIF/other government lenders/commercial banks etc will be far happier about signing off the APC package. You would expect the APC SP to rise to a level that makes a large equity raise attractive to existing investors. Shackleton himself has basically said the other companies (without naming them) have done significant damage to the APC development schedule.