The biggest concern here is the depth. And coincidentally, there...

The biggest concern here is the depth. And coincidentally, there is no mention of pegmatite depth (only pegmatite interval) until page 10 of the document. Is that intentional? I would say yes. On average it appears to be 100-120m of waste rock on top of the pegmatite, which over 1200m strike by 600 width by 100m depth across a mafic unit (which they do not specify but likely basalt, amphibolite or something in a broad greenstone category), assuming basalt at 2.9SG, then they have ~210Mt of waste rock sitting on top of the pegmatite, and thats before accounting for additional tonnage required to be removed for creating the benches of the open pit, so potentially up to 300Mt of waste rock.
Further the lithium minerals are predominantly a mix of eucryptite and petalite (and the market prefers spodumene), which would require multiple separation phases in a plant to isolate (Eucryptite SG is 2.6 while Petalite is 2.4, hence why DMS is out and they've gone the route of floating). And finally, the market has been punishing to a lot of lithium explorers when results are less than 1% Li2O. However, the pegmatites are still open at depth so there is potential for additional tonnage deeper (although again, depth is an issue).

I would say market is not interested because A) depth, B) minerals and C) overall low grades.