You don't need a degree in anything to query how the economics...

You don't need a degree in anything to query how the economics of a CO2 capture scheme stacks up. It's a legitimate question because if direct air carbon capture is already in the order of US$150/t, and any carbon pricing will be significantly less than that, then to make digging up halloysite economical it will have to be used very wisely: eg resold after the capture (see below) or able to be used multiple times (which from latest announcements it seems possible but I don't know enough about how it would work economically)

I had some thoughts in this post how it could work for ADN: https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/general-comments-chat.4779186/page-17243?post_id=51928249

the tl:dr version is to capture the CO2 at the source of cement manufacturing (at up to 2t of C02 per 1t of halloysite), and then use that halloysite as a concrete additive to replace some of the concrete. So you take two separate bites out of the CO2 emissions, and sell the final product for an economically viable price. Separately we know both of these things are theoretically possible, but they need to be combined and then demonstrated at scale.

This is obviously not a short term project. If it was the main focus and revenue stream for the company I would be concerned, but as it's just one of a number of potential future applications I look forward to seeing the developments. If it works like this it would be incredible, but at the moment I would have it lower down the list than HPA in terms of priorities.