Conclusion The possible variants vary with the extent of...

Conclusion The possible variants vary with the extent of property interconnection, possible financial benefits to the state, but also the extent of financial risks. The first option would mean that, after paying the agreed amount, the state (or the state entity) would completely take over the mining project. Any potential profits would be the revenue of the state budget. The state would, at its own expense, complete the exploration work, evaluate it and decide whether to start mining or not. The state would have to make all necessary permits and start massive investments of the order of billions of crowns in the preparation of mining and processing of minerals. So the state would have to bear all the risks. The issue of public support would also be a problem. The state could not provide funds directly from the budget for this entrepreneurial activity. This would most likely be illegal public support. The investment would have to be a standard loan. However, the assets of the aforementioned state-owned enterprises would probably not have been able to obtain a sufficient amount of credit. Therefore, a state-owned entity that is sufficiently proficient to fund the project must be involved. The second option is basically similar to the previous variant, with both profits and risks being split based on the state's share of the project. The third option would mean the lowest income of the state, but also zero business risks. Based on the market price for the resulting product, the state could adjust the rate for the extracted mineral, and this revenue would be coupled with tax revenue by the State's income from the mining project. Other possible risks related to lithium mining in the Czech Republic are described in the annex to the analysis.