I don't think of the issues I raise as "negatives", but risks. Risks are not negatives, except perhaps to the stock price, but I usually confine my comments to the business and markets it's in. Hopefully you can grasp that distinction going forward.
Negatives include a lack of PR and transparency. That's not a risk, but a reality.
At this point I am hoping that they have a capex/opex for Condisoil and a Plan B and C, but have chosen silence for some strategic reason I still don't and probably won't appreciate. If they don't have those plans, that's a negative. At this point, it's a risk.
The reasoning behind NC's Malaysia choice was solid. The political risks suck, but don't change the economics until they do. Not negative until they do. COP in Laverton, WA or whatever would be much higher and there would still be political risks.
I haven't really raised any new political risks; I've simply tried to lead a discussion of them to expand my understanding. In fact, I've done better than that. I tried to talk people down from thinking an opposition win would be a brutal loss for Lynas. That was your position, clearly, never mine. We can go over that fact at length should you deny it; you would lose, of course.
I think that in the near-term, post anti-Lynas riot sentencing, it is important to continue keeping an eye on Wong Tack et al. Now he's clear of danger, which way will he go? He asked his followers to help him pay his fines and those of others in Himpunan Hijau and they are signing up and proving it by screenshots of their donation receipts. The comments are not yet disturbing, but I haven't looked today.
Back to reserves. You implied there were "decades" of non-AP ore reserves and I asked you a straight-forward question which you dodged. Is that still your position or have I caught you trying to bullshit everyone again?
