"factually incorrect", page-17

First of all, sarc, that is a masterly use of english when you say "factually incorrect". I fear that it may soon become an oft used phrase when discussing further LYC announcements.

Secondly Fireflyau hits the nail on the head when they say that they don't believe anything they say without questioning their motives. How many other times have they "factually incorrected" to the market? Or, if not given factually incorrect information, then just not given ANY information where they should have done? With Lynas, it is clearly now a case of "we don't know what we don't know", so you can't ask any questions about it. Lynas seems to be inhabited by a group of Sir Humphrey Applebys.

Thirdly rob, it was the wrong stuff. 200% more wouldn't have helped - OK, the pipes might have lasted three weeks instead of one - but the pumps, valves etc would have failed just as quickly. Nor would the regs and codes cover such a specific installation - it's NC's "the engineering makes appropriate allowances for the function required of each pipe." that is totally "factually incorrect".

Only the bold and the wealthy should stay in Lynas now, IMO, until you can find out how well the plant is put together (almost total fail so far) and how well it performs (totally unproven so far). And before anyone says that it has produced REE, so what? All they've done is put the engine together and revved it to maximum once. There has been little opportunity for it to prove itself, or to find out what else will go wrong. You need several weeks if not months before you'll know it is all good.