"factually incorrect", page-6

metoo_5:

What you're missing is that the article was published in 2011 - just over 2 years ago. That article was roundly condemned by Nick Curtis and others from Lynas, and all the Lynasheads here on HC, as being highly inaccurate reporting, completely false, and who were these "engineers" that alleged that the pipes were wrong and wouldn't stand up to the abrasive slurry.

Now, 2 years later, we're told in the quarterly report, that some of the pipes in the cracking and leaching unit need to be replaced because they didn't stand up to the abrasive slurry.

So was Nick Curtis just being coy at the time, or did he just not know, being a banker rather than an engineer? Eric Noyrez SHOULD have known - after all he oversaw the building of the LAMP and worked for Rhodia before Lynas - he IS an engineer. Was Curtis telling deliberate lies just to put SMSL off the scent? (It didn't)

So now, 2 years later, it would appear that the NYT article from 2011 may have actually got it right after all. In which case, Lynas would appear to be in gross breach of continuous disclosure rules, and would appear to have built the LAMP having taken some "short cuts".

Whichever it is, this is NOT good news for Lynas and the ASX should be looking into their compliance with continuous disclosure rules, as information like that most definitely WOULD be price-sensitive and should have been announced to keep the market and shareholders informed.

But then we all know just how Lynas's compliance with continuous disclosure goes, don't we? They sit on the information until the next quarterly report - the minimum required by the ASX. But that is not CONTINUOUS disclosure. That is INTERMITTENT disclosure.

So the whole point of Sarco posting that article is to highlight that it may very well have been accurate, despite what Lynas told us and the market.

Got it now? ;)