A few thoughts, 1) When someone pops up in here, with opposing...

A few thoughts,

1) When someone pops up in here, with opposing opinions, take it as valuable chance to question your investment. If you can rationally dispel their argument, your investment is better for it. HC downramping have little effect on the SP.

2) Having net zero carbon emissions is very doable. Firstly, AGY's approach will already use significantly less energy and water than the likes of ALB and SQM for their operation. Does anyone serious think they will be shutting down SQM over environmental concerns any time soon (even if water use issues in the Atacama is a very real issue)? These traditional brine operations are fuelling the EV expansion. So when AGY comes along with even more environmentally friendly efficiency, I only see it as a plus for the company.

'Argosy Managing Director, Jerko Zuvela said “We have a successfully proven, proprietary and environmentally friendly clean lithium technology to produce battery quality lithium carbonate with low impurities, meeting ESG requirements with a low carbon footprint of low fresh water and energy usage, sustainably producing at a scale no other junior lithium company is currently able to achieve, and currently in construction phase for the 2,000tpa operation, with development plans for an additional 10,000tpa production expansion.'

3) In addition to the inherent process efficiency, there is the Altiplano 208MW solar plant being constructed next door which would provide a true zero carbon emission balance (no difference between geothermal or solar for pushing around electrons). So I find the argument on environmental grounds aimed at AGY illogically especially when its full steam ahead for the likes of the far less environmentally friendly giants as the world goes into a lithium deficit for the next few years.

4) In regards to VUL, my short glance at it has,
* Very high valuation ($1.5B)
* Trying to build a brine operation in not only a very environmentally regulated Germany but also in a very populated part of the country is far more problematic than in the desert. There is opposition to the VUL project from some green groups, as they recall what happened for example to the town of Staufen where drilling damaged local infrastructure. Whether these concern is founded or not, what is clear is that VUL is far more at risk from environmental issues than AGY in that juristication.
* The projected output from VUL isn't huge in the scheme of supply/demand. 15kt of hydroxide by 2024 and expansion out to 40kt possible beyond that. Still needs DFS study, looking for about $1 billion in funding..is that worth a $1.5 billion valuation?

I'll take AGY with its 10kt of carbonate, modular approach at the $90 million valuation I got in on.