@2Chance. I value your discussion. However, I'm happy to...

@2Chance. I value your discussion.

However, I'm happy to disagree on some interpretation of information.

Firstly, I do not see LIT mention the past use of Hydrofluoric acid mentioned as a definite addition to Sileach.

Nevertheless I believe the industrial use of Hydofuoric acid, sodium fluoride or related chemicals are legal in most places around the world.

Take note that a PATENT APPLICATION is written with LEGAL ADVICE to DESCRIBE "a broad scope of possible related fluoride chemicals" that could be use in the Sileach process. It also describes a broad application to a range of lithium rocks, and lucky no one is complaining about that. A lawyer has a duty of care to cover all possibilities that are in the best interests of a company.

Otherwise, a competitor can substitute hydrofluoric acid instead of something like sodium fluoride, and with 20% other changes could avoid working with LIT or paying the royalty payment. I'm not sure if they could do it, but LIT has taken steps to reduce the chance if this. It is basically, a legal document to ensure investment in Sileach provides a greater chance of good returns to LIT.

LIT has legal advice as to the stated use of fluorides in Sileach. You can not argue with a lawyer. Most shareholders would like to think this is so. I assume this is your point of the discussion?

However, it may not prevent a licenced Sileach Plant somewhere in the world finding a cheaper supply of Hydrofluoric acid that may be substituted in the process. I believe it is legal. Maybe this is the concern of recent discussions from non shareholders, that the Sileach patent is covering all their bases to move forward?

I share your concerns if the location of a proposed Sileach plant had a bad industrial health and safety record.

Fluorides (@2Chance mentioned recently) occur in seawater, and since the sea has risen to cover the earth several times, it is concentrated in salt lakes and sedimentary lithium rocks. Hence, fluorides are likely present at low levels in both Sileach and Lmax processes!!!

This unusual discussion appears to have started with disappointed management of LPD not wish to be partners with LIT & with the takeover offer. It could cause LPD shareholder some distress if management try to discredit LIT in the media and the Sileach process again. LIT can make some easy money via very basic litigation. It is a concern as Lmax looks like it has a lot of potential and LIT is also a major shareholder. Fluorides are not illegal, but sabotage is a crime against property.

Finally, the World Health Organisation lists sodium fluoride (used in preventing children's tooth decay, water fluoridation and toothpaste) as an essential medicine in a Basic Health System. Fluoric acid produced (or as @2Chance has mentioned possibly added to maybe improve efficiency?) from Sileach process (or Lmax) can be neutralised using sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate, and it is done everyday and socially accepted.

In lure of the above, you can vote by either buying or selling LIT. It is interesting that several large investment banks have taken a position as shareholders.