LKE towards TOP-5, page-18443

Further to my point about the contract; we know it was modified as part of the dispute resolution process, but AFAICT there was little clarity provided to the market wrt revised milestones amd success criteria. The only hint AFAICT is the AGM preso still mentioning 2,500 tonnes (which, again, I can only assume is another sloppy typo and actually should read 2,500kg); indicating that this is still the requirement wrt to production of BG chemcials.
How on earth is the market supposed to track or evaluate targeted/required progress when essentially NO details are provided?
They can now repeatedly claim (to the market) “on time” and “to spec” etc without ANY actual accountability!
Imo something that is supposedly going to result in significant earn-in by a third party should be incredibly clear from the start, and the market updated if/when terms are renegotiated.
The mind boggles that clear details of the specific earn-in requirements have apparently not been communicated. Have I missed them? Anyone please clarify if you know more!?
Are they being deliberately vague to avoid potential further “disappointment” in case timing/criteria aren’t met?
Surely those with their hard-earned on the line have sought clarity on this? What did the coy respond with?
Sure makes it hard for us investors to commit $$ when there is so much unnecessary uncertainty, imo raising doubts about actual progress and actual potential.
Frustrating at best!


more than happy to be corrected btw

imo
Dyor