The reply you received to your question regarding why funding...

The reply you received to your question regarding why funding has not yet arrived was more speculative than analytical. The response canvassed a range of matters, some of which are irrelevant.

Funding Source
The responder asked why LPD is seeking funding from an organisation that funds projects for poorer countries (presumably referring to DFC), when Australia is trying to develop its own green practices.

The response fails to recognise that Namibia (where the mine is located) is indeed the country profile that meets DFC funding objectives.

The response ignores the fact that there is no operational business in Australia. Operations occur in Nambia and are planned for UAE, so Australia's green practices are totally irrelevant.

Funding for international projects typically come from international sources. The poster asks why it cannot come from Australia, but fails to offer any explanation. The explanation is in the first sentence of this paragraph. It is unnecessarily nationalistic to seek funding from only within Australia, where the capital and debt markets are much smaller than the rest of the world. The BoD has a responsibility to obtain the cheapest form of funding (consistent with it prudential responsibilities).

Timing
Taking the company from a chemical scientific idea to an operational demonstration plant over 7 years is not excessively long. At all times, the BoD has prudently progressed the development of the science, taking its time to base progress decisions on the fact-based results of its prior steps. There are many examples of companies that have over-stretched their development, only to end up having to repeat their work in a subsequent round, wasting investors funds and time. For many, it leads to bankruptcy.

Alternative energy storage sources will continue to be developed, but there is room for them all. The newer storage sources remain in development, as does lithium battery storage (eg solid state batteries), but they are more likely to be complementary and application-specific. Hydrogen for larger vehicles is an example, but there are also many examples of lithium battery powered trains and ships being brought to the market.

It is a fallacy that lithium is unavailable. As one of the cornerstone elements, lithium is abundantly available throughout the world. There are few chemicals more abundant.

Funding Unachievable
The poster proffers that funding may not be achievable and offers an illustrative example. The example fundamentally mischievously misrepresents how project financing is secured. It has nothing to do with the number or amount of previous capital raises. The question is better answered by experts in the funding field, which the poster appears not to be.

Lifestyle Stock
It is not clear to me what defines a lifestyle stock. There is no company that has "all the elements in check". The development of companies simply doesn't work that way (especially start-up companies). The progress of any company seeking to grow, expand its business and address competitive threats, has to include investment. In the case of LPD (which is yet to be earning revenue from production) it is through the use capital and debt.

Success Rate of Penny Stocks
The posters knows what it thinks will happen, but is unwilling to share its thoughts. It speculates about a takeover, but offers no reasons why.

Conclusion
The responder posts too many questions and inadequate analysis. It fails to actually answer your question. I see little value in it. Free advice is worth what you pay for it.