Agre@Ddog157 sorry to sound like a pedant, and yes I absolutely know what you're getting at. Other risks are minuscule by comparison.
I will offer a different view on finance though - while I'm on board that 3 years is getting pretty frustrating and I think that comms have been less than ideal, I just think that even though as you say it's not super expensive, it is a bit more complex than usual which justifies the wait.
1. The 'deal' structure is complex - We aren't building a plant in North America that tips rocks we got from a mine down the road into some acid we bought locally, to produce a standardised commodity we flog to a battery maker down the road.
2. The impetus for the financiers is different to normal - we are not exclusively dealing with private financiers who, because of time value of money reasons, want to get to first revenue quick. We're dealing with the DFC in the mix, which is not motivated by total return but strategic imperative and are less time sensitive therefore.
We are proposing sourcing inputs from a mine we're still building in a less developed nation, that we are shipping around the horn of Africa, building a facility in a middle eastern nation (albeit one with good cause to be friendly to foreign investment and a benign US relationship), to manufacture a commodity which is yes, established but less well established than other mineral commodities, for a battery market that's only just now moving into the first stages of maturity. Part of that investment case relies on rubidium/caesium, which, while we understand is super lucrative and strategically attractive, is sourced from a virtually opaque market. And we are looking at cheap finance from DFC which, as mentioned, is government directed and less inclined to hit the accelerator than private finance if they smell bulk dollars - they want to ensure strategic benefit. And as some of the naysayers on here have mentioned, while there isn't 'no' market for lithium micas it's not super attractive as a fall back if all the pieces don't come together, which needs to be considered by government and private finance alike.
Frustrating though it is, because of the above I think there is good reason for the delay in finance and not something I'm 'suspicious' of. And in short, I think the geopolitics and verticality of the supply chain structure being proposed are what is driving that. It will require care and diligence to weave all the threads together.
Having said all that, you'd think it was all too hard but as I've otherwise said, we are looking at very impressive project economics despite in my view, some conservative long term price assumptions in the updated DFS, plus an excellent 'narrative' to support the product - low ESG, ethical sourcing etc.
Good luck to us all and wishing for an LPDOD Christmas in June miracle.
