Jasox I would concur with the observation of opposing views can...

Jasox I would concur with the observation of opposing views can make healthy debate and would encourage an active and insightful dialogue within all threads of the forum.

On most occasions people are just sharing their view and have no concern of a comment and how the comment is perceived, I will agree further that this might be the case here.
Yet some have opposing views which have a hidden or overtly obtrusive connotation that needs to be challenged.

In most cases my challenge is to seek clarification if not expressed through a question, is implied by the opposing view I hold up.
Which gives an opportunity for expression to extrapolate ones ideas so they can be heard and understood.

As I would hope that todays, yesterdays (and the day before) selling came from a buyer rustling the tree to see what drops out, or maybe that was just wishful thinking.
Yet I must concede that now the middle ground surrounding 1c has been seized the SP has a good chance of getting sold down to CR levels IMO.

If I have rubbed any holders up the wrong way yesterday it wasn't an affront to their person just the argument ( @Willowbanker ).
I think I was more annoyed at the SP driving (being driven) lower on some volume, and felt comments like consolidation wouldn't help the SP due to the negative connotations associated with such actions, yes.
But mostly to invite more dialogue to state reasons why they think the way they do ?

As in this example of consolidation:-
I believe the SP will have a value adding consolidation period on the back of positive announcements before the details of the complete funding package is released to market.
Which is not a consolidation of the SOI (which IMO would erode the value of the SP) before a funding package is released to market or is apart of the requirements of the funding package.

As for "in financing the project."

How would consolidation of the SOI make any difference and influence the ability of LPD doing it's job in a positive way?

Taking funding out of the equation and only address the thought SOI
SOI can't effect the chemistry of the products.
SOI can't effect how the product will be used.
SOI can't effect the importance of the chemicals.

And if the argument is based off,
SOI could effect how and who will fund the project,
I would like to retort, as it is my belief that is where lies a "black hole" in your argument of "in financing the project"
Let me paint a pitcher.

"In financing the project" as apart of the funding bundle for the P1 project the "Funding Pillars" (Off-take agreement holders' or Strategic Partners') need LPD to do a Consolidation (which I have never heard of before and it would be nice to read about companies that have been put into that position and understand the circumstances surrounding such an event. pls. cite ).

Let's say the "Funding Pillars" had their own internal mandate that dictates for them to only be apart of a funding package with companies of a certain Share Price, for LPD to be at that optimal mandated SP, a consolidation would need to occur.

What happen's when post consolidation the SP decreases to a level which is under the minimum SP set down by the internal mandate of the Funding Pillar. Because of short selling or a scare on the market (CoVid-19), whatever.
LPD would need to consolidate again to be within the optimal SP for the Funding Pillers SP mandate ? Further eroding shareholder value ?

No I don't think so, that is why I drew the parallel between the "in Financing the Package" consolidation of SOI, to be in conjunction with a CR.
Bringing my argument back around to the "HAD WE" only thought about the problem with having a consolidation before we are cash producing acronym (Having A Double Whammy Effect)

Let me continue.

"In Financing the Package" > "Funding Pillars" > CORNERSTONE INVESTOR.

So if that thought is extrapolated :-
Funding Pillar came to the LPD and said we want you to consolidate the SOI before we invest, we want to be a Cornerstone Investor.
That would mean an erosion of value from the consolidation of SOI.
That would mean they would be taking an active bundle of shares at a given price which would mean dilution of the SOI, right !
Question? Has LPD offered SH a discounted rate on shares during a CR?
If the answer is yes then I come to the conclusion of further Erosion of value.
Which is a "HAD WE" from my point of view.

@Willowbanker how else would you propose a "Funding Pillar" be involved with the funding of P1? Please don't fall back on I don't know what the package would look like. As you have thoughts on consolidation and companies participating in funding during those times, I would hope you have thoughts on how a funding package would look from your point of view. After all this is your can of worms.

P.S.
I think how it was implied in your post that JW would receive an offer with acclamation concerning consolidation of SOI before LPD is cash producing is a slap in the face to what JW stands for.
I personally think JW would not be party to any agreement where this type of tactic was used in funding negotiating.
He has track record of buying a mine to sure-up lepidolite supply where another supplier tried to use supply as a weapon during negotiations.
He's not a one trick pony in that regard as well can be seen during the pivot regarding the supply of sulphuric acid as in now we are building our own plant to sure-up supply.
I wouldn't be surprised if JW would let an offer such as "do a consolidation or else" drift in the wind.
He would have a few irons in the fire and I think that type of start to a relationship would be corrosive moving forward into a JV partnership.
From my experience, I have found relationships of that type of nature are toxic and will not last.
I have a better view of this companies partners, and I think JW does too.

Anyhow kind regards,
Best of luck.

LT-B1

Cheese-source did you see the SP ?