Malaysia PDF site, page-34

First I want to thank everyone's support here Appreciate it

If I'm getting this right, you are worried about Lynas not mentioning that they provided $34M to GSSB by June 30.

Likewise in the quarterly transcript, Amanda said how she had over a dozen sites (ie >=12) including the onsite option the IAEA recommended in 2015 but rather it was the Pahang government who denited the request, and instead wanted the Burit forest site.

Only speculation, but I presume the first site has a 50% of succeeding (ie not succeeding) from the news from Malaysiki. It's clear the 2nd site is better. The 1st site also was under the radar for corruption, so clearly Pahang doesn't want it anymore.

The 2nd site will probably succeed 90% now. Since the High Court denied the SMSL court case, + the government is under extreme heat from their coronavirus mishandlings, emergency powers and public contempt from the Kerajaan Gagal movement, if I was in Malaysia's shoes, I would first say the first site was NOT approved, but at the same time, the second site IS APPROVED, because they can say the first was environmentally damaging etc. The announcement for both EIAs will be placed together.

If they separate it, say the first not approved, then the next they approve it say 2 weeks later, the public will dislike the government for their backflipping (like YBY's backflip issues).

If they approve the first, theyll cop backlash.

It's clear theyll release both, ie prefably the first cancelled, but the 2nd for EIA public viewing.

But these are the main reasons why Lynas did not spend $34M on GSSB, because they know the first site is not plausibly going to succeed.

On the cash on hand, I presume they're preparing cash just in case of further issues. If if they have to fork money for more EIA contracting + they need cash for the $500M Kalgoolorie project, so I presume they're carefully putting money aside.