The judge in the original court case ruled in favor of the...

The judge in the original court case ruled in favor of the mining easement for sodium chloride because simco owned the pre-1979 concession.. Then the appeal court upheld the original ruling and didnt comment on the old code concession as it relates to sodium chloride and lithium. Now the supreme court here rules that this final appeal is failed and because of this it upholds the original ruling for the easement to simco for sodium chloride mining concession that is pre 1979. Then the supreme court goes on to give a thorough explanation of why simco and MSB are not authorized to extract lithium unless they get CEOL or partnership with a government company. Then they go on to say that CCHEN approvals that simco and MSB have are not appropriate or valid for this situation because is meant to be about lithium relating to the atomic use.