Actaully, I didn't have you, Harris541, in mind when making reference to the "pessimists" on this forum at all. I have no problem with views contrary to mine or anyone else's, so long as they are substantiated with facts or backed up with a semblance of logic. As for hidden agendas, well they are much harder to identify and expose. I just go with the flow these days.
As far as offtakes, collaborations and partnerships go, MOUs seem to be dim a dozen in this industry. However, in saying that, it doesn't mean that no legally binding offtakes or partnerships end up coming to fruition. Many JVs and agreements do eventuate, and such partnerships have to start somewhere afterall. Its also become widely apparent that the EV industry is going to have to be built on relationships, networks and supply chains for it to get traction. Building supply chains (or potential ones) has led to a plethora of MOU being signed. But what I think ESG (as essential as it is) has created is this added level of complexity that compounds the supply squeeze. Perfecting the ESG side of the equation is causing delays in getting anode material to the source of the demand... the OEMs.
MRC's ann regarding the MOU with Mitsubishi certainly read like MRC had been in detailed discussions with Mitsubishi for quite some time and certainly very progressed even before the signing of the MOU. The fact that Skaland is in production gives such an agreement more credence, IMO. The reason why I also think that a BOA with Freyr is also possible, is the fact that Skaland's operations have been and will be further upscaled in terms of output. There doesn't appear to be any reason to think otherwise, Harris. But for me to think that there are no agendas at work on HC.... well, now that would be naive! Besides, why can't a producer of a critical mineral have more than just one offtake partner? It pays to have an open mind too, Harris... does it not?
(20min delay)