Stellar performance today. Many happy holders no doubt. A few non-holders now however seem to be raising a few of their concerns.
Good replys all round by posters. But I'd like to add a few points too.
@Luke220585 - announcements should only be used when there is something material to announce. I feel like many micro cap companies have forgot this and seem to release Ann's for the sake of releasing Anns. Sure, short term traders and rampers love this but it is not our management's style. They are more a get on with the job, Ann when required and let the results speak for themselves type of directors. I personally prefer this. What we must understand is that no news is not bad news.
You mentioned ASN. If their Ann pattern is as loose as you mentioned, you might want to consider management's potential motivation for this kind of behaviour. Trying to spin every little detail is never a good sign imo.
You mentioned MOUs. I would strongly discourage taking/valuing them for anything more than simple discussions as they are non-binding and yield no withdrawal penalty to either party. Anyone can get (or pay for) a MOU. Some are out of mutual good faith, some out of desperation - although not saying ASN is. They mean very little. Thats the truth. Getting them to translate into a binding contract is another story. Keep that in mind when making investment decisions.
I also find it especially strange to me why a company would go and sign a non-binding co-op agreement when there is no meaningful geophysics (that I can find), no drilling, no resource info. and in a state without lithium history. How is it possible is properly gauge value in this situation? I fail to understand the logic of either parties and it is the first time I have seen a MOU signed in such a strange set of circumstances. The only reason I can genuinely think of is management trying to hype the project and spin it to uninformed investors. This is very critical of me I know, and if you disagree thats fine but please just think about it for a second before hating me.
p.s our projects have low resistance not high. Low is good. And yes, our website is 1990s themed but it is always up to date. I'm sure it'll get a facelift sooner or later but for now I think it does the job.
@1staretrader1 - lithium in brine aquifers will deplete over time. Much like how tea gets weaker the more hot water you add. I thought that was just common sense. Geof is good but he's not Jesus - he cant turn 1 lithium into 10. I doubt your Utah company (ASN thread is here if you got lost) can turn water into lithium for ever either.
Water rights is not a issue. I think most of us here have understood that. Yes it is fully allocated, but like Clayton Valley (which is over allocated), it is permitted for water department to overallocate - especially since the perennial yield is nowhere close to getting used up in the Columbus Salt Marsh basin. Directors also seem to want to go the direct extraction route. This further reduces reliance on water rights.
Bureau of Land Management haven't been a problem. We have received drill permitting at CM and Big Smokey South already. Akali Lake is slow true but we already have enough on our plate.
As for Nevada not being viable for lithium production: the last time I checked Silver Peak was operating very profitably. Albemarle seemed to think so when they paid 6.2B USD for Silver Peak owner Rockwood Lithium (with has other chemical assets too) a few years ago. If Silver Peak can mine lithium for the last 50 years at a profit why cant new players?
@Kyiap - this isn't a webpage design company I think you clicked on wrong thread. But just in case you ever decide to invest in micro cap explorers, value the asset rather than the website.
(20min delay)
