InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 7
Posts 556
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/15/2014

Re: LegalObserver post# 3408

Friday, 04/01/2016 3:22:55 PM

Friday, April 01, 2016 3:22:55 PM

Post# of 10477
I also thought it was strange that they didn't mention Nevada. I listened to the replay so I couldn't ask. But what I would have asked is the following...If I was a LAC shareholder before the merger with WLCDF...what exactly did I get out of that. I'd just like an answer now that we have some perspective, out of curiosity.

Your second point is valid. But I would note that now with SQM as a partner, financing should be easier to come by...just by association. If you remember, Tom said that getting financing from a bank for a junior minor is very very difficult. And the equity they got from geological resources was essential to being taken seriously enough to strike a deal with a major player like SQM. He also said that they did not draw down on the loan and that no interest debt was being accrued.

I expect an outline of detailed milestones coming soon. And I expect, with SQM and the new board member's guidance, them to hit most of the milestones on time...or close. Hence the de-risking.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent LAAC News