Thank you for the reply jeunke. I would argue that these timeline changes are relevant. In Antwerp Mark gave two very rosy timelines for events investors have been waiting years for.
Regarding a completed feasibility study by the end of this calendar year, Jim very reasonably said in mid-october that the additional drilling and extra workload that the companies who process the samples we're dealing with would result in complete drilling results being delayed until the end of the year. It's just not reasonable to suppose that Mark did not know this at the beginning of October. In addition, this delay in drilling results would absolutely make completed financing by the end of the year impossible.
Regarding up to 9 and possibly more additional months for an exim decision, it's hard to imagine that a six week government shutdown alone is enough to cause such a delay. Also, I wonder why Mark has never offered a timeline for decisions from the other two export banks that will apparently be a part of the debt package?
It's really hard to draw any other conclusion than that Mark deliberately lied to a large group of investors in Antwerp. Conveniently, there was no recording of the event this time so shareholders probably won't raise it at the next town hall. And that's a shame.
I wonder what kind of timelines Mark offered individuals and entities who have been participating in the equity raises this year? I wonder how they are feeling?
And yes, there's plenty of good momentum here and that makes Mark's need to lie harder to understand. I'm also disappointed by investors who continue to turn a blind eye to year after year to Mark's lies and obfuscations.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
