What the rocks have in them is proven: its long since been reduced to a matter of fact, and is not an issue generating uncertainty.
The fact of what the rocks have in them has ALREADY been proven sufficient, even using outdated 1950's technology for extraction, that SRSR's rocks are KNOWN to be "better" than potential competitors...
Part of that is true because SRSR has already done the work to duplicate and validate (and expand upon) the work done in the 1950's... and part of that is true because others have also recently tested their potentially competitive alternatives, enabling us in making comparisons that weren't possible before that work was done.
SRSR's work has identified "no barriers to extraction"... which is not true of some of the others... ?
So, that's not a bad starting position to be in, when demand for your commodity is growing rapidly, and you have a 100% ownership stake in what is already known to be both the "best" and the "largest" known resource that is able to be developed to meet future demand.
I think the knowns in hand already require that Nemegosenda makes WAY more sense to develop than not... The market needs it, and SRSR has the rocks.
However, that leaves two other elements in uncertainty that have yet to be resolved...
First: It's one thing to know the fact in the bottom line value using 1950s technology for extraction. It's quite another thing to know for a fact what the OPTIMAL VALUE might be, when using some one of many potential variants of more modern technology in performing various separations and post separation processing steps. And, there, things instantly become more complex... because there isn't a simple linear choice to be made. Each deposit is unique, and thus presents unique challenges and opportunities. Innovation is often necessary to optimally address both the challenges and the opportunities, particularly when they have the same source ?
Additional work in metallurgy being done now isn't about effort "validating the known value" as that has been described in relation to the proven use of 1950's extraction technology...
It is instead work focused on OPTIMIZING THE POTENTIAL... maximizing the value... given a wide range of possibilities in alternative approaches.
The difference in value is potentially huge. There is a very big difference between establishing 'another producer of a generic commodity product' and establishing 'a market leader in quality that sustains lower cost production than competitors'.
So, the metallurgy work is important... in addressing the value the rocks do contain.
SRSR would be being pound foolish to rush into concluding any deal, because one is shoved in front of them, if it is based on some lowest common denominator... in their partners "presumed" ability to maximize current and future value ?
What's in the rocks is known. Proven ability in extracting that value optimally is still both an uncertainty, and a variable...
It is nowhere near a certainty that all of SRSR's potential future partners are (or will remain) equally as capable as others in maximizing the current (or future) value the rocks contain, that, because of features in the rocks, "should" have them prove to be a source of a remarkable set of competitive advantages.
The rocks contain potential sources of advantage... but, you still have to prove an ability to realize that potential ?
I don't have any issues with SRSR being patient while enabling the Chinese in proving they're the right partners to work with. It appears they are a good match based on the congruity in market interests, as the Chinese are a primary source of growing demand. I'd still want to see proof of physical capability that matches the market interest, including proofs that they're able to do what needs doing to optimize project and product values in the long term, before agreeing to enable them in addressing the near term opportunity in ways that will close off other options.
I don't see anything in SRSR's behavior, thus far, that suggests to me that SRSR is in any way desperate to conclude a deal. Scott has been patient, thus far. I've advocated that patient approach, and applaud it. It appears Scott understands the value and potential of what SRSR owns far better than some in the market.
Of course, you should expect that would be true. I see plenty enough evidence that there is not a shortage of clueless idiots and overly impatient shareholders... including many who don't begin to understand the issues, or how the issues there are in the market... will tend to dictate requirements... in many things ?
I've noted that before in addressing timing issues... noting that timing will not be determined by shareholders impatience... or by efforts in fictionalizing deadlines... but by other factors.
The market has a growing set of needs... and there are clocks ticking, and timelines that need to be met... that address timing in investment on a scale vastly larger than that required to build one new mine. A single customers steel plant... will cost more than building a mine that serves a hundred plants ? So I expect Nemegosenda will be developed (because that makes way more sense than not) in time to enable production that will meet future demand growth.
The right partner for SRSR still will not be "one who can make it happen in time" but "one who can best optimize the value"... ?
SRSR isn't the one with primary timing issues and concerns...
Perhaps Scott is from Missouri.
So, "proofs" re partners ability in optimizing the value the rocks do contain and enable as potential is clearly the first issue...
Whether you choose to see that as a "glass half empty" issue instead of an issue of a "glass only half full, that is still in the process of being filled"... ? I don't think that is an issue of "fact" rather than a choice one makes in adopting a particular perspective. I still don't see anything in there that suggests I should care a whit about the opinions of silly people who posture that explorers should produce revenue, or those who don't know the difference between a mineral assay and a metallurgical study, or those who fictionalize timing issues.
The second issue... is optimizing the deal.
I don't see how you can get too far in addressing the second issue, without having already addressed the first well enough ?
It appears they've addressed a bit of that... already ?
I think it MORE telling that they've begun talking about "the deal" that is on the table... than that they've proceeded in doing the next round of work without yet having signed it. Both suggest nothing other than that things are moving the right way...
Its still true, always, that no deal is a deal until it is done. It's possible the metallurgy study work will be completed, without a deal following in its wake. It's also possible there isn't any real linkage between the partners effort in proceeding to do the metallurgy work, and the time lines on which they'll address completing the deal... other than the demonstration of continued cooperation revealed both in the agreement to proceed, and in the agreement to extend the exclusive period.
If China proves wholly incapable of optimizing the values that the content of the rocks clearly should enable realizing ? Then, it will be better for us to find a more capable partner. I still think it is pretty unlikely that will prove necessary, at this point. Technology now is a LOT better than it was in 1952.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
