de-riskThe fact that CRE lost HELM (or in other words the fact that CRE did not want to adhere to HELM's proposal) means that CRE is a free-agent (like someone else on this board pointed out). The issue with that is that the risk increased. There is always risk that they won't be able to sign another offtake (given their awesome feasibility study, I don't see how that's possible). Or the risk that they will sign an offtake but it won't be done at fair market value (like it was with HELM).
Which brings me to my next point. CRE management over and over praised their partner HELM and said that they (CRE) has the best off-take agreement in the lithium industry (at market prices, selling all products, they don't have to do any marketing/promotion/distribution, etc. etc.). They just have to get the stuff out of the ground and HELM will take care of the rest.
So again, can they find a replacement for HELM? And if so, can they find one "as good"?
It still makes me wonder what we "don't know". What was so bad about HELM's proposal?? Yes, lithium prices increased from 2015 but at the same time, was HELM not buying the lithium at the current market prices?? Maybe there was a clause (or price ceiling) of some sort and the current lithium price is much higher than that so CRE is not getting fair value for it. Who knows.
Last thing I wanted to point out is the fact that CRE worked "closely" with HELM on the Feasibility Study. Doesn't that mean that the study is geared towards HELM and their needs? I'm sure it's applicable accross the board, but I thought it was geared (or in other words "customized") towards HELM.