RE:RE:RE:Rio Tinto
Speculate as you wish...The objection by the landowner was because it was felt the lands were suitable for Ag and should not be considered for mining. NSW has done the right thing by taking a step back and considering the landowners and then allowing SCY to submit a revised application to exclude these lands which will allow proper consideration of the landowners objection...so far, so good.
The only fight the landowner can have is if the original mine lease is approved...I don't see that happening. I think it's in NSW's best interest to back off and hope that the landowner and SCY will come to agreement on the lands down the road and reapply.
As it relates to retail shareholders speculation about LOI's and Offtakes, it has no bearing specift to the objection brought forward by the landowner. It might affect the landowners view of a settlemetn number or land sale but that's not the argument that's been presented so I don't see any risk in speculating what SCY may or may not be working on to further to project.
Hopefully it's put to bed soon