I think Pavel's post certainly illustrates that there is a wide range of opinions here on this Hub.  I agree with part of his position, but overall it is quite divergent from my own take on LAC and lithium mining, however, I recognize his right to what many will view as an extreme position.

  Pavel, in regard to the future of EVs: "Well, it is my opinion, that EVs are unsustainable and environment unfriendly way of getting around", I think that just the opposite is true, that ICE vehicles are unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly.  I'm am from an oil producing state originally and familiar with the scaring directly on the land via the production process for petroleum and the refining process as well.  The belief that the organic fuels prduced eons ago and dwelling in the earth are a never to be depleted cornucopia of limitless energy is what is "unsustainable". 

Of course, one could make the same argument for solar and wind and wave and geothermal sources, however if you focus on the possible number of years available for harvesting of those resources vs the lifespan left for carbon based energy, not that such a focus is practical, then the argument tips in favor of the alternative fuels.  As for the damage to the environment, then I believe the same tipping process goes to the harvest of alternative fuels. 

On the other hand, government subsidies have certainly been instrumental in lighting the fuse for the explosion of alternative fuels, but one could turn that argument legitimately back on the proponents of continuing to depend on carbon based energy sources.  Anyone who drives an ICE powered vehicle subsidizes the producers of carbon based energy directly and indirectly every time they fill up at the pump and have done so since petroleum products first started powering ICE vehicles... and will do so as long as there is one ICE powered vehicle on the road.  I view those proponents of ICE vehicles as more than just a little hypocritical and painted with a sanctimonious brush when they try to play the "Subsidized" Card against alternative fuels without the slightest bit of reference to how that card completely sabatoges their effort to appear without sin.

"All have sinned" when you get right down to it, Pavel, in regard to the issue of "government subsidies" as that relates to the growth of one type of energy source vs another and carbon based fuels are not immune to the stink of government subsidies, so please don't pretend that they are pure as the driven snow.  The air, the land, the water sources all belie that unjustified and, frankly pompous and specious argument by the carbon crowd.

JMO, Pavel, but the nice thing about it is that we can agree to disagree without being "disagreeable" here on this Hub. Someone has referred to you as our "Resident Bear" and I can't disagree with that view, however you are invested in LAC and your reasons for doing so are similar in one respect to those of everyone else here:  We are all motivated by the profit motive and that isn't a bad thing to serve as a uniting principle.

In the final analysis I don't believe Pavel will be in dissent when LAC shares go for $30 a share, regardless of whether that $30 a share price is "sustainable" and regardless of the role of government subsidies in getting there.  Since we all share the profit motive I suspect that your decision ultimately to pull the trigger at some as yet unachieved higher share price won't be negatively impacted by your reservations about sustatinability OR government subsidies.  Not in the slightest.  

I encourage you to keep posting, even though I don't accept your basic premise on certain matters.  I still respect your right to be wrong, here on Agoracom's LAC Hub, in addition, or course, to your right to be correct about at least some things. 

Best wishes, Pavel. 

Happy New Year to all!

Okiedo