Yes, this is factually correct, but as I said context is always important. The manner in which the author presents this fact is as if to suggest that Ganfeng would achieve partial ownership (and control) of Thacker Pass, which is not true. In this way more negativity might be generated toward the project for geopolitical reasons that don't exist with the Thacker Pass project. Actually, Thacker Pass will help the US (and the west in general) get away from the Chinese domination of the lithium industry, and thus will achieve the exact opposite of what the author alludes to, IMO