I don’t believe LAC will form a 50/50 JV or be acquired, though for the right price anything is for sale. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed with anything less than $80/share today as I see LAC easily trading within the $100-200 range 5 years from now. Even at this price, LAC is not too large to be bought out. There are interested parties such as those within the oil and gas space or auto OEMS with deep pockets who could easily swing that kind of an acquisition price. But I think it would be too expensive relative to the perceived value of other assets, especially for those who have the expertise and cash to fully develop an early stage project. 

Regarding potential partners, I would be very concerned if it were with a battery manufacturer at this point. Battery manufacturing facilities are being built out to match the aggressive anticipated demand in EV adoption without having secured the raw materials. I could easily imagine 3 or 4 years from now as lithium shortage kicks that battery manufacturers start collapsing as raw materials are bid up and they are not able to achieve production targets. Even if LAC’s partner has lithium secured through their partnership with LAC, margins may be squeezed. A more attractive partner to me would be closer within the supply chain such as a cathode materials manufacturer. NanoOne is a company that I am familiar with that has a $300M which I will propose as for the sake of example. This way LAC can form a partnership/merge/acquire a company that today is relatively small, allowing them to maintain a ownership of Thacker Pass while getting increased revenue by selling a value added product. Part of my thinking was inspired by what I read in an interview with Solid Power’s CEO Doug Campbell, but take this with a grain of salt as this is their company’s pitch to investors: 

“…we have to recognize that we're in a very competitive landscape. So, how do we chart a path that threads the needle and ends with us as a successful, profitable business? It is by not endeavoring to go head-to-head against those behemoths, like Panasonic Corp. and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. That would be a suicide mission in my opinion. Even though we look like a battery cell company today, that is not our future. Our future is a materials company that is much less capital equipment intensive. It commands a much higher profit margin than the cell product. Then, it is not as crowded of a landscape. Not to say that there are no competitors, but they're not that much further ahead of us, and there are not that many.”

Source:

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/battery-makers-will-leave-us-if-government-fails-to-act-8211-solid-power-ceo-66991683

After a few years, as LAC grows their valuation and cash position, the next step I would like to see would be a partnership with a company that has solid state battery IP. Today, valuations are sky high for solid state battery companies. QS is perhaps the most extreme example with today’s share price reflecting a high multiple of anticipated revenues towards the end of the decade. By waiting a couple years, I suspect some of these sky-high valuations will come down as investors get more realistic expectations and LAC will be better matched in terms of valuation. At or after this point, 3-5 years from now, I think it would make more sense to purchase a battery manufacturer, maybe even on the cheap when assets are being sold at fire sale prices due to the conditions mentioned above. LAC would then be vertically integrated with lithium supply fully secured and able to capture value from ore to battery. With huge cash flows and battery IP, they could gobble up collapsing cell manufacturers and grow as big as their lithium production allows. This is my current dream scenario anyways.

Market Caps 10/12/12

LAC – $2.9 B

NanoOne - $300 M

QuantumScape – $10.1 B

Solid Power – $1.2 B

AXP