I don't think there is much doubt about the affiliation with Gangfeng Lithium Ltd as being the reason for the proposed separation. 

The U.S. political climate towards Chinese business endeavors that touch on operations in the U.S., such as Thacker Pass, isn't exactly something anyone has to work hard at reading the tea leaves.

  At least on the surface, and to my limited degree of understanding, the proposed separation seems like a great idea on Jon Evans part.  As for the details on how that will effect financially the present holders of LAC stock, that is another question that we all want to know concerning the specifics.  When it gets down to the dirty details of the separation, the determination of whether or not this action results in a positive thing for existing LAC stock owners may or may not reflect an advantageous result.  We just need more information about it than was contained in the PR.

I remain hopeful that this proposed separation will have positive results for LAC stock holders.  However, as I posted previous concerns about the link between China and Argentina over on the Off Topics Forum I think that the China connection may not have in the future the same positive benefit for LAC that it had earlier in the development phase of Cauchari-Olaroz as China strengthens its close association with the government of Argentina.

Again, my initial reaction is that Jon Evans is being very judicious about proposing this separation.  I also believe, like some other LAC stock holders, that LAC is working toward the goal of exiting from Cauchari-Olaroz totally at some point.  I would feel stronger about that if it were not for the recent buy up of another mining project by LAC in Argentina and the substantial investment in yet another Argentine mining project.  Those 2 latest actions by LAC in Argentina don't seem to be consisitent with any conjecture about LAC getting out of Argentina altogether.  Taken as a whole it is a very confusing picture about the future of LAC in Argentina.  JMO

Okiedo