Thanks, Jdog72, for posting this article.  Several things in the article jumped off the page when I read it. Below I have exerpted several key phrases and paragraphs, not the least important to me were the first sentence and the last paragraph that I extracted from the article you posted.

________________________________________________________________________________

"A lot is riding on the volatile lithium market.

With EV sales likely to surprise to the upside, we will probably see a lithium price spike at some point in the second half of the decade, perhaps just in time for Lithium Americas to start production.

My view on the global oil supply situation is that in late 2018 we either reached a long-term plateau in production, or perhaps we may have even reached the point of permanent global production decline. Regardless, it provides an additional stimulus to global EV sales.

Though Lithium Americas Argentina performed far better comparatively since the split, on the back of it being a producing miner, Lithium Americas now has a more positive profile in my view. Its pre-production status has been baked into its valuation, while its advantageous geopolitical situation, being located in the United States is arguably yet to be fully appreciated. Most lithium producers are currently undervalued in my view, given that we are still operating under the assumption that the crude oil market will be in a constant supply glut situation, based on what increasingly seems like flawed supply/demand projections.

The main company-specific risk I see with Lithium Americas is what is typically to be expected with a pre-production mining company. It seems to have enough external support to reach the stage of production, which is one less thing to worry about. At the same time, the company may stumble in terms of project execution. Environmentally driven legal or political challenges to the project could always be an issue. Once production will commence, there is always the risk that it will simply be unprofitable. Higher wages in the US and arguably stricter environmental and other regulations can easily eat into profit margins and make mining operations unprofitable relative to similar projects in other parts of the world.

The main external risk is that I am wrong about the continued growth in global EV sale

The bullish case for EVs cannot be taken for granted. Lithium miners could potentially face years or even a permanent stagnation in demand, even as they are planning to aggressively increase production in coming years, under the assumption that demand will be there.

There is no denying a high degree of uncertainty within the lithium mining space because supply and demand have both increased exponentially in the past decade. Any disruption in demand growth will likely hit miners very hard.

If one believes that the slowdown in demand growth in North America & Europe is only temporary and EV sales will also pick up in other markets around the world, then the current steep decline in lithium prices is the best time to invest in lithium miners

Lithium miners could potentially face years or even a permanent stagnation in demand, even as they are planning to aggressively increase production in coming years, under the assumption that demand will be there

A combination of mostly external factors, such as prospects for a lithium market rebound as well as the rising premium on domestic self-sufficiency can combine with a well-executed commencement of production within a few years to make this stock an outperformer in the sector."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

One other thing in the article that particularly caught my attention was his reference to: " With EV sales likely to surprise to the upside, we will probably see a lithium price spike at some point in the second half of the decade, perhaps just in time for Lithium Americas to start production."

That "just in time" reference has been a concept that keeps me invested in LAC.  Certainly mine is a hope that 2027 will usher in a set of circumstances far more favorable to those of us still invested in LAC than what we see now in late 2024 or an other way of just saying:  "The times they are a changing".

I find a lot to agree with in Zoltan Ban's article, however the paragraph below is one where I diverge from his analysis:

"There are some barriers to the mass-market adoption of EVs. As I have been writing for many years now, with some articles dedicated to the subject, the price/range relationship changes the very concept of what it means to have a regular versus a luxury vehicle. For instance, assuming respect for speed limits and with all else held equal, a person driving any moderately-priced sedan is likely to cover the same distance in a day of driving as someone driving a six-figure-priced luxury car. It is not the case with EVs, since cheaper EVs tend to have less driving range than EVs priced in the luxury vehicle price range."

To me, this paragraph questions the prospects for EV sales in the category of lower priced EVs as a result of associated lower range limits for those cheaper models.  Of course, that sounds very logical on the surfce of it, however I think there is room for an opinion in contradistinction regarding the attractiveness or the lack of attractiveness by the consumer for lower priced/shorter range EVs.

On what do I base my contrary opinion?  I believe that in the U.S there may be a future for lower priced EVs, despite their accompanying lower range, if a large part of the market niche for these vehicles incorporates consumers who pull the trigger and open their wallets when they take on these vehicles as a 2nd car (or maybe a 3d car?) intend to use that 2nd car as a more economical option for their local transportation needs while reserving to a larger degree their primary less economical vehicle for longer trips.  

I have an iPhone that I use to receive emails and text messages, but when I really want the full power and convenience of the internet to research a subject I don't use my iPhone, I go to my desk top computeer with its CPU and access the internet in a fashion more conducive to my goals.  A full size keyboard and a large screen make the search for information so much more convenient than pounding thumb like away on an iPhone with its minute screen comparatively.

I project and predict that middle income Americans will see the utilitarian viewpoint that having one EV for economical short range local traffic and the other vehicle (ICE gas hog or Hybrid) for distance trips is a better solution that captivates them when they go to make market decisions for trasportation purchases.  

My concept won't fit all family situations since not every wallet will accommodate at 2nd vehicle and not all living situations will allow for a 2nd vehicle parking requirements and/or charging requirements, but on the other hand that leaves a whole bunch of American family situations that will accommodate such a multi-vehicle situation.

I see this tailor made solution for many American families as something that will be adopted by a very significant per centage of them in the future and not limited to being a miniscule niche.

EV companies here in the U.S. are already trying to market lower priced EVs to fill that sector and my prediction is that inclination will increase in the future. 

China could instantly flood the market here with such vehicles if we didn't have existing trade tariffs to preclude that from happening, but the existence of huge amounts of cheap Chinese short range EVs on the world market just puts more pressure on U.S. manufacturers to counter that pressure with less expensive EVs of their own make.  At the same time continuing developments in the area of lithium battery improvements make the cheaper U.S. EVs more attractive to consumers here as long as the trade tariffs continue to block their consideration for still cheaper Chinese imports. 100% tariffs on the Chinese imports actually give U.S. EV companies time and encouragement to market U.S. versions of more affordable, but shorter range, EVs. at least if those high tariffs continue to preclude Chinese entries into the U.S. EV marketplace.

JMO, only.  I could be wrong and my prediction might never come to happen, but if it does happen then the market here in the U.S. won't be limited to higher priced EVs that only those with fat wallets can afford.  If you take into consideration that creative financing can be thrown into the mix to make different finance options available to the U.S. consumer to include leasing vs owning and low down payment options for those intent on buying, then finance alternatives may play an important role in making my concept for the future of low priced/lower range EVs in America come true. 

Another finance "gimmick" that will probably be employed in the future is to sell the car without the battery and to set up battery swap stations.  If the consumer doesn't have to buy the battery to buy the car and can pay for battery use as they need it on a "for use" basis then this brings down the purchase price to a very significant degree and opens up a segment of the consumer market that would not otherwise be in consideration for buying an electric vehicle, short or long ranged versions. 

Okiedo