Let's examine the following statement for a moment: 

"Following initial engineering work on the Cypress leachate, Lilac was able to recover 83% of lithium from the leachate while simultaneously rejecting greater than 99% of sodium, potassium, and magnesium impurities."

Where may we have seen that "recover 83% of lithium from the leachate" statment before?  Where indeed!!

See page 8 of the Lithium Americas Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study for the Thacker Pass Project, Humboldt County, Nevada, USA.  Quote from that document:  

"The total time projected to manufacture battery-grade lithium carbonate from the ore is less than 24 hours. The overall recovery of lithium from the ore is 83%."

Idle speculation on my part... maybe.  Coincidence..... maybe.   Related?????   You be the judge.  I find it quite interesting that the recovery rate mentioned by Cypress-Lilac and by LAC is identical.  It begs the question:  Is the Lilac process being considered for Thacker Pass or is it just a separate process altogether and independently developed?

Keep in mind that Lilac claimed a 2 hour process and the Thacker PFS stated:  "The total time projected to manufacture battery-grade litjhium carbonate from the ore is less than 24 hour."  

We know from separate PR data re: Lilac that they are referring to lithium clay as the feed stock for their process with Cypress AND that their process can produce lithium hydroxide.  We also know that the plan at Thacker is to produce Lithium Hydroxice in a time frame of less than 24 hours from start to finish.  The "coincidences" seem to multiply like rabbits.  Just wondering.