Sorry for the poor communication. I would be a lot less glib if I was just a little less cynical...
I am saying that the dilution could be exponential, not just fractional.
If discovery reveals an order of magnitude more lithium available than first thought they could ask for hundreds of millions of dollars (both Canadian & US) to dig holes and establish filtering/refining plants.
As for percentages, if they dilute 100% your 35 cent shares are worth 17.5 cents. But they might dilute 1000%, making your shares nominally worthless unless the good news that accompanies the dilution compels investors to pile into the stock.
ronfab1, this is my first exploratory mine play as well. But I do have 7-8 years experience watching biotech startups plumb the depths of the capital markets to extend their trials/enrollment/opex/ramp. My impression is that the dilution will be 100% of what the C-Suite can hold in both fists after making their sales pitch regarding the 'value' of the 'proven' reserves that can be 'realized.' In the case of HMGLF I would guess the TSLA agreement will be used as further proof that any capital investment is worthwhile even if new-tech testing doesn't provide any recognized measure of long-term viability.
Dr. Andy Robinson's place on the board and name on the NI 43-101 is crucial to see HMGLF as more than a long term gamble.
"The instrument requires that a "qualified person" be attributed to the information. This Qualified Person, in the spirit of the National Instrument, is required to be a reputable professional who is knowledgeable of the mineral property concerned, and who has sufficient experience and qualifications to make the statements which are made within the report. Often the Qualified Person need not be the author of the report, but in attributing the report as being compliant with the National Instrument, they are vouching for it. This is a matter of professional integrity and carries legal risk, as misleading statements can result in legal sanctions in Canadian and other jurisdictions."
The reference goes on to state that a 'qualified person' must have 5 years experience "relevant to the deposit type or style of mineralization"
So...credentials aren't the problem..