Ann: Response to Pilbara Minerals Announcement,PLS-MIN.AX, page-101

If no decision has been made on it, then how can it be in/as part of the deal we have with GLC for MIN to match or not.
It is either a part of the deal or it isn't.
This was part of Ken's comment on the 4th of July......
"“We are very excited by the downstream processing opportunity contemplated by the binding MOU signed as part of this agreement."

So the binding MOU is a part of the agreement. Mind you I'm not really sure how you can have a Binding MOU.

This is also what I would expect is a major sticking point with MIN. Exactly what are they bound to to meet the ROFR?

So if it is part of the agreement, then in the PFS they the independent party doing the study could and should have included it IMO. If it is not part of the agreement, then MIN certainly do not have to be part of it.

This was higher up in the first page of the agreement...
"The Off-take Agreement is for the supply of 140,000tpa of 6% chemical-grade spodumene concentrate from Pilbara’s 100%-owned Pilgangoora Lithium-Tantalum Project from Q1 2018 for an initial 6-year period, with the option to extend for a further 4 years."
and pricing
"Off-take pricing mechanism to be based on the price of Lithium Carbonate, so that Pilbara can share in pricing outcomes derived from carbonate deliveries to higher volume contracts with cathode makers in China."

Assuming there is a bit more detail of the pricing in the contract, then the argument with MIN will be decided fairly quickly by an "expert determination" as it is a straight buy of spodumene and the rest is not part of the contract/agreement.

What I'm trying to get across is that it is either in or out of the contract. It can't be in for one aspect and out for another. If it is "in" for the terms of the contract for MIN to consider, then the numbers should be "in" for the PFS as well. If out then out for both.