General Discussion Topics, page-13126

Quebec is NOT in this to lose.its capital .....nor even its credibility.

This is why I found the comments in that video from the Associate Deputy Minister of Mines ( MERN ) Nathalie Camben so meaningful and targeted.

Interesting that short of having an equity stake in an entity which can be ' Measured ' by the rise or fall in the equity position - I.Q by design and intent on the Nemaska SISP , CANNOT appreciably realize a definitive ' valuation ' via a gain , loss, or return on its investment .....unless it of course ' sells down ' a further stake at a much higher price paid by the market.

On the other hand , I.Q can mark to market it's stake in Sayona Quebec by virtue of it's CAD$20 million $1 dollar issue of preferred stock, So by having Sayona's value reflected by it's Stock Market listed valuation , this is an obvious way that I.Q can record it's ' re-stated ' valuation at any given year end balance date reporting period.

So if Sayona's price goes up 4 or 5 , or even 10 times from its current market capitalization valuation , then so too does I.Q's implied equity position and ultimate stake in the project.

So in the NAL deal verses the Nemaska deal , I.Q's return is directly tied to Sayona's valuation success or failure whereas Livent or Pallinghurst are unlikely to disclose an / or revise upwards their respective acquisition stakes in Nemaska and hence no real ability for I.Q to revalue its own exposure if the others do NOT. So with the NAL deal , they ( I.Q ) don't have to worry about this mutual consent to arrive at a re-adjusted or re-stated unrealized gain on its investment......it will just happen by virtue of the value of Sayona Quebec.

Perhaps they might use the revaluation of Sayona Quebec as a benchmark to re-evaluate it's Nemaska project investment dollars. Whatever they do , it can only really be a net positive for Sayona and this is why I am looking at ALL these various angles.