2023 AGM discussion and comments, page-375

Y4KC - You aint going to like this one then. Apologies in advance to all who may feel slighted. I'll give you some opening thoughts and then expand on a few.

1. Elias (Loui) has his own agenda (nothing sinister implied ... its just I don't agree with much of the content in his musings) ... but I do concur that AB & PC added no value to this AGM ... as to what value they deliver in a BoD meeting may different. My only interaction with PC was went I first bought SYA shares, and that was "___" (along the lines if you can't say something nice say nothing at all).

2. The AGM was a shockingly poorly run meeting (and I let SYA know that and exactly why I thought that). I am surprised that procedures were not put in place to prevent the meeting being hijacked. Why a central microphone wasn't put in place to make attendees walk up and ask AND with limit of 2 questions (sure ask more if you have them but go to the back of the line and wait your turn again). And since Q&A was supposed to come from all 3 sources - not just dominated by one source and one particular shareholder - that was a complete failure by our outside PR firm (shocker - not). I watched online and waited 2 hours for my chance to be able to put my questions (in their own context not Anthony's) to our Interim CEO ... Anthony was even patched in so he could suggest I submit question online - which I declined and told him in no uncertain terms that he was failing to manage the meeting properly by not rotating to different sources for questions and allowing the floor to dominate, even after questions were quite clearly "asked and answered" - just not the answer the questioner wanted. It was at that point I knew I would not get my opportunity ... and then get it rubbed in by saying we'll cross to Canada and WA on the phone. So my rocket was launched and we'll see.

3. While I don't think it will help the share price or retail shareholders, go ahead and call for an EGM to spill the board and nominate your slate ... put Elias on the ticket ... that will test what sort of sway retail has ... Thinking were that the case PLL would almost certainly seek their entitled nomination to the board ... and that ground has already been covered.

4. Class Action .... I believe @rgrant has already stated that he "will lead a Class Action". Seems to me that puts SYA in the same boat as PLL ... something many here think will bring about the end of PLL puts KP in a jail cell.

Couple of things left off in the AGM write up provided were these statements by JB

A) "Piedmont for us was getting that bid legitimized - I mean we're $20M market cap with $3M in the bank and the government said well stopkicking our tires, you need to get some momentum - so in short without Piedmont support we wouldn't have NAL"

It doesn't matter how many times its denied here, its been said by GoQ, by BL, by JB and by KP.

B) "but I will say from that perspective - it's tough to deal with. I mean, when you look at the value shift and, our relationship is strong where where everyone stands up for their rights - we hold 75% - but like any joint venture, there is super majority and super minority rights to make sure the bigger partner can't wind down the smaller partner in overzealous capital projections and dilute them, There is a structure to that. There's been no push back on anything that we're doing in the joint venture including Downstream. It's a methodical pathway between both and potentially that's where we need to be able to allocate the material that's excess to that offtake agreement to the joint venture itself, because remembering that both Partners we we're working to the overriding philosophy that cash doesn't get tipped in at NAL"

I know I've tried to illustrate how these JVs working (and mocked for it). I believe I suggested that it does look something like may 80% might be the magic number. I showed an example for when there might be 3 partners of how it works (because I do see 3 partners in the future ... JIMO though). Loui said it himself "boardroom mechanics are above my pay grade". How many here have denied this JVOA structure - many is the answer.

I/We don't know the exact structure but I can damn well make an educated guess at it (and that education costs coin).

C) With respect to Moblan
"The board's preference is, develop a downstream operating strategy and supply model for Moblan, and allows Sayona to produce spodumene concentrate, and link with strategic partners with demonstrated technology for the future production of lithium hydroxide. A bespoke funding plan is also being explored in parallel with potential strategic partnerships facilitating Moblan’s development while preserving shareholder capital."

Are we clear?

D) With respect to NAL (and this is from ~1:26:30 into the meeting)

"The review - or let's say thetrade-off study - was based on a request. Obviously, when your partner’s contracts- which are derivatives of hydroxide - and we're producing carbonate - how dowe work that out? Now that's an add-on. People have been converting carbonateto hydroxide for years in China particularly. So that didn't really change thetimeline we've been pushing, and I think from our perspective - cognizant ofsome of the requests – and these are more administrative more than let's saystrategic. I think our commitment to the government of Quebec and if thequestion’s about the fines associated with that - no we don't intend and that'snot our philosophy to go down that path and produce concentrate. I will saythat obviously opinions change in an integrated supply situation, when you areseeing highly profitable spodumene sales regardless of what index they're tied to- that people think, well why would I bother putting capital into a plant whenI'm making more money out of spodumene - but those change - and obviously newentrants to the market that have seen cargos go from $4,000 to $2,000 to Sub $2,000,see that the value-add advantage is the downstream. So, we manage sentiment, wemanage expectations. The timing for us, again it is the funding process, is keyto this - it's CAD$555M on the preliminary study - and obviously that was minus 20plus 30% - not saying would be plus 30% but we have to do have to take accountfor industry normals when it comes to these PL and as I said I I we're allsitting there holding shares hoping they go up and doing everything we can togo up. One thing we don't want to do is risk any capital at the moment. I thinkit'll be in a timely fashion - I think the advantage is still there. I thinkthe important part is, we've run our numbers on a market which is similar tothe one we see at the moment. We're even lower - so we haven't overestimated - wehaven't told you we were thinking it was going to be $30,000 a ton, we didn't.We're much lower. So, not sure I’ve answered the question, but there will be afeature through there where the commitment will have to happen and a formalinvestment decision - and I think we've been involved in operations before we start to piecemeal long lead item orders together and it's a fundamental decision to proceed that hasn't been approved and it's a little bit risky from that perspective but it's getting it right rather than six months early six months late."

Have a good read of that and think about ... don't let another do that thinking for you. I've highlighted a couple of things - important to me at least. There is a lot to unpack in what was said.

Now - whose partners' contracts are "derivatives" of hydroxide that are impacted?? ... and what exactly does that mean anyway. If its a price thing then you should know by now how that works given PLL's OTA with SYQ was for SC6 and when SC5.4 was delivered the ceiling price was discounted down from US$900 (again many here denied that).
If its PLL OTA with TSLA ... what business is that of SYA anyway? (but its SC6 pricing determined by LHM index pricing)
If its PLL OTA with LG Chem ... again what business is that of SYA anyway (but its based off FastMarkets spodumene index)

JB called it an "add-on" ... and maybe that's simply the add-on Hydroxide circuit that Canada Lithium put in a decade ago.


So that's a partial of my take on the situation @Y4ukikmycow

@arfbarf well along the same lines of
"If you didn't get your panties in such a bunch every time someone criticized your beloved James Brown, you might have a better understanding ..."

one could just as easily say
"Why do you behave like someone just gave you a giant wedgie when any disagreement of your beloved SYA opinions are aired - perhaps you might have a better understanding if you took them onboard"?

Why is their opinion lesser than yours?