Ann: Indian Distributorship Agreement entered into with Novabeans, page-41

THANKS PD1. Very clear answer, that explains it.

I've been thinking for a little while now, that my (and others) original thoughts that the challenges would be to get the SFP right then scale up is teh wrong set of expextations - perhaps the inverse is the reality; it's harder to scale down than up. In which case de-emphasising the SFP and going balls-to-the-wall after the LFP is the best move in a competitive market.

Which brings me to my next Q question. The apparent dissolution of the term-sheet with WP. Generally a term-sheet involves a Minnow with tech providing a Major with market with their tech and a few personnel for the major to investigate improvements and attempt to channel to market. Usually with the major taking the piss via royalties and receiving tech for free, etc... but still the best option for the Minnow. (That's kinda why I always recognised the WP TS agreement as a good thing but not the raving multi-bag revenue generator it was being claimed as in here)

A3D changing the Ann to an undated future "agreement' implies that the SFP particularly isn't ready or applicable for a term-sheet agreement, and with the quality statements in the Ann suggesting they don't have quality enough products to send to current enquiries - then SFP is possibly not even close to commercial standard; so being shelved in terms of WP and the key mining/oil markets (distributorship agreements with unnamed (until they are named) or non-entities like Novabean I'm completely discounting, personally).

The company really need get some tech data and/or clearer explanations of their direction and the current tech situation I think... including WPs outlook, as it is somewhat key.