Yeah it certainly is an interesting ' Twist ' and turn of events in the Industry.
I mean what makes one decide to ' back away ' in a sense by taking a more ' Indirect ' stake in a future Lithium Hydroxide project.
O.K , so we already knew of them ( Pallinghurst's involvement in Nouveau Monde Graphite ). Are they going to step back from this as well. Group Financial Controller didn't seem to suggest this only a few months ago in his interview podcast
And what about their minority interest in Talon Metals Nickel & Cobalt project in the US ? That's more ' indirect ' as well.
So is this their overall strategy ? More of a Piedmont ' Leveraging ' strategy which sees itself benefit from the ultimate rise and rise of other majority controlled projects
When you disect the possible meanings of all this , one school of thought could be that Pallinghurst saw a potential future landscape ( which I have previously spoken about ) where ' additional ' partners like Sayona and it's Moblan / Lac Albert HUB might be encouraged to collaborate or join in with the Nemaska HUB and more the combined plans for a joint Hydroxide plant .
And what then would this ultimately do to Pallinghurst who might not have been interested in its interest in Nemaska being diluted in this manner when Sayona were perhaps to eventually obtain controlling interest in its contributing and larger more economical Moblan / Lac Albert off of SOQUEM.
So what then in this specific circumstance would Pallinghurst even then be interested in partnering with Sayona . It could really only then mean that this possible ' Collaboration ' wasn't on the cards and that Pallinghurst was looking at expanding its options with Sayona ......or Piedmont at a completely different and separate Hydroxide Plant endeavor. or methodology proposal....?
I say ' methodology ' because perhaps Pallinghurst wasn't sold on Nemaska's IP and membrane lithium chemicals processes and so wants to look at other alternative processes. In this case though , one would think that in order for Pallinghurst to ' walk away ' in this manner , that Livent in turn would have to be content with Nemaska's lithium chemicals I.P when it has its own.
In any event the 50% / 50% representation that Nemaska is now configured with Quebec ( I.Q ) is near enough the 60% / 40% that Sayona has also got with Quebec ( SOQUEM - a subsidiary of I.Q ) ......
So this reversion if you like to a similar holdings structure with Quebec in itself speaks a lot into what might be converting later on in this space of ' Mutual ' common and joint own HUB processing facilities.
And I stated myself in a post just the other day when the Moblan first drill results were released that this project by itself could realiZe a combined valuation for Sayona upwards of A$4 billion.
So I don't think it any coincidence that we see in today's deal from Livent that these ' similar ' and close proximity projects are fluctuating around similar valuations of anywhere from around A$1.7 billion and just over A$2 billion WITHOUT even considering the downstream hydroxide conversion potential.
Or this whole ' backing away ' and indirect investment move by Pallinghurst could be just a way of solidifying some already significant gains of almost US$300 million on just its original ' receivership ' investment in Nemaska......
with any further gains still leveraged to Livent's upside growth potential from this industry.
So that US$300 million whilst cannot be monetized really until is SELLS its interest in Livent is still a nice mark to market gain on this investment for its own balance sheet and shareholders ....and quite possibly for it future lending ability enhancement - ie it's proposed C$1 billion in further investment to Quebec's critical minerals industry.
So YES , its' all very interesting indeed. Especially to see what Pallinghurst does next. I assume though that it will hang onto its Livent shares for the time being ...else why wouldn't you insist on a CASH deal.....?......
(20min delay)