Ann: Trading Halt, page-418

Mate You've already been shown to have outright lied in regards to the ' Not one single hole ' drilled on the Tansim Project. How are we supposed to take seriously anything you further contribute to this forum?

I appreciate that your reasons for JUST focusing on the PFS NAL release are not without some sort of agenda , else you'd be having a better look and delving into the historical research on both Moblan and Tansim ...as well as others.

Keep in mind that the Canadian equivalent to the JORC in their NI 43-101 instrument is actually a more rigorous requirement than the more widely used JORC code that the ASX specifically requires. And we are as far as I know still an ASX listed entity.

However, let's not also forget that NAL had actually operated and produced a plant which could allegedly produce Carbonate even as far back as the 1960's.....and ALL based on only a declared NI 43-101 compliant resource.

So Moblan already has a JORC equivalent high grade low strip resource identified to 14 MT's ( refer below previous historical table from SOQUEM ) which is the equivalent to both size and quality to that of Frontier's projects in Ontario. They ( SOQUEM ) together with Guo Ao had undertook through Hatch a very extensive 2 part EIS with literally hundreds of back and forth feedback and revisions.

That is why Moblan is listed as one of the Top 6 most advanced lithium projects in Quebec. And that is why we paid US86.5 million for JUST our 60% stake.

Now I ran some figures which showed comparatively that Moblan per tonne of Li was very very competitive if not cheaper than other acquisition which were made at the then top of the cycle at that time.

So I don't know what the heck you are on about in saying that you cannot derive a fair and reasonable comparative valuation for it.

In terms of the LOM offtake agreement with Piedmont. I always stated how can you simply agree to an LOM 30 year off-take agreement when you know full well that economic and financial conditions will change , and the Company has every right to pursue and redirect their product down this added value production stream.

So the changes to the LOM could never have been known about at the time of entering into what by all accounts was only HALF the LOM at the time. So it's understandable then for this to have been a factor in establishing the reductions to the agreement. Otherwise you are simply ' Stripping ' Assets out of a Company and from its Shareholders which is quite illegal under Corporations Laws in BOTH Canada and Australia.

So of course you are going to have overriding contractual clauses which further explain the conditions arising ' in the event of ' additional legal directives and mandated requirements.

And so we've seen that unfold today with Sayona's Hierarchical volume waiver which we didn't know about.

So I would still strongly argue that Piedmont doesn't have the' Marketing ' of lithium products agreement that Quebec had typically set up with other Lithium players like Nemaska in earlier years , and that Piedmont will NOT be able to simple ' On Sell ' this spodumene to a third party without Quebec's consent. And this would make sense as they pretty much stipulated they did not want the product leaving the finished products leaving Quebec. And I guess this is why they have these requirements in place.

Not only that , I don't see how you can take delivery when the whole agreement was subject to a mutual date being agreed from July 2023 which in effect cannot be done now because Piedmont itself is lagging way behind its own expectations.

And you have to remember this business isn't just a ' Free for ALL ' because you happen to be TWO Aussie Companies which have similar originating roots and beginnings. It's NOT a deal between Mates. Its a business deal which involves Quebec who is also a significant stakeholder...

So again , I would argue that Sayona's moves towards fast tracking the stage to conversion is appropriate and circumvents the priority as we have seen in supplying Piedmont under the terms which really haven't been met so far as 'an agreed delivery ' and preparedness to accept the product.

But I think this part of the discussion has been beaten to death really , and perhaps its time you shift gears and start adding some value to the other research components and project value drivers of Sayona.

That would be good , and I hope to continue to have your inputs so long as they are not outright misrepresentation and lies about Sayona's historical drilling and modelling on other Projects they acquired.