OK so let me think this through with you ... and I'm fine with...

OK so let me think this through with you ... and I'm fine with the 3rd hand info aspect.

There are certain aspects that have been made quite clear (or at least its clear to me as I read it). All references to SYQ mean the JV company and decisions made by that company REQUIRES the consent of PLL (especially when it relates to capital)

A. The decision to move forward on the next step to go downstream has been taken by SYQ which is a DTS on downstream chemicals. Surely there is no disagreement from anyone on that. From the 2023 AR



B. So I believe your saying PLL has had the completed trade-off study since Jan 3 this year. Great. Undoubtably a great "background" document ... I say that because I believe its purpose is contextual not just for the present shareholders of SYQ but also for a potential partner for SYQ in its downstream vision and ambitions. A future partner will want to know - why carbonate instead of hydroxide from hardrock. For example LU7 is very specific as to why they want to build a carbonate plant to process SC - because the mgmt there intend to replicate a successful flowsheet and the plant they built previously in China.

C. There is IMO no reason to rush the DTS for downstream. The obvious (?) choice is to do Carbonate (the "no-brainer" as its referred to) but I'd rather it be given full consideration - and part of that consideration is partner and funding. One of the things that Paul Graves (CEO Arcadium and formerly Livent) talked about in his recent interview was some of the challenges in producing high quality lithium carbonate (now this is brines) and then lithium hydroxide, BUT in both cases he was adamant that the business model was not transactional and required 2 way commitment (basically floor and ceiling long term supply contracts) ... not spot sales of either as they are qualified products. This is what he said about Ford for example

"Ford is very much a strategic partner of Arcadium through Nemaska. I would describe that commitment to Ford and Ford's commitment to be more than just a Nemaska supply agreement. One thing that we are extremely sensitive to as a lithium hydroxide producer is that our customers' plans are not as certain as some people think they are. And we offer to our customers, like Ford and others, flexibility as to how they tap into and access resources, whether that's timing of material needed or the type of material needed. Without getting into the details, which I'm unfortunately not allowed to do for various legal reasons, you should assume that, yes, Ford are very much a supporter of what we're trying to do. We're very much a supporter of what Ford is trying to do. And then the Nemaska agreement is an important piece of that, but not the only piece of what we expect will be. We wouldn't have made an 11-year commitment to somebody on a transactional basis. To us, that's a proper two-way commitment or we wouldn't make an 11-year commitment. "

So I really can't see a scenario where SYQ would be in a hurry to spend what is going to be well over C$500M on downstream without the partners thoroughly working through all aspects. I also would not be surprised (I'd be surprised if they are not) if SYQ is using the trade-off study to "recruit" potential partners (non-binding at this stage to perhaps consider participating in DTS). This is a big deal so DFIU!

D. The old chestnut @rgrant ... spruiking small fine if not done ... Is it spruiking or just answering with the facts of the ageement? Is it a fine or simply just following what was agreed. For the record (again):




No one is operating under false pretences ... if you want NAL to fail again then by all means rush headlong into building a refining facility without doing all the background work ... just look at what it took to get Lithium Americas Thacker Pass Lithium Carbonate project done ... a substantial equity investment from GM, a Gov't loan for $2.2B and an OTA with GM for 100% of production. Don't kid yourselves about what its going to take and I can't see IQ wanting to burn a 3rd attempt (or 4th depending how you count it) to get this project producing refined lithium salts.

If its reasonably delayed (and just look at the slowdown in Capex spend from ALB and Arcadium and MinRes and ....) due to low prices (which is what killed NAL last time was it not) where is the problem with that?

JIMO.