Annual Earnings for PLL : The matrix SQ, page-5

The first bit of the spreadsheet below looks at the Piedmont EBITDA margin using 168kt of annual production (25May) and a $600/t as the cost of production. As expected, these give values similar to those already supplied in this thread by @banksy808 because I've only made small changes to his assumptions. While high spod prices may remain, I've extended the tables below back down to lower prices.

The second table looks at the 25% share of 168kt of spod converted to Hydroxide. With Piedmont assuming 196kt of Spod is 30t of hydroxide, I've used this same 6.53x volume divisor. I've needed to guess a conversion cost including feedstock and used $7000/t. This is lower than Piedmont's recent figure of $10,488 but that included $8,053 of cash basis supply costs at $1,200 Spod. Its higher than LTR's scoping work. If Hydroxide prices were to return to the $22,000/t level used in the Piedmont in its recent PEA, then Piedmonts share of EBITDA from SYA production (at 25%) would be $97m/yr.

The third table then looks at the EBITDA differential between the off-take and 25% share of NAL profits and no off-take but a 25% share of Hydroxide profits. This table doesn't factor 2nd tier tings like the value change in Piedmont's shareholding in SYA, any future dividends it may receive from SYA or the capital costs to get NAL Hydroxide operational.

This shows what I'd expected:

• If Spod were to return to low levels (e.g. 750-1200 prices), Piedmont would be better off having a share of Hydroxide margins.
• There is a series of increasing Spod/Hydroxide prices where the same EBITDA would occur irrespective of whether Piedmont is receiving most of its value from an offtake at $900 or from converting to Hydroxide eg 2,000 Spod / 30,000 Hydroxide and 3,000 Spod/50,000 Hydroxide.
• If Piedmont were to use its PEA pricing (1,200 / 22,000), the 113kt US$50m while NAL Hydroxide is US$96m

What are the implications:

• A NAL Hydroxide isn't a terrible outcome, and in many scenarios it can produce higher PLL profits.
• If PLL use a future state of the world aligned to their recent PEA they would consider NAL Hydroxide to increase EBITDA
• While not directly shown, profits would be more stable across different Spod/Hydroxide prices if NAL Hydroxide prices were to increase
• Recent supportive comments from PLL about NAL Hydroxide are likely to be genuine.
• In the current world (6k/75k), the offtake giving USD659m of EBITDA is higher than hydroxide of USD437m but given the current market price, the market clearly does not think this pricing situation will remain for long.
• Unless Spod/Hydroxide prices really collapse and remain low, there is some serious upside value to Piedmont.
  

Some supporting cut and paste's: