General Discussion Topics, page-105964

There is a pretty simple solution to this argument over whether or not SYQ should go the lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate route for downstream processing of NAL SC.

When PLL takes possession of their first off-take amount of SC which for arguments sake will be 20,000 tonne.

They funnel their allocation through a refinery, (probably in China or South Korea) for conversion into lithium hydroxide.

Once converted, the hydroxide can be delivered to Tesla or LG as per the OTAs they are contracted for.

As a comparison, SYQ can go a different route.

Taking the same amount of SC as PLL (20,000 tonne), they route their allocation to a refinery able to convert SC into lithium carbonate (pick the most appropriate out of North America, South America, Europe or Asia).

Once converted, the lithium carbonate can be on sold to a battery maker wanting that chemical.

What this comparison should reveal, are all costs associated with logistics, chemical conversion and sale.

It should also reveal how much demand there is for lithium carbonate (converted from SC).

The knowledge they gain from this experiment can shape the way they approach future commercialisation of product from NAL, as well as to dispel any preconceived ideas that we on HC have.

The same might apply at the executive level at SYA and PLL.