Its like I said yesterday. Either CXO has to give more ground to...

Its like I said yesterday. Either CXO has to give more ground to achieve parity with its peers and Sayona has to go up. As Sayona is NOT even in the same basket. And I can see they have done this with their ' catch-up ' of 40 to 50% price declines since end of October.

CXO has higher costs . CXO also has off-take partners who are now affected by this diminished mining and production capacity. What will happen with that , and will there be any legal ramifications. Where will these offtake partners now look to fill this void , or are they just as happy to see them eliminated.

This compares to Sayona who had been producing at around A$1,150 ( US $770.50 ) less JV cost contribution of A$287.50 ( US$192.62 ) which is offset under the Piedmont JV OTA against an approximate 75% of US$800 ( or US$600 ) .

So this leaves an approximate US $22 contribution to operations under the Piedmont offtake or US$209.50 ( @75% ) at spot or US$472 ( if 100% back to the JV ) at spot.

So there appears to be a bit more wriggle room for Sayona than CXO.

Sayona also has the added benefit or buffer of funding coming from Piedmont as well in order to meet current mining commitments with the likes of the 4 year cont $50 million per year contract with L. Fournier & Fils for its mining operations.

And since we've been going just over a year , that would leave approximately $141.7 million remaining on this commitment to continue mining. So that's at least another $35.4 million required from Piedmont over the next 34 months...or roughly a $ million a month.

Keep in mind there is a lot at stake here with EIS and green certification as well as the likelihood that continued M&A will feature strongly with respects to Sayona's North American first market mover advantages.

Just look at Sigma who is technically producing at ONE THIRD on their forecast DFS sales figures and yet its SP is only 25% down over the last 6 months against Sayona's range decline of between 57 and 64%. Even Albemarle is only down 40 odd percent with SQM down almost 28% over the same period.

So I think CXO after this morning drop is way more deserving of its 80 - 81% drop over this period than SYA is for its own decline. Especially since Sayona has at least 2 more advanced projects in Quebec , a partially built carbonate facility , and another 3 to 4 potential projects at least ( both here and in Australia ).

Now some may say this is too much , but I say in the right hands this is almost NOT enough depending on what they do with these assets and how they intend on leveraging them.

And lots of talk about previous OTA's and Marlins spitting the hook , but lets not forget that as recent as the Strategic Review announcement they were continuing their narrative of ' potential ' strong interest in a ' longer term ' offtake at NAL as per the below extract.

And its know wonder then that as at that date , ' Talks ' had been continuing. And talks just don't END . Because when you hear nothing , it must be presumed that they are continuing. Especially in an environment which is dynamic and constantly changing to meet the demands and expectations of end users.

BIGGER deals coming in 2024. My opinion of course . And especially based on what I have seen through my various communications and visits on this trip.

From the Strategic Review - 9th November 2023 :-

" Sayona has attracted strong international interest in offtake from NAL, currently North America’s single largest source of hard-rock lithium production. Talks are continuing with a range of potential offtake partners, with a view to forming a longer-term contract. Sayona will keep the market fully informed of any significant developments. Preference for a strategic offtake partnership is a model that could link into the committed downstream plans for NAL. "