Not sure if you even know what you're saying , but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt .
And the reason I will give you that benefit is because at the time of establishing this price range and irrespective of the fact that what you're implying is that they established this range regardless of what the outlook would be on NAL operating cost structure.
And o.k , that in itself seems ludicrous really.
But consider for a moment that they ( the BOD & Lynch ) would have through the due diligence process of aquiring NAL ...., had ALL access to the likelihood that previous costs could be bettered.
And in fact the whole impetus for the NAL acquisition and what got us over the line was the major selling point of ' Blending ' Authier ore with NAL in achieving higher recoveries. This idea was then incorporated into the conjoined DFS's wherebey the Authier project would be the recipient of some dollars per tonne contributing ' offset ' , and thereby lowering the defacto cost per tonne of NAL concentrate.
So we know now that this wasn't done ...., and well after they had already struck this offtake price range with PLL.
In fact the actual LOM period of the off-take was set long before they even knew that the LOM would be originally extended....which again I don't know how you can construe the deal to be fair & reasonable when you don't even know yet the parameters of the life of the project. In other words , how can you sign away product you don't even know you have discovered or extended yet. Especially at a price you KNOW won't be the same price in 27 years. No price escalation ( rise & fall ) clause ....no nothing. These Guy's are absolute clowns.
So yeah , knowing that there are these standard contract ' adjustments ' with your off-take partner based on ' Quality ' of the concentrate , I don't know why that without certain aspects of what it will ACTUALLY cost them that they wouldn't have set the price range higher based on these ' unknowns ' .
It's quite irresponsible really . And definitely NOT in the best interest of ordinary shareholders. And this is another reason that they must go. This notion of Sayona NOT having the money to close the deal without Piedmont's initial contributions is a furphy as well. Because I've done the reconciliation and found that we DID have the money to get it over the line. What Lynch did though was act conservatively at the time by a.) providing a BUFFER of working capital , and b.) bringing in a partner to cover the project RISK.
But the actual upfront terms are a whole different matter because I don't know how you can set a price range at all without having a better understanding of your likely cost structures.
(20min delay)