It's all a bit of a mystery isn't it ... what SYA is thinking and what SYQ is capable of acheiving in a broader partnership
I'd be surprised if it is SK Innovation givent the commentary below and then the commentary by PG CEO Arcadium
and then PG commentary (from most recent Rock Stock interview with Howard Klein)
"EcoPro will not take technical grade carbonate from what I understand into Quebec. They'll take it to Korea where they have the capability to convert carbonate into hydroxide. And then will ship that hydroxide - they have multiple customers. There's certainly no guarantee it goes into Quebec. We will almost certainly be supplying battery-grade lithium hydroxide from Nemaska into the EcoPro process under that Ford contract. This is part of the complexity of the supply chain. There are a small number of companies out there willing and able to take technical grade material and upgrade it either into a battery grade carbonate, battery grade hydroxide, or frankly even use it in some of the lower-quality battery applications. There are certainly some LFP applications that don't have the same qualification processes or standards that allows them to use a relatively low-grade lithium carbonate as part of that process. To me, this all just reflects the challenge on producing really high-quality lithium carbonate."
That seems to rule out SYA (for Carbonate) but not for SC ... but it is shipping to Korea (might as well be China given the distance). But the logic of then taking that Hydroxide and shipping it back to Quebec ... goes against the ESG objective of GoQ right.
Nano is more interesting though. Let's not forget that the SMM agreement with Nano is summed up by Nano as:
That would seem supportive of SYA both in the supply of battery grade lithium carbonate (from NAL) and then in later with Hydroxide (from Moblan) to the Nano/SMM partnership.
Now as PG also said
"The customers willingness to contract on the basis of quality, geographic location. What their economics look like, just drives a really different outcome. We tend to focus more on the fundamentals. We know what it takes for us to deliver projects. We know what it takes for us to deliver to customers. We know that you don't build a hydroxide plant in the West unless you have a customer lined up with volumes committed and as much pricing certainty as possible, which means a floor, which means a take-or-pay. We can give ceilings or we can give discounts. We can structure things to pay, if you will, for that floor."
Since Arcadium (in the West) is focused on Hydroxide and given the earlier statement on EcoPro and Nemaska Hydroxide that's probably a good example. That being the case, then SYA has both "products" (Carbonate and Hydroxide ... long term) in its portfolio but obviously lacks the development partner to pull it off. But IMO, it needs substantial partner commitment (so capital, OTA with firm pricing) - through to the production of said end product - to be "taken seriously" by the market. And I mean something like what GM did with LAC (what SMM did with Nano is small potatoes ... just dipping their toe in the water).
It would be appear as a bargain-base price for equity stake in SYA if SMM was going to establish itself in Quebec.
(20min delay)