General Discussion Topics, page-84235

Yes .....and that's a fair call and o.k to do as an Investor with ' skin in the game ' . That is to say ' Ask and review the important Question ' .

Because at the end of the day , it's often much easier to look in hindsight than it is to stare into the abyss of the ' futures ' looking glass and endeavoring to predict the direction and outcomes of the Company.

However at the same time , it is the job of every investor to take away the insight of ' Hindsight ' which obviously can help you in finding and developing sound postulations of what may transpire and unfold into the future.

And the reality and facts of this current situation is that there is indeed now sufficient ' Precedence ' to have the previous off-take agreement reviewed.

And tha of course is on the basis of ALL the issues raised so far. Like s the timing of agreed deliveries , the location of the deliveries , the transport costs previously asserted to these destinations , the chemical conversion timetables in so far as how this translates to LOM and the agreement with Quebec. There is also the aspect of when effectively the commencement of the ' Annual ' tpa agreements actually starts.

Is it when they officially agree to the re-start , was it when the mining contract were signed and the production actually commenced on the NAL site from Oct 2022 , or is is January 1st ....or indeed sometime between January 1t and 31st March 2023.

Then of course you have this issues of s what I would call the misinterpreted notion of FIRST production automatically being ' assumed ' to go to Piedmont which as I see it has been completely misinterpreted by that ' Hierarchical ' priority of where the spodumene production gets allocated to being in some way misconstrued as meaning ' Going to Piedmont FIRST ' , and which was put out there in June 2021 or thereabouts when the addendum to the original off-take was put out there which included the expanded SYAQ assumed blended ore from Authier.

So you can see that there are a lot of issues ' muddying the waters ' if you will , and that it is perfectly appropriate to be both raising them and discussing them until finally seeing what unfolds instead of conveniently and almost purposefully presuming the absolute worst case scenario which is NOT in favor of Sayona or its over 30,000 shareholders.

In any case , and at the end of the day , Lynch himself has pretty much dispelled this misnomer which suggested Piedmont is entitled to the FIRST production which comes off the processing line.