Well its interesting because the SYQ make up per Spod (ty again spody) is 2 SYA and 1 PLL board members.
And because we are JV on NAL the trade of study of carb vs hydroxide seems to appear to be more of an overspend.
As I highlighted previously "half built" plant.... The 2.2B NPV or the 3.6B Announcement went into detail on it.
ie what the plant needed to be operational, we have permits granted some may need slight changes etc etc...
It all points to carb, add to this the cost of this trade of study and any further studies and if Hydroxide somehow was the better downstream option what cost to work out what sort of plant we would use to operate it. An when I say what we would use I assume it would be exclusively a SYQ SYA directors only decision with KP having a conflict of interest over a decision on the matter in regards to being a PLL director too.
Source: PLL form 10-k through 31 Dec 2023:
Accounting for Equity Method Investments – Refer to Notes 2 and 9 to the financial statements
Critical Audit Matter Description
The Company applies the equity method of accounting for investments in which they have significant influence as contemplated
within Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 323 – “Investments – Equity Method and Joint Ventures.” Management has
determined that they have significant influence over the Sayona Mining Limited, Sayona Quebec Inc., Atlantic Lithium Limited, and
Vinland Lithium Inc. investments, and therefore have accounted for these investments in accordance with ASC Topic 323
As such would deem a conflict of interest on KPs part and should if in fair statement lead to a abstain from any and all decisions on the outcome from the trade of study.
An I completely understand at present we simply do not have excess funds for down stream but all my point is, is that Carbonate is the way to go as quickly and and cost effective as possible, if an when we decide to go down stream. Do I even need to also state that its 75% SYAs and 25% PLLs so again we have a bargaining tool for anyone wanting to get on board.
Again from form 10-k
In addition to spodumene mining and concentrate production, NAL’s complex also includes a partially completed lithium carbonate
facility, which was developed by a prior operator of NAL. In the event both we and Sayona Mining decide to jointly construct and
operate a lithium conversion plant through our jointly-owned entity, Sayona Quebec, then spodumene concentrate produced from
NAL would be preferentially delivered to that conversion plant upon commencement of conversion operations. Any remaining
spodumene concentrate not delivered to a jointly-owned conversion plant would first be delivered to Piedmont Lithium up to our
offtake right and then to third parties.
The absolute only possible reason I could see that we wouldnt make use of this half built asset is if some large player wanted Spod taken to a hydoxide plant they own with the bargaining power of SYA & PLL being the Spod & the bargaining power of the bigger player being possible cash & Hydro plant.
(20min delay)
