General Discussion Topics, page-952

Well you're right on a whole lot of questions in your Post Split. Firstly though I will say that Biden is NOT in control of Wall Street . And that is the overriding point being made here. So that is what the World really needs to worry about - and NOT Biden per se

One of the main reasons for my research as I stated is pretty much to cross all the ' T's ' and Dot all the ' I's ' in so far as recognizing ALL the risks associated with an investment or position.

And you're right that much of Sayona's strengths and weaknesses have been discussed ad nauseum and to great lengths over the Journey including many numbers , scenario's , tax treatments , foreign subsidiary rules to name just a few. And most of this has largely been unproven and speculative in nature - namely because Sayona has not been that transparent in leading it's shareholders to a certain definitive direction or decision one way or another.

Now that Other competing BIDs have in effect done this , this raises and heigtens further my original concerns I have always had with this Company. And I would argue , I have stated and documented many many good things about Sayona's position , and which have almost always backed up with actual numbers and peer comparisons.

It's just we are now heading into the pointy end , and so I would expect more communication if Sayona Shareholder were in fact going to be participating at any significant level requiring support and equity from its shareholders. So this is a bit of a red flag for me and personally.

There is also the fact that there was a lot of speak that the other BID's were inferior which I was not convinced on as there was no real evidence to support this and so felt as though there needed to be more deeper discussion as to the specific strengths of the others as opposed to just the thinly supported comments as to their weaknesses . So once you do this , you can see that they are perhaps genuine , and that because we don't really know much about ours , that this leads to genuine concerns.

And mate I'm not going to just sit back and blow smoke up people's backsides that everything is seemingly all roses. We have to be realistic , and I would certainly like to know why Sprott was perhaps not interested in us if it meant he may be able to participate in a what he obviously sees as a potentially high valued and perhaps nearer term project .

Is it because he is a Loyalist Canadian. ? Whether that is the case or not , I not sure that should matter all that much considering his global Interests elsewhere and in particular Australia.

Did he get burned by a previous Australian Lithium Play ......Don't think I have heard of anything. Did other people he knows get burnt by Australian Lithium plays .......Perhaps , but not sure this is the way he would operate his business. He is a very sensible Guy. Perhaps he knows something more about why these Lithium Plays in Australia and Canada have failed and believes it will ultimately be safer in Canadian ' controlling ' hands. Perhaps he gone the route of supporting Sayona Quebec because of his Environmental views or perhaps because he knows he will get a chance later on through a placement or whatever.

There is literally a plethora of what if's and why fors in regards this issue.....but the simple upfront fact is that he has NOT decided to throw his support behind our Play.

So what about Evolution's so called ' Private Investors ' We know they are there , but who are they. And that was one the purposes of my post to try and reveal at worse case who they might be. And if they are Wall Street affiliates of Blackrock , we could be in for a bit of a battle .....although they don't ever seem to take a bigger stake than 20 - 25 % but who knows. The fact the BIDs came at virtually the same time and virtually at the last minute in itself indicates an element of stealthy opportunistic gamesmanship by these consortium's. So maybe they will carve it up 3 ways - with a third , a third and a third with Evolutions / hypothetical Blackrock having some Royalty / streaming deal over the life of the project while Sprott and Co handle the carbonate / hydroxide project development while Sayona manages the spodumene and current mine activities including offtake arrangements.

Who knows really , but as we can all see there is a lot going in regards to the start up and future of this combined operations which may require many separate management and operational functions to ensure the long term success of whatever plan they go with.

Another thing to consider is that Authier is still a reasonable way off even approval for initial mine infrastructure or Pit excavation , blasting , crushing etc...

I mean what is exactly the lead time on the current items of the crushing circuit let alone any beefed up model or modules in the event of start up and receipt of environmental approvals ....ie BAPE.

So they may take the view that Sayona should just stick to focusing on the ramp up of Authier and let the NAL operations be left to the BIG boys who know what they are doing.

And so I come back to what's stopping SRG / SAMA / Sprott teaming up with say Evolution. It's a risk and one which certainly shouldn't be dismissed. Of course there is nothing stopping Sprott and Co in teaming up with SYA / Piedmont and perhaps Tesla Direct . The bottom line and emphasis I'm trying to suggest is that we shouldn't be merely dismissing others because we think we know better , and that we should be prepared as investors in at least being aware of our risks if not managing them .

So I can assure you there is nothing untoward's in my research as I could have easily just sat on it and not shared it , and would have made no difference whatsoever to me in doing that. In fact I would have preferred not to in many ways.