"put it this way if it’s mid 2025 or 2026 and a supplier does...

"put it this way if it’s mid 2025 or 2026 and a supplier does not have a pretty iron clad plan for FOEC compliant supply they are likely to have there exemption yanked"

Thank you @axle84. You just provided a very large piece of a puzzle I was having difficulty with. It has massive ramifications for NVX as well. I posted the below 2 posts in SYR after the quarterly teleconference finished on 30/04. I was struggling with why SYR sounded so confident.

Post 1
"They stressed on the teleconference repeatedly funding for the 45kt expansion will be non-dilutive. One of the brokers asked a question on it. Shaun carefully said, the only options for the 11.25kt plant were govt and equity funding (CR). However attitudes in the market place have changed and downstream supply chain participants recognise the graphite supply chain has been underfunded.

Ford loaned LTR $300m, 1 of many examples in the lithium space. Reading between the lines, downstream supply chain participants finally might be looking at doing the same for graphite"

Post 2
"@BGI Dependant on SYR's interpretation of non-dilutive, it rules out a CR, JV or strategic partner which leaves a loan from a commercial bank or supply chain participant. I get the feeling SYR are deep into negotiations with 1 of the later. The DOE won't finalise the loan until SYR have their share of the funding in place. The clocks ticking until the next election so wouldn't surprise if the DOE is leaning on someone."

For NVX, this will help fund their share of the 20kt Riverside project AND the greenfield. With any luck, it should bring the start date of the greenfield project forward. For both natural and synthetic AAM plants, it takes years to build, ramp and test