Yes, but the most obvious thing here is the NAL facility is a carbonate facility (already) and commitment have been made to qubec government (overriding the JV). if one party in the JV doesn't want to go out these commitments that is an issue for them. The advantages of developing a completely new hydroxide facility you can say with certainty will not outweigh the money already spent on carbonate infrastructure. A trade off study is basically due diligence - crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Its not evidence of a minority shareholder vetoing a majority shareholder- its simple due diligence.
Regardless of the contract being done by the same people a shareholder agreement concerns shareholder's rights ( and will no with no doubt) be governed by respective voting power. The OTA doesn't even factor in this- commercial prices, tonnage etc. The offtake agreement is a temporary agreement and is a mute point at this stage with the way pricing is.
Do you thing for one moment it is in the interests of PLL or SYA shareholders to continue to produce unprocessed SPOD- the answer to that is no. Botu companies will need to move up the value changing to survive in this fast moving space. This is very apparent from the recent price drop and countless articles of burgeoning demand that is likely to come from North America alone. The trade off analysis being done isn't a veto- it is common sense to do due diligence before a significant investment decision. Equally we know SYA are the operator, and it will be SYA's team that will bring metallurgical specialism that will influence any decision when chemical conversion decisions are cast at board level which is a 75:25 vetoing mechanism. As I have said I have never ever say a minority shareholder vetoing strategic decisions over majority shareholders
PLL Price at posting:
38.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)