SYR Charts, page-2030

CashAddict: Thanks for pointing out my oversight about Sanyo being actually a wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic earlier. It is intriguing therefore why NVX got the agreement with a subsidiary rather than the parent company, which obviously has a stronger reputation in BEV batteries.

If capital call is the reason for the disproportionate treatment of SYR today versus the other BEV materials, i think it is short-sighted. First, there is no certainly that will take place, especially in the near-term Vidalia FID remains for 10,000tpa. With secured offtakes, project finance is a viable option for SYR to use to finance the upfront capital for it. Secondly, even if there is a capital call, why would an existing retail shareholder sells given there is a potential for rights issue ?

The way i read the FID delay - it could be attributed to two possible reasons:

1) SYR is investigating the feasibility of going FID beyond 10,000tpa immediately and therefore requires more time to lock-in additional customers (as alluded by the previous ASX release); and/or

2) The 2020 BFS was done conducted sometime in 2H 2020. A lot has changed especially in regards to cost estimates - therefore, it is plausible that SYR requires time to re-do the BFS numbers before presenting to the board for FID approval.

Irrespective, one month delay is neither here or there in the scheme of things from a long-term value perspective. What is more important is SYR management gets the commercial terms correct with off-takers (volume offtake certainty versus fixed price versus how much % of future uncontracted sales exposed to future spot pricing) and properly negate Vidalia construction cost risks.

There is much to anticipate for SYR holders in the coming weeks - 1) Q4 2021 production update; 2) Vidalia FID; and 3) possible new customer agreements. Yet the beauty of it all is prospective SYR buyers currently do not have to pay exorbitant implied market value of the company for those potential catalysts