As I said, that comes down to interpretation "undertaken" per myself is "committing to" or "take on"
so to me if you are actively undertaking studies you have started progession on downstream developments. Again all up to interpretation here.
Whats worse IMHO is what is written in the 2023 annual report:
NAL Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS)In April 2023, Sayona announced a DFS combining the NAL
operation and Authier Lithium Project. The pre-tax net present value
(NPV) of the project was estimated at $2.2 billion (8% discount rate),
representing a significant increase from the pre-tax NPV of $1 billion
disclosed in the pre-feasibility study.
The operation is expected to generate estimated total net revenue
of $7.6 billion with an EBITDA of $3.7 billion, based on life-of-mine
annual average concentrate production of 190,000 tonnes,
supporting an after-tax Internal Rate of Return of 2,545%.
This
clearly demonstrates the Abitibi-Témiscamingue lithium hub’s long‐
term financial and technical viability.NAL Preliminary Carbonate Technical Study
In June 2023, Sayona announced the results of a preliminary
carbonate technical study for NAL, confirming the benefits of
moving into downstream processing. Study highlights included an
estimated pre‐tax NPV (8% discount) of $3.2 billion and pre‐tax
internal rate of return of 60%, with the project expected to generate
an estimated EBITDA of $7.5 billion over the 16‐year life of the
carbonate plant. The pre-tax NPV of fully integrated downstream
operations at NAL is now estimated at $5.4 billion, including the NAL
DFS.
Sayona and Piedmont will work with technical advisers to undertake
a further trade-off study of lithium carbonate versus lithium
hydroxide production at NAL, with a definitive technical study to
follow for release in 2024.
So to me a DFS is meant to be a final study before a project gets the go ahead. This is a unanimous statement across investment. Go ask any other investor you know that has invested for years in stocks. DFS = final study to confirm or disprove the economics.
So not only did we do that an it confirmed the viability, they then did a NAL preliminary carbonate technical study? I dont even know what this is??? Go look at Ioneer the last study they did for their carbonate plant was a BLOOD DFS! That was is, it was proven viable, they didnt do trade offs of hydro vs carb.
As Loui and Split have said, this is a stalling tactic from the BOD due to inexperience and no know how in this area.... Chuck on top of this that they are now just trying to keep their job their attention is miles from getting this component of SYA to fruition.
With a half build carbonate plant we shouldnt be waiting on a Hydro vs Carbonate trade off......
We have spod, we have a half build carb plant. To move to hydroxide, you would not only need to completely rebuild from scratch the cost I imagine would be more substantial as hydro is simply more complicated. Crawl before you walk. We should be using current 1/2 for our study with what we expect to add on... Then proceeding.
As it has been stated time and time again, this current, BoD are not up to the task.
(20min delay)