Ann: Restructure of Lithium Offtake Agreements, page-207

Hi John, I disagree. At the time that a DFS would have been completed lithium prices were near their peak, I think the numbers in the DFS would have been compelling and a FID to proceed would have been made. I concede that a DFS would likely have required us to define a larger resource in order to increase the LOM, which naturally would have cost us both time and money.

I don't disagree that completing a DFS assists in de-risking a project, there is no disputing that. Alliance rolled the dice in the belief that the economics of the project are good and that the time and money spent on drilling and completing a DFS would be better spent on fast-tracking project development. There is no question that this approach carries a higher degree of risk and that alone is enough reason for some not to invest in the stock and that is fine.

A40 doesn't carry the burden of a having a large debt to repay and, IMO, the operational and offtake issues we've experienced so far are not unique to us and are would not have been prevented by completing a DFS.

Time will tell if A40 turns out to be a winner or a loser, either way MC will play a major role in determining which it is.