A few rebuttal and factual references in response to your...

A few rebuttal and factual references in response to your pontification:

1. I have been working with the battery industry, as well as a multitude of industries, for conductive, thermal, and lubrication additives for 22 years. This includes every primary and secondary battery chemistry in existence today including R & D chemistries, so your unqualified comment my experience is limited to industrial is unsubstantiated. There have been hundreds of new battery manufacturers that all claim to have the next best thing, yet seem to fall by the way side always forecasting the moon, then depleting all capital with no direct partnership or license agreement to further their product research and subsequent industry development. Working with every facet of carbon products from shapes, carbon blacks, primary & secondary synthetic graphite powders, natural graphite, and graphene provides for a unique understanding of applications that you have read about in books, and others you have never considered.

2. The majority of ALL EV growth has been focused in China where everybody and their brother appears to focus their recourses on supply Chinese. The Chinese ARE NOT the global indicator of EV progress, yet moving forward at a rapid pace compared to the ROW, all propped up by government subsidies FORCING consumers to buy through government pressure.

3. The majority of secondary battery demand for graphite cannot be limited to CHINA even though they are the majority users of graphite for 30 and 60 kw battery packs. Consumer goods are the largest users of graphite products for cathode and anode applications and not EV. The ~120,000 MT is a solid number for secondary battery graphite usage, but will vary based on cyclical demand for consumer goods (i.e. mobile phones, consumer products, etc.), as the data does come not from Chinese sourced, biased data used by IM, BM, and Roskill, but from actual consumer, producer, and industry reports on raw material consumption for battery manufacturing and government estimates. The Chinese are not the standard for ANY part of the graphite industry except the high volume of production.

4. I have NO interest in the iron ore industry as it has NO DIRECT comparisons to graphite in any form. Any pricing comments I made are strictly focused on graphite, so all of my data is accurate. It appears your entire pricing argument is based on your extensive experience in the iron ore industry which is IRRELEVANT to the graphite industry.

5. SYR is planning at this point to be a supplier of precursor flake graphite to processors, which in itself will take up to three years to qualify, IF it even does as not every graphite signature will work in every battery chemistry as a result of a number factors. As for the US based SPG plant, 3 years or more before potentially any sales on successful qualifications will take place and then there are no guarantee (which appears to be the staunch position of new graphite project of "build it they will come" ideology).

6. You make the assertion that like all other technologies, battery prices will come down, yet you cannot compare EV battery technology to other technologies at the EV battery is sophisticated when compared to mobile phones, power tools, or medical device products, hence there are governmental regulations that will check any short cuts taken in raw material supply; especially for any conductive additives. Conductive additives will increase in price as well as new carbon and non-carbon technologies are being researched, which is considered a significant threat to traditional graphite additives for battery technologies.

7. It is possible that SYR may indeed come out this on the profit side of the equation, yet without full and complete understanding of the graphite industry, target application, and supply / demand barriers, using any past bulk industrial experience as a bench mark for success, is foolish, with the prognosis of success fraught with peril.

8. To many with little graphite experience fully understand the definition of "premium pricing"...for example, a -195 sold as SPG precursor or refractory grades command ~ US$ 575 to US$ 600 MT EXW, yet in other applications such as friction, polymers, or dry coatings, the prices increase to ~US$ 1,050 to US$ 1,150 MT EXW base on a number of additional documentation factors, packaging, volumes and specifications required by the customer or application. Understanding that one price point reported out of China IS NOT the benchmark for all applications, yet many continue to focus their financial modeling on Chinese biased pricing. Only focusing natural flake applications with the highest volume, lowest price, with numerous suppliers is a tough road travel

We can revisit this topic, in fact I insist we do, in 12 months, where we can debate as to the success or failure of our positions.