PERTH (miningweekly.com) – The war of words between ASX-listed juniors Pilbara Minerals and Mineral Resources (MinRes) continues, with MinRes on Wednesday denouncing a second sale notice between Pilbara Minerals and offtake partner General Lithium Corporation.

In July, Pilbara Minerals entered into a transaction with General Lithium for the supply of 140 000 t/y of 6% chemical-grade spodumene concentrate over a six-year period from the first quarter of 2018, from the Pilgangoora lithum-tantalum project, in Western Australia.

The agreement represented over 40% of the Pilgangoora project’s anticipated initial yearly output of spodumene concentrate.

However, MinRes at the time started proceedings against Pilbara Minerals, claiming that the sales notice was invalid, as the company had first right of refusal over the lithium products from Pilgangoora.

MinRes said on Wednesday that the agreement required that Pilbara Minerals offer MinRes the right to refuse to purchase lithium products before entering into an agreement with a third party, with the sales conditions having to be identical to those offered by the third party.

Pilbara Minerals later in July withdrew its first sales notice, and in August withdrew its assertion that MinRes was not the valid assignee of the first right of refusal.

A draft sale notice was provided to MinRes in early September, following a Supreme Court hearing in August, allowing for discussions between the two companies.

MinRes said that on September 15, the company responded to Pilbara Minerals’ request for comment on the draft notice, with the company pointing out alleged defects of the draft sale notice. MinRes noted that less than an hour after providing its response to Pilbara Minerals, and without responding to the stated concerns, Pilbara Minerals signed and issued a second sales notice with General Lithium.

MinRes claimed that the second sales notice did not provide an offer for the company to purchase lithium products on the same terms and conditions as those offered to General Lithium, saying that the second notice purports to fix a price instead of offering the same pricing mechanism as that offered to General Mining, while also failing to include the right offered to General Lithium to negotiate a revision to the pricing formula.

MinRes said that the second sales notice was far more financially onerous on the company, and failed to comply with the first refusal agreement. The company has now served a default notice to the Pilgangoora asset sale agreement, requiring Pilbara Minerals to serve a valid notice.

However, Pilbara Minerals said that the second sale notice did not fix a price payable by MinRes, but offered the same terms and pricing mechanism as offered to General Lithium.

The company said that it was "confident" that the second sales notice had been validly issued and was compliant with the relevant asset sale agreement, under which MinRes could elect to exercise its right of first refusal.

Pilbara Minerals told shareholders that if the two companies could not resolve the matter, the company would refer the issue of the validity of the sales notice to dispute resolution.

A recent definitive feasibility study into the Pilgangoora project found that it could deliver some 314 000 t/y of 6% spodumene concentrate and 321 000 lb/y of tantalite over a 36-year mine life.