I believe that is basically the exact opposite of the truth. If...

I believe that is basically the exact opposite of the truth.
If the agreement is still in place? An agreement that brings zero dollars to the company, to a large degree locks up the future potential production, for something that will be dug up at a higher cost to other projects? It is a promise. Written on the air & worth as much as any other word not yet backed up by payment. Next to nothing.

If CLQ etc don’t make it there is no way AUZ will. Others have more money in the bank, more minerals at a higher cut off & lower projected extraction costs.

Yet somehow some think that the one with the smallest deposit, least amount of money in the bank, a lower nickel cut off & higher projected extraction costs is the one to watch?

Amazing. A lot of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ statements lately so what would I be called if I came up to you & said ‘hey mate- I’ve got less cash to support me, less minerals to sell & will be digging them up at a higher cost than others, but I swear I’m the best investment out there. You’ll just have to take my word for it’.

Money ( in the bank ), talks. Something else walks.

There is almost no money left in the bank here but plenty of tweets, announcements & the like.
This is not to say that it won’t make it. It’s to say that comparably speaking they were always behind the eight ball ( smaller deposit than others ), to begin with but were perceived to have a headscarf in the race to production.

Long lead items were scheduled to be ordered this month, to maintain that lead in the race.
Pretty sure they haven’t & won’t be ordered this quarter.

If investors start to feel that it is now back in with the rest of the pack regarding that race then the deposit size/cut off/financial position just ruins the story ( by comparison to those others in the race ).

Upside potential? At this market cap & at this stage with this little money in the bank?
Not as much as others. Then there’s the potential for higher costs associated with the tailings dam etc thanks to proximity to the Great Barrier Reef. Regulation is not going to weaken up there- in fact I see it becoming stronger ( more costly ), soon. The silence on that note here & the fact that none have at least considered it is interesting.

Scrutiny up there is about to get a whole lot tougher- even just from Joe Blow with a drone & a twitter account.

Again- I’m not saying that would be something to break the project but it is something worthwhile considering. If it wasn’t considered & then a flood did affect operations or release toxins in to the environment? Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Operations would come to an immediate halt & if restarted would cost a bit more.

A big reason I point this out is that a big reason to buy Aussie minerals is their ethical & environmental credentials. Mess with the Great Barrier Reef or be perceived to have done so in any way at all? I’d say your ‘green’ card would either be taken away or cost you a pretty penny to hold on to. For global battery manufacturers who want to sell to the high priced Western market one single mine ( with a deposit size, therefore life of mine, smaller than others ), would not even come in to the equation. Their only question would be : ‘how fast can we disconnect ourselves from that project?’

If this was BHP or some other well established supplier the offtake would be worth something to the SP. It’s not BHP.

*headscarf = headstart. I’m leaving that typo in to see what kind of characters I’m dealing with.
Playful or painful.