I'm not interested in generating output figures. That is...

I'm not interested in generating output figures. That is something for AUZ' consultant mining engineers to do.

I don't, however, expect them to be significantly better - in terms of IRR and NPV - than the initial BFS. Certainly, the LOM will be greater but I don't expect return on investment figures to be significantly better. They will be better - but due to the lower average grades - not significantly so.

My interests are more with the bigger picture - seeing the wood for the trees. Following the larger competitive landscape and the D-S dynamics in the EV related industries. Observing how management behaves. Observing the differences between the spin and the performance. Observing the trends in the capital markets. Considering the competition. The alternative tech etc etc.

It's quite foolhardy, imo, to just focus on the mine output and think just because the potential quantities meet the term sheet requirements, that is enough. The quantities have to be extracted profitably and with enough margin for error and risk to satisfy the financiers. At the May 2018 EGM, it was stated that finance would be finalised during Qtr 4 2018. We are now well past that, and still no sign! Why do you think that their Qtr 2 2019 target has any more veracity than their failed Qtr 4 2018 target?

The project is clearly a difficult sell.

Btw, you are wrong in your assessment that Sconi is only for Hungary. The initial AUZ announcement clearly said that Sconi would meet 90% of all SKI's global needs at that time. If you do your calcs you will see that Hungary only needs around 19 kt of Ni sulfate, so Sconi is sufficient to supply 3 plants the size of Hungary!

And maybe use spellcheck!