Ann: Sconi to generate $5 billion in free cashflow, page-481

Dress it up however we want but this is not a BFS, a company doing 2 things whilst another does 3 things is doing less by comparison, the last CR was done to provide cash flow sufficient until finance arrived ( which it hasn’t & by that measure the cash has been used up faster than was anticipated or the finance has arrived later than anticipated, however we want to say that is up to us ), this announcement shows projected nickel cost of $6.10 a pound while another is less than $5, the directors here have insufficient belief in the project to put in any of their own money while companies directors do & the list goes on and on.

I can’t use the vernacular as well as others & so appear to get trounced.

Apples for apples = higher cost to produce, far smaller deposit, less Director involvement, lower ability to foresee the necessity for cash or make it last & of course a loss of the ability to look for a meaningful partner.

Others can say it prettier & don’t shy away from capitalizing on that & that’s why there are 10,000 or so retail holders here.

Thousands of retail holders who are dazzled by the clever explanations with not one single board member as a shareholder in a meaningful sense.

The directors on the inside don’t believe in it. The retailers on the outside do. They can tell us they believe in it by putting their money in.

I need to see ~$4.64 per pound for us to break even on the nickel. AUZ needs, what? $6.10

How many times has the nickel price dipped below $4.63 in the last couple years?
How many times has it dipped below $6.10?
I’ll trust others can answer those questions for themselves.

Everything else is just words & clever as they may be they won’t get the job done- it someone tells you that $6.10 to produce is somehow better than $4.63 ( or so ), then you don’t need luck. You need a primary school maths revision class.