Ann: Consolidation/Split - AUZ, page-128

Cheering if I am actually ignored but pretty silly to shut ourselves off from both sides of a discussion … especially when our rationale has proven invalid!

London presentation. 2018.
’SK will fund the construction of the mine’.

For the benefit of those who actually participate in the conversation? To say it was balance sheet bla bla is mincing words. ‘He obviously meant’. Nope. The only person who knows what he meant is him. All we have is what he actually said.

Mate you can stick with a logic that has proven itself invalid since the SK days if you like but some change the way they look at things when their initial method proves wrong.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iagkJmAmeL4

I just tried to rewatch and I actually never noticed how bad it was right from the start ‘we produce the chemicals, these chemicals are going in to’.
No, BB. You don’t and they aren’t.

’will be up online by end of 2020’.
No, BB. You had no guarantee of that.

’gives us the financing ability’.
No, BB. You didn’t have that.

’these two mines’.
Well, BB, you’ve gone from two mines to one- without ever explaining why to your shareholders and my approach says that will soon be one mine to zero mines.

The ‘SK will fund the mine’ bit is in there somewhere- others can wade through the jumble of ‘we are’ but at the same time ‘we will’ stuff if they’ve 13 minutes to burn.

There’s lots of ways to be ‘spinning wheels’.
Some do it when in a ditch. Some do it to make a donut and have a bit of fun when bored.

The logic that got me out at over 12 cents says ‘Sconi will not happen this decade’.