PEER Comparisons, page-144

RED quote: "Mate I am very interested in your take on this, If I am wrong, then please shed light for my and everyone's best understanding".

What's happening at AUZ is confusing.
In any case, my analysis focuses on the following big picture context, and I shall leave the sieveing of fine details to you because AUZ is not an investment of choice for me.

The bankable feasibility completed and was announced on 20 November 2018. There was no mention of the mining cost curve, especially being placed in the lowest cost quartile. The closest mention was "highly competitive C1 cash cost of USD0.48/lb Ni-eq."

By the way, a bankable feasibility study has the highest certainty/confidence level. The generally accepted stages of studies are ranked from the lowest level to highest as follows:

• Conceptual study (CS).
• Pre-feasibility study (PFS).
• Definitive feasibility study (DFS).
• Bankable feasibility study (BFS).

On a side note, I do wish that ARL would clarify where their feasibility studies are placed within the above four generally accepted stages.
But on the other hand, the positive side is that ARL, unlike AUZ, has not incurred those expensive outlays for a DFS or BFS. These studies don't come cheap.
The oddity in AUZ's case is that they are revisiting the BFS, a document with supposedly the highest level of certainty/confidence.

Almost 3 months after the BFS announcement, on 12 February 2019, AUZ announced that CRU International did a market study and forecast that:

"the 2025 value-adjusted business costs of the Sconi Project would place it in the 1st quartile compared to other existing and proposed analogous operations globally, based on the outcomes of the financial modelling that was released in Australian Mines’ base case Bankable Feasibility Study".

Since then, the LCQ catch-cry was used in free abandon in AUZ's relevant announcements.

Furthermore, in its May 2022 capital raising presentation, I noted that a new marketing point was added: "Tier 1 asset". I did not check when this point was first used in AUZ's announcement.

The mining sector holds the view that a Tier 1 asset is one with resources so rich it is desired above all others, and so desired that even economic wars had been waged to own it. Minnex Consulting (https://minexconsulting.com/definitions/tiers/) explained Tier 1 deposits as:

"Company making mines. They are large, long life and low cost... It has very robust economics and will be developed irrespective of where we currently are in the business cycle and whether the deposit has been fully drilled out. The resource is of a size/quality that it creates multiple opportunities for expansion".

Minnex Consulting also explained Tier 2 deposits as:

"Significant” deposits – but are not quite as large or long life or as profitable as Tier 1 deposits. I.e., it only meets some of the Tier 1 criteria.
Typically Tier 2 deposits are economically attractive/profitable in all but the bottom of the business-cycle, but has limited “optionality” because of modest size and mine life.
It is noted that over time, through additional delineation and/or changes in costs or business risk some Tier 2 deposits may ultimately become Tier 1 deposits".

To me, a spanner has been thrown into the Sconi Tier 1 works when the Board decided to revisit the BFS. How does this situation fit with the Tier 1 deposit criterion of "...very robust economics and will be developed irrespective..."

I leave it to others to decide whether Sconi is Tier 1 or 2.

In summary, I hold the view that greater clarity is required in regards to AUZ's claim of owning a Tier 1 asset with the lowest cost quartile. The clarity should come from a professional and scientifc study, rather than from a market study that is more subjected to the ebb and flow of market tides. Until then, AUZ's claim is as yet scientifically unsubstantiated and can cause confusion to the average investor.

Hope that helps, RED.

By the way, I have not saved a copy of this post. There is only one composition and it is here. If it gets moderated and deleted because of complaints, then so be it. Nothing lasts forever, anyway.