Hi GAC252
I agree that more investigation is needed, we can however rely on 3 certain facts.

Queensland Government Website 1
Last updated:13 September 2022

Sconi project (withdrawn)

Project summary

On 9 September 2015 Nornico Pty Ltd (the proponent) voluntarily withdrew the Sconi Project (the project) from the environmental impact statement (EIS) process.

Furthermore 2
That the CEO of Australian mines says that Approval of Environmental Impact Studies are expected to be approved by FY Q2 2026
Why would Michael Holmes and the Board take AUZ through the entire arduous process of EIS if it were not necessary. He/ Board would not do this.
It is therefore reasonable to deem AUZ as not having EIS completion and approval.
Therefore AUZ is not compliant, or the announcement is incorrect.

Furthermore 3
ASIC Investigations and convictions show that there is reason and legitimacy in questioning everything from the past.

In Defence of AUZ - AUZ MAY HAVE HAD compliance with EIS regulation to present the announcement ON 2 March 2017, This was later perhaps withdrawn for some reason.
This leaves one with the question, was the announcement legitimate to start with, was it of acceptable standard.
If the EIS was withdrawn, why did management not notify the market as it would be Market Sensitive.
OR
Does the change from MHP to Sulphate production negate the approval given by EIS authorities.
If the EIS was withdrawn for the change in processing, why did management not notify the market as it would be Market Sensitive.

There are a lot of questions to be asked and answered.
RED