London Presentation - 121 Mining Investment, page-86

It could appear BB has used confusing terminology and statements and Yes it is confusing.

SKI is funding the Capex - I take this as they are funding the build at no cost to AUZ as a condition of the offtake. My interpretation.

BB statement from the 1m10s mark -
"SK they are funding construction of the plant"
"Which we (AUZ) didn't have to fund"

BB statement from 1m40s mark
"They (SKI) have to fund the plant"
"How are we (AUZ) going to fund the plant - we (AUZ) don't"

BB statement from 8min mark
"SKI now committed to financing this"
"We (AUZ) dont need to find it, they will finance this themselves"

BB statement from the 9min mark
"Its on their (SKI) balance sheet and their credit that we get this project built"

My interpretation through the choice of his words and the omissions of key words and phrases such as, finance being provided by SKI, competitive interest rates, debt reduction, etc, is that it may very well be that SKI is funding the plant, and there is no cost to AUZ.

Noticed the wording has changed - "prices based on the LME and a small premium for the concentrate", where originally it was based on the "LME prices and a modest discount for the concentrate".

I am thinking it is a case of no debt for AUZ as the funds are coming direct from SKI balance sheet as it is being traded off with perhaps the way the pricing of the products is now being invoiced.

Now this would be ideal situation IMO.

I shall make a phone call tomorrow to BB or Sophia for clarification.​