ARL chart, page-1994

Hi @AverageJoe
Further to my above post on CLQ.

It is my sincere belief that AUZ had an offtake partner in SK Innovation, I am sure that the original intent was pure and based on an agreement of integrity.
The agreement struck with SK is reflective of a keen naïve small cap miner negotiating with a 500 pound gorilla. Power was weighted in favor of the gorilla.
As time passed the gorilla changed attitude and leveraged the agreement as a blocking stake IMO while looking elsewhere, safe and secure that they had a resource if they chose. SK have moved on and AUZ are now free to reinvent themselves.

Back to CLQ
It is possible that the 20% stake of the Chinese partner is inadvertently working as a blocking stake while the recruitment of additional partnerships are being sought. I don't think this was ever deliberately intended although it may be working this way now.
The existing Chinese partner has a position on the board and is thus privy to all new prospective partnership discussions. It would not surprise me if the eventual new partners are made up of an increased holding of the existing partner, and, or an additional Chinese partner.
If the current agreements are not a blocking stake for the existing partner, It may be for the CCP as a whole.
These are very valuable strategic resources and we should have our eyes wide open.

On with ARL
Ardea is 100% free of partnerships and offtake agreements, thus we do not have the complications that others previously had, or still have.

Financials 2019
While I was gathering my thoughts a little research highlighted something for me.
Qualification: I am not financially qualified, but when I look at the distilled financial numbers they speak very loud to me.
You mentioned your investment rule to invest in companies with revenue, I totally respect this.

CLQ
Revenue from ordinary activities Increased 2% to $4,172,000
Loss from ordinary activities after tax attributable to members Increased 12% to $17,921,000
If they had revenue of $4,172,000 and still ran a loss of $17,921,000 my simple take is an OPEX COST of $22,093,000 without revenue, Its probably irrelevant though.
I failed math's at school so apologies if I interpret this incorrectly.

ARL
Net loss attributable to members of the Consolidated Entity’s (1,487,734)

AUZ
I could not get any figures for AUZ as the website still does not work.

ARL has a very small efficient team that manages money in the most efficient manner possible with 3 directors on the board.
CLQ have a bloated Billionaire mindset with 9 directors on the board costing a fortune.
I thought the standards for financial reporting on the ASX were compliant to a standard, thus I hope I am comparing apples with apples.

I just thought this was an interesting observation between juniors.
RED