@Birchcorp. From your posts I gather you speak with ARU management on occasion. Do you have any insight as to how they're managing the absence of binding offtake, which I regard as a real concern? In your posts I note you think disclosure of an offtaker could be a problem because the offtaker may not wish to reveal a future raw material (NdPr oxide/metal) supply source to their current Chinese suppliers. Unfortunately though, as an ASX-listed co. ARU is obligated to disclose the name of the offtaker as well as any material terms of the offtake.
As an aside, the above constraint, if real, hasn't impacted disclosure of the HAS-Schaeffler or the VML-REEtec-Schaeffler arrangements. Perhaps Schaeffler is a special type of offtaker!
Considering ARU's most recent announcements, could it be that in negotiations with debt providers and foreign ECAs, these parties could agree to funding terms with ARU in full knowledge of offtake terms (subject to confidentiality provisions with the offtaker)? Debt funding and offtake agreements could then be executed, in effect, simultaneously. As a consequence, ARU could disclose the debt terms (and lenders) to the ASX as this represents the material part of the transaction, with binding offtake, representing the non-material part of the transaction, merely supporting the debt. This in turn could allow ARU to limit public disclosure of the offtake to the offtake terms (as part of the overall transaction), but not the name of the offtaker.
(20min delay)