Ann: Critical Minerals Conference Presentation, page-47

Just pondering Ski if the first point you state and has been stated also the same with Hyundai/Kia pricing structure based on USD Ex works China is the issue in closing out these two financial commitments. They are binding and I recall thinking at the time * oh well it's only the initial 7year offtakes when scaling is occurring in early years of production then they can negotiate much higher pricing. With around 40% contracted on binding terms as above ARU are committed to such and further ARU want these tier 1 customers very long term such do those tier 1 companies want decades of partnerships and are happy to provide equity to ARU to further bolster their relationship.
Then say POSCO arrive at the table and clearly aware of ARUs 2 binding offtakes want the same terms.
The now possible 20% spot market becomes very important as does the ESG ex China supply additional component in the binding offtakes pricing.

ARU has to be profitable for future success and growth to supply offtakes current and future decades and all parties are acutely aware of such. The most recent advised OPEX of USD35kg is great yet that would be if at all at full production in say 5years.

ARU have no chance of providing product in current offtake agreement by 2026 - force majure. Are they in discussions regarding updating current offtake agreements - supply timelines and even pricing structures in lieu of the major ex China supply conditions being enforced by major western governments?

Lot going on globally for little ARU whom are at the centre of a great deal.