I'm just as unimpressed with the 4C as anyone else. There really...

I'm just as unimpressed with the 4C as anyone else. There really are no positives other than Staff/Administration costs aren't blowing out. Other than that, the wait for revenues continues.

As for the Quarterly Activities Report I'm also unimpressed as:

- I don't believe they gave the market enough information on the status of the long-overdue Fletcher's "project" that was to result in the binding contract. I am hoping that this delay is because of the bigger Owens Corning involvement as I have suggested could be cause previously
- There was no mention of the Strategic Alloys JV progress of testing with BNNT particles, unless this is to be added in with the Rio Tinto Scandium testing. But those 2 materials were never referenced as both being required in the "Hot Al" product and their existing Patent for the Hot Al did not include BNNT, so again it is frustrating that they keep moving their own goalposts instead of just commercialising the more "basic" products first (this related to my frustration with Fletcher as I firmly believe Barrie Finnin's "strategy" was to announce the Global deal instead of just the Australian Fletcher deal. This delay has caused significant damage to the SP obviously). Initial "validation" of the new BNNT metal was expected in 1st Half CY21 based on a previous announcement
- No update provided on the previous Satellite "project(s)" that I assume is Boeing related, other than a new $50k purchase order for a new part trial/research project
- Complete lack of clarity on the hold-up for even attending a meeting in person for the Middle East Project. From memory that was a possible "deal" in 1st Half 2021 CY, and a "we are travelling to the Middle-East in 3 weeks" back in November. Now not travelling until March a is poorly explained delay

Without a doubt, there are excuses due to Covid, supply chains, floods in Germany etc but it would be nice to see them provide more accurate targets in the future and maybe beat them, instead of the current "over-promise, under-deliver" methodology.

The positves, and to answer your question around the $40M that i can see in the near-term are:
- The powder plant(s) are a significant opportunity that i believe is a "forgone" conclusion if you believe their confidence. As stated in the AGM Address:

"Our focus is on immediately addressable commercial opportunities, in particular in the powder and
tooling markets, whilst still pursuing growth optionality through longer-term projects and R&D with
the global defence and aerospace industries.
I want to expand briefly on the powder opportunities as this has become a much more important and
exciting focus for the company.
As I noted earlier, we know we have world leading technology in this space that is even more efficient
than we initially understood at the time we made the commitment to the titanium plant in
Melbourne. This investment will provide the company with critically important revenue and profit and
very importantly is not dependent on decisions of others to proceed to full operations.
We can therefore say with considerable confidence that by the next AGM the plant in Melbourne
should be operating and producing revenue for the company. On the basis of the known costs and
returns we anticipate recovering our investment in less than 6 months of full-scale operation."

There is a few key words in the above that I won't highlight as I'm sure you and others can read!!!! In the latest Activites Report attached to the 4C, they again talk about ramping powder up:

"Amaero expects construction to be finalised and commissioning to commence in 3Q CY2022; five‐fold
ramp up of additional gas atomisers with commensurate revenues expected by 2025."

Plus they had previously spoken aout the 1,250 Tonne facility in the USA and I have little doubt they have done enough diligence to know the current quantities of powder format Titanium being sold by China and Russia. The benefit of a "Five-eyes" Country being able to supply American defence/aerospace companies in light of the ongoing China and new Russian relationship problems will, in my opinion, make Amaero a pretty logical "preferred" supplier.

If it is true they can produce the powder for "Half the cost of current competitors", then it is arguable they can sell at the existing price, use their "Five eyes" as the competitive advantage, and that would equate to circa 50% profit on the forecast $40Million, or roughly $20Million per year out of the first Gas Atomizer. If they do indeed scale that up to "5-fold", and maintain the same sale price, then $100Million nett profit from the powder processing makes the Company a screaming buy in my opinion.

The caveat on that being if you are investing for a minimum 3 year period, with potential for delay based on form thus far.

Do they need capital imminently? I believe they must based on the fact they have only expended $2Million of the forecast $8Million cost to build and commission the initial Atomizer. With only $5Million in the bank, that is pretty obvious.

Do they need to do a capital raise though? Possibly, or possibly not subject to how they end up structuring the Fletcher deal (if / when announced).

Further, the Middle East Project was due to pay them their "profit" up-front, so using a guess of 10% on the $100Million, call it $10M in the bank.

Will either Fletchers or Middle East happen in time to stave off a CR? Let's hope so or the dilution effect at current SP will be horrible. Could they pull off a CR at a signficant premium to current price to Institutionals? Possibly, but again far from ideal.

Anyway, posting the lengthy rubbish above just as much for me to vent some near-term frustrations as to answer the $40Million question!

Interested in other opinions as the above are just my own.