AGM, page-214

I really wish to understand what went wrong with the SKI arrangement..

1.Did SKI decide not to sign prepayment agreement because AUZ was not able to secure full AUD1.3b in funding?
2.Did the financier eg., NAIF had certain conditions that SKI &/or AUZ were not happy with?
3.Were there issues that could not be mutually resolved between AUZ & SKI notwithstanding full loan approval?

Look at it this way - both AUZ & SKI were keen. SKI's conditions were AUZ securing full funding so that SKI would honour its obligation. Let's assume that AUZ was not able to secure full funding as per SKI's requirements - & we know the outcome. The thing is, this entire process again will need to be repeated by another potential Off-take agreement partner. The begging question is, if AUZ was not able to get full funding in the first place, how will AUZ counter this $1.3b capital raising to their favour in the near future????

The only announcement from AUZ subsequent to SKI's withdrawal is "AUZ will seek meaningful financial commitment" from new Off take agreement partner(s). What does this mean? This is not a new transparent strategy for success!!!!! AUZ is still complacent and, there is no room left at all for complacency!!

It seems obvious to me now that AUZ will need to part sell AUZ's operations to the next big Off take partner and approach potential funders as a united-front; because (IMO) I cannot see this working in any other way.

What are your views?....thanks.