Red and Jehosephat have given you very solid answers about the difference between the widely quoted USD PON v. the less-quoted but the much more important (for Aussie-domiciled miners) AUD PON.
Yes, if you can work on reducing your costs that's a good thing, but that's much easier said than done. In order to be profitable you need obtain a decent enough margin (revenue, less costs) to make it commercially worthwhile for the risk being taken. With the weighted average low grades of the overall SS/BS complex, reducing the costs enough becomes a tough ask to achieve in any material way, unless there is materially more ore tonnage discovered that is higher grade (watch for the the outcome of future drilling of the zone below Gosling). That's why you see an apparent fixation of the target revenue-side price of Ni ('PON'). There is zero point ignoring the economics of a project and just go for it, anyway. That's a recipe for disaster.
Not sure why you're commenting on the (un)likelihood of the AUD:USD Fx rate going from 0.76 to 1.00. I think almost everyone here would agree with that sentiment. Nobody on this forum is suggesting that the Fx rate needs to rise to 1:1 for the BS complex project to proceed. If you got this from Red's periodic "...a buck soon, mate..." comments, you should know they are actually a piss-take against another HC member who has historically advocated (without supporting rationale) that POS' SP (<<-- not Fx) will rise to $1. Nothing to do with the Fx rate.
Red very aptly drew the comparison to WSA who have mined and sold their (non-renewable) ore for low prices to the point of almost given it away. In many respects they would have been better off shuttering and waiting until the economics were more favourable. But that's always easy to say with hindsight - especially when you're a listed company, with all the voices to satisfy. In many respects any decision for a WSA to shutter and hold their ore for better times would have been more difficult to make, given that remaining open wasn't going to send them broke (because their grades were/are higher and costs were/are lower the likes of our BS complex). That's why Norilsk (previous owners of BS complex) shuttered that project when they did.
Imo, a restart at the LJ complex would be more economic today if up and running, but its flooded and would first need to be dewatered. There are trade-offs and challenges for each project. Nothing is mining is ever easy, nor should it be.
A LT holding in POS is not a bet on the AUD:USD Fx rate going to 1:1. Wrt to restarting the BS/SS complex project, as first project to restart, it's a bet on the LT spot NP/PON (<<--same thing) heading above AU$10.13/lb (AU$22,335/t) and staying above that level over... the... long... term. That's why you see some punters periodically refer to a holding in POS as effectively a (non-decaying) LT call option (punt) on spot Ni.
If/when this EV revolution eventually comes it should, imo, underpin the whole demand-side of the Ni market, which will set a revenue floor comfortably above our required minimums for years to come. The trick is in timing when that will happen. Go too soon with an uneconomic or highly marginal project and you risk burning the company and its holders.
(20min delay)