ClockworkI'm not sure that I have ever suggested/implied that...

Clockwork

I'm not sure that I have ever suggested/implied that the LG agreement is anything other than at market price clearly from the announcements it is.

As I indicated earlier from my reading of the announcements (and there is not a lot of specific detail) the SKI document was a binding terms sheet - which bound the companies to the general agreements in the terms sheet to allow further investigation/discussion - SKI were protecting their position in respect to the costs they would incur in proceeding to due diligence etc - AUZ protecting their position in that they were committing to pursue the transaction with SKI on the basis of the broad terms outlined between them (I assume exclusively as that is the norm).

In earlier posts I have referred to a "non binding offtake agreement from SKI" technically that is correct as there was never a formal documented offtake agreement only a terms sheet - it did not seem worthwhile getting involved in the nuances of terms sheets and formal agreements. Certainly there was a commitment to offtake implicit in the SKI terms sheet - but no formal binding offtake agreement was in place only the binding terms sheet - there is a difference.

I do agree that the potential for SKI to take up a shareholding was an attractive component of the potential SKI deal which is not in the Offtake Agreement with LG. I would suggest in the event that the SKI deal had progressed there would have been in the normal course a separation of any agreements in relation to any equity issue to SKI and the formal offtake agreement though there would likely have been linked conditions precedent. There is nothing to suggest that LG as part of ongoing discussions are not contemplating an equity injection or a prepayment - though if they were you might have expected something to have been said unless there was a confidentiality issue. From a shareholders viewpoint it might be nice if there is no equity injection though I think this is extremely unlikely. That said, conversely it might be argued that an quality equity partner would strengthen AUZ's perception in the market and hence the share price.

I still stand behind my belief that AUZ will get funding:

> They have a approval ready quality resource
> They have a binding agreement for offtake from a quality counterparty with only a funding condition.
> An in demand resource

I did think (as I posted) they might place the funding prior to Christmas based on AUZ's various statements re the advanced nature of discussions (and my belief LG have signed the agreement to advance finding discussions) however on reflection if they are going for Government funds and an equity injection realistically that probably will mean 2022 is more realistic