I guess without having some form of term sheet underpinning the...

I guess without having some form of term sheet underpinning the MOU difficult to assess. But what is clear is that the MOU is not with a miner.

I have said on this forum that having no biding agreements is a negative, whilst others have said it is a positive. The ones saying it is positive is because it allows in their opinion a full TO. I have implied it is negative because it reduces your potential suitors and TO price, notwithstanding the games played last year wheer we though a TO was imminenet and all that resulted in was a delay in drilling. Reason is some companies, like battery makers may not want to get involved in mining, just like BHPB and Rio do not want to get involved in steel production. Same concept - some entities do not want to be fully integrated.

Looking beyond the envelope allows AVZ to have an avenue to been a miner if the TO price is not right and fires an arrow across the bow of those who may want to do a TO that says yes we are serious about mining if the offer is low ball. Good strategy and about time, but without a term sheet (i.e. the get out clauses as I have seen MOUs become binding in the past btw depending on what is in them as MOUs have led to binding agreements in the past - ask the other lithium plays in the Pilbara their importance pre binding agreements).

So a good strategy play is how I define this Ann at a high level. All IMO