There’s definitely a few fair points in what you’ve raised, but...

There’s definitely a few fair points in what you’ve raised, but it’s worth unpacking some of it for clarity.

Yes, there’s a related-party web here, two Macro directors have ownership in the mining leases, and RE:GROUP, the head contractor, is awarding a large portion of the work back to Macro. That does raise a red flag around governance and transparency, and it’s something shareholders should keep a close eye on. That said, the contract is supposed to be “cost plus 15%”, so it’s not like they’re hiding margins, the key will be how “cost” is defined and who’s supplying what (e.g. if Paramount is jacking up equipment rental costs, that’s a problem).

RE:GROUP subbing the mining scope to Macro might seem odd at first, but it makes sense if RE:GROUP wants to offload operational risk or doesn’t have enough fleet or labour to cover multiple sites. It’s not unusual for haulage specialists to hold the top-level contract and carve off packages. Whether Macro can actually deliver is another story, they’re still proving themselves.

As for the ore grade (54% Fe), yeah that’s definitely marginal, especially with haulage over 300km to Utah Point. Beneficiation will chew up cash, and as you said, Utah access is tight. If they haven’t locked in port capacity, it’s a big risk.

In short, yes, it’s messy, high risk, and not your typical clean-cut tier-1 setup. But that’s often the nature of microcap juniors trying to carve out a niche. If they can execute cleanly and generate real margin from this, great. But there’s a lot that needs to go right.