Ann: Retraction and re-release of presentation, page-67

Have to say that my view of the ASX gets lower by the day. We have companies I have seen that are clearly ramping or are in a downward spiral and you get didley squat from the ASX (not even speeding tickets when SP starts to fall significantly but at the iota of SP rises by x% in one day speeding ticket LOL).

I have read the presentation and the subsequent announcement herein. My inference is AUZ has a binding agreement where SK Innovation has a 100% right to take it all. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

What the ASX is questioning is the value AUZ has put on that. Well the presentation states the assumptions to that value - what exactly is the ASX questioning - and anyone reading slide 11 would assume IMO that they are still yet to prove up the resource to get to the production profile to facilitate that estimate. Investors can read surely and it is a presentation so I would expect the audience can read too. There is also a key word on slide 7 'contemplates' which means that is what they are hoping to sell if have JORC reserves in teh proven and probable category which they still have to do btw - pretty simple - not to mention running numbers on slide 10 means they need more resource from their March 2018 drilling program to meet the demand projections.

Companies make statements to the market and in public regularly (how do you think sophisticated investors come on board or agreements occur) and btw also make estimates in bankable studies to get project finance. Is the ASX going to police every statement made by a CEO relating to value.

Now the real issue is does AUZ have the JORC to attain the production to give that value or a view that it can achieve the projections. If so well AUZ is in its rights to make assumptions around the pricing, detailing those assumptions, and people making up their mind whether they agree with them or not. Investing always holds risks but I don't see the ASX questioning the binding nature of the agreement so if it is binding and SK Innovation is entitled to 100% of the product from the mine then a value for that product and its underlying assumptions can be made. Will the ASX question underlying assumptions?

Having said that I presume the agreement does allow for get-out-clauses like any other agreement in relation to timing of production (i.e. must meet timing that is) but apart from that if timing is met (and I presume a base level of product needs to be sold etc) then the agreement remains binding. Which is what I would expectbtw but the fact a company of this scale is willing to enter into a binding agreement IMO suggests there is a high confidence that AUZ can deliver. So I remain unclear what the hell the ASX is rabbiting on about here because every company doing presentations etc will blabber on about forecasts - the ASX will be better off spending its energy on those who abuse the system rather than the dribble they have conducted today etc.

Or another way to put it, if the Agreement is binding for 7 years with an extension option of 6 years well would the ASX have an issue if they basically reported that over the life of the project we expect to make x in the first 7 years, x in the following 6 years if the agreement is extended and if not we think we will have ready buyers anyway, and our assumption is the Agreement will be extended and in any event we assume we will be able to sell the product over the life of the project hence the total value estimate is x. Or would teh ASX like them to list the resource assumptions they are making and how it compares to their current reserves.

Or another way to put it, generally speaking most agreements I have seen in the resources sector might start at 5 years (some are life) but they are constantly extended etc etc. The ASX is entering dangerous territory if saying companies cannot forecast what they think they might get from a project and from a drilling campaign etc etc, but obviously if any forecasts are given companies do need to list out the assumptions and let investors decide etc etc We don't need the nanny state to move to how companies forecast etc etc. In other words if the ASX is not happy with the value ascribed to the Agreements (which I presume AUZ would anticipate to still be in place over the life of the project via extension clauses) can AUZ simply say we expect a sales value of x over project life.

At the end of the day, when you go get finance from a bank for a resource project the bank will make assumptions around the Agreements per se and whether you can sell product over the life of the project. Most resource projects these days do not have in place life of mine binding agreements, but the contracts they get are generally extended (and/or new customers are found). Or another way to put it if AUZ gets to JORC, its bankable studies prove good and therefore the binding agreement kicks in from a net present value sense having an agreement for 7 years (with a possible extension for 6 years) will allow AUZ IMO to gain finance (assuming prices remain favourable and the mine is low cost as they have implied in the past). Or is the ASX questioning that too. And for avoidance of doubt, my read of the presentation is that AUZ is still proving up its resource to meet these conditions so would teh ASX have issues with them detailing their assumptions (and if so well how is the ASX going to deal with the squirrels club of companies when they go behind close doors to get finance from project investors LOL)

As I said there are bigger targets that the ASX should be looking at rather than this diatribe they have just served out herein.

All IMO and rant over