Hi Koala Thanks for your considered reply, you as a holder are...

Hi Koala
Thanks for your considered reply, you as a holder are the best researched and most likely poster to consider the possibilities in their fullest form, I congratulate you on your openness to engage properly.
I have replied to some of your responses and these replies are in text bold black

A couple of things I don't agree with however include.

• Your assertion that LGE are hanging around because it costs nothing - why would they bother? - what would LGE be seeking to achieve by hanging around? Koala, both you and I do not know the motivations of LG, so lets look at history. SK never advanced a solitary cent towards the project beyond helping with the DFS/ BFS. LG to date have had the same approach and that leaves you with 2 companies that engaged but did not to date take the next step. WHY ? We know that Korean companies have very high engagement standards and that leaves me asking, what are the common denominators that fail to bring about a deal. Lets not kid ourselves here, LG are making deals all over the world including Australia. Why not AUZ. Is it management

• You suggest LGE's strategy "suits their control the resource model" - this runs against you argument that Sconi doesn't have a viable resource so what is ther for LGE to control i.e. according to your assessment a non viable resourse. Koala, I never said that AUZ did not have a viable resource. Sconi was mined decades ago and the easy pickings were taken, yes the price of nickel fell making extraction viability uneconomic using inefficient technology of the day decades ago. Today we use 5th generation HPAL and this makes the resources viable again, we also have viable nickel pricing to boot. However the resources in Greenvale and surrounds are still on the small side to financially justify a full sized HPAL plant. Ask Michael Holmes why he needs to increase the resources.

• Re you comment the rainfall at Greenvale is an issue - I did a quick google on the average trainfall of New Caledonia where we know QPM is securing ore - the average rainfall for the island is 1700mm/year, Townsville 1143 mm/year, Greenvale where Sconi is located only has an average of 848.6 mm/y - so if QPM and their part shareholder LG are not concerned about 1700 mm/yr I doubt Sconi with 848.6 mm/yr is a concern. I am not sure where Indonesias nickel mines exactly are located but I would guarantee average rainfall there would be well and truly higher than Greenvale. Koala, Sconi is in Australia, whereas New Caledonia, Indonesia and Phillipines do not have the same level of scrutiny that Australia attracts., they get away with many indiscretions and failings including marine dumping, in Australia there is a zero tolerance. Sconi will need tailings dams or infill pits, these will be situated in a short concentrated high rainfall season. You cannot average the rainfall over a year, its a more concentrated event. LG know about this. The bulk of rainfall in Greenvale takes place mainly in Jan, Feb March, thereafter a trickle comparatively.

• There is a symbiotic relationship between LGE/AUZ? A symbiotic relationship implies both parties benefit - ok I accept AUZ is benefiting to a degree (though really what is the current value of the present offtake agreement which hasn't supported funding other than as a stepping stone to further negotiations with LGE) - what is the symbiotic benefit LGE is receiving? Koala, LG currently benefit by having control over Sconi as the 100% offtake partner having made NO financial commitment, that is a big deal for LG until cancelled or progressed as it gives LG options as a backup while they explore alternative options. Koala, LG are exploring other options.

• NAIF left the party - I was not aware NAIF had approved anything to leave. Koala, NAIF had approved Sconi provisionally and conditionally for funding if certain criterium were met, unfortunately those provisional undisclosed funds were retracted for whatever reason we might never know. NAIF walked away from those conditional commitments. Why, was it because of the ASIC investigations ???

• "LG will not fund the Sconi project because they in my opinion have reservations about AUZ management" - how did you decide that? They entered into a long term contractual agreement with AUZ and apparently based on the statements by AUZ and not refuted by LGE in words or actions by announcing the cancellation of the offtake agreement they are discussing a collaborative partnership. Koala, LG have entered into numerous funding / partner arrangements recently, yet Sconi remains with zero financial commitment from LG for years now, Its not because they have no money mate. Koala, let me ask you a question and I ask that you answer with absolute truth. DO YOU TRUST THE BOARD IMPLICITELY. Please do not insult me with I trust Michael Holmes. Michael Holmes is an employee, when the rubber hits the road, Michael Holmes is disposable, just like our mate BEN. Who remained? Who is actually in charge.

Re the history of Sconi this link https://neqatlas.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/Chapter 5 SCONI.pdf gives some interesting background.

To quote part of the article:
So the mine was abandoned because the price dropped to USD 1.60 /lb nothing about easy picking gone that I could see in the article - do you have a reference for that? I'm not a geologist but the article seems to indicate to me that the geology supports further mineralisation throughout AUZ's leases which is what the company has stated in the past - I agree only indicative and needs to be proven but the current identified resource is developable. Koala, I answered this above.

Clearly we both see AUZ as risky at the moment - the difference is you have written off any hope AUZ will get a deal across the line which will permit AUZ to go mining - you may well be right - at this stage from my perspective I can't accept some of the logic / assumptions you base your conclusions on, but we all have differing life experiences and qualifications which we base our investment decisions on. Koala, YES, my experience with AUZ goes back a long way.

Flemington was what initially attracted me to AUZ which they have essentially ignored in favour of Sconi. Post SKI I was sitting on about a 350% return - I realised on some shares but in hindsight not enough - I stayed in with my remaining holding for what I thought were valid reasons at the time which clearly given the current SP was the wrong call. Koala, The reason Sconi has been chosen to proceed with over the Flemington resource is that current known JORC resources for Flemington are almost non existent, the only thing Flemington has at the moment is near-ology to Sunrise. Here is a link showing the JORC for Flemington mate. What do you think of this. https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/AUZ/02523854.pdf Page 33. In this presentation you will notice a nickel cut-off grade for Flemington of 0.24% (Unviable) furthermore the defined resource has only 2.4 million tons of nickel at these low unviable cut-off grades. Koala you need to clearly understand that the 2.4 million tons of nickel resource is predicated on 0.24% cut-off grades that are not economically mineable. In current form Flemington is in need of a lot of work.

I don't think AUZ will go into liquidation if LGE exits they have sufficient cash to go on for a while - I do think they need to pivot away from Sconi in that event and use what funds they have on other projects to see if they can value add there. Koala, no comment

Probably the main current/short term difference between our assessments is the motivation of LGE - as you have stated you believe LGE are still engaged as it costs them nothing and it lets them control the resource - in response I ask to what end? - Against this I would suggest inevitably if Holmes can't do a deal with LGE AUZ will walk away as there is clearly no value to AUZ in the current offtake. If for no other reason than this there is not even a short term advantage to LGE by entering into what inevitably will be a very short term position with AUZ if nothing is negotiated soon - so on the basis of this logic LGE would only have entered into the current discussions in good faith. Koala, Or as a last position backup plan

The reality is neither of us is privy to LGE's motivation or strategy in respect to the current negotiations with AUZ - all we can do is look on from the outside and draw our own conclusions - but isn't that the case with any investment decisions we make. Koala, YES

Koala, the mere fact that you of all people are questioning your investment without answers into AUZ should bring up alarm bells, yes you are hopeful, as are many that are too deep to extract themselves. A matter of great sadness for me, I fortunately had the wherewithal to extract myself at cost to watch from the side.

What saddens me even more is that some here that have gone all in financially, that are in massive loss and unable to extract themselves continue to promote the company and promote its virtues by posting an unbalanced picture of hope with disregard to those who follow blindly behind.
Thank you for the discussion, I think I will retreat to observation again.
I sincerely hope that AUZ is financed.
RED

For those old long term holders.
Have you actually done the calculation of how much stock and $money you have invested in AUZ
Have you actually done the calculation of a future funded market capitalisation accounting for all the dilution and share split.
Have you actually got a date by which this company is funded and how many more dilutive capital raises are required to get to funding.
How much of the company will be given away to the funding partner ???? Maybe 70%. That leaves shareholders with 30%.
Consolidating these suppositions you can work out a future profit or loss once funded.
Dilution is absolutely killing the long term holders and I question an ability to recover