"So which is it when it suits you Co is good and when it suits your other needs Co is bad. It is hard to keep up with the way you post because they are not consistent"
Flippa - that has to be the poorest observation I have seen you make yet!
I have no view on Co either being 'good' or 'bad' in and of itself. It just is what it is - and is either good or bad to the extent that it does or does not contribute to bottom-line profitability.
Currently, there is strong demand for it and AUZ has it, so it is potentially 'good'.
As to my two posts, they were clearly talking about different things. The post a week ago was responding to the notion that there is an emerging bottomless pit of demand for Co and that everyone would be jumping over each other to get whatever AUZ could produce. I made the point that, on the contrary, even when the market has taken off and if SKI achieves its goal of securing up to 30% of the market, Sconi was likely to provide for all its Co and Ni needs.
The 2nd post was about an entirely different matter - the forecast price of Co, based on increasing supply etc and, in particular, that the forecasts of one of the foremost analysts in the space (Wood McKenzie) were forecasting a Co price in 2022 of only two thirds of the BFS estimate.
Bottom line - my first post was about the QUANTITY of Co needed by the EV industry in general and AUZ in particular and was neutral about whether Co was 'good' or 'bad'. The 2nd post was about the PRICE of Co - with the suggestion that if the price of Co does settle around $44k/ton, it is 'bad' for AUZ' BFS.
In fact, if Co does fall that much, the price of Ni would have to rise to around $10-11/lb to fully offset - or around double its current price.
FYI, here is a link to the article I referred to last week:
(20min delay)