General data, page-725

Apparently there is a demand for Nickel and Cobalt made in Australia.

Proof: offtake agreements with AUZ and QPM (examples).

AUZ and QPM have a different strategy:

AUZ: offtake is not combined with an equity investment; equity will most likely come from a CR. All offtake has been given away.

QPM 's offtake is not combined with a significant equity investment ( US$69m from GM is not significant - neither in relation to GM's financial capabilities nor to the CAPEX ). Equity will most likely come from a CR. All offtake has been given away.

SRL: offtake is linked to a significant equity investment at project level = approx. 50% of CAPEX (no significant CR planned). 100% offtake available.

From a customer's perspective it is logical to go for the cheaper options first (cheaper = no equity investment needed). The cheapest was AUZ, followed by QPM. It currently seems that neither the stratgy of AUZ nor that of QPM is successful. So if our potential customers want products made in Australia, they most likely will have to invest more in a company which is shovel ready (more or less) and uses a well-know technology. So at the end Sam's offer may be the best one - and will (hopefully) finally be accepted.