1.SK did not want to take up an expensive share option worth...

1.SK did not want to take up an expensive share option worth about $80m at 12 cents per share.
2.SK by letting this option slide the then 100% off take partner meant that SK will not get a "commercial-in-confidence" buyer discount on nickel and cobalt production from the $1.4b Sconi project.

The core problem(s) arouse from above-mentioned two points. However, both parties kept silent and quietly hoped for the better and continued to progress ('avoiding cracks") and AUZ hoped/expected for full support from SKI (on the off take agreement formalisation) which would help AUZ in securing funding. However, not fully suspecting/expecting on the "11th hour" pressure came from SKI for better trading/buyer discounts from AUZ. AUZ did not like being "cornered" by SKI in the final moments of trying to secure full funding. Perhaps, AUZ called SKI's attempt to "squeeze" AUZ's gross profit margin a "bluff" and it back-fired. I think, this what happened. Purely, my opinion.
When AUZ could not get funding this gave SKI a legit excuse to quit/pull out.
Somewhere along the journey communications started going "sour" and no one (from either side) was able to masterfully handle it, and today, we all bare the brunt of "lack of good negotiating skills".

Subsequently, AUZ has announced the next off take partner(s) must be ready to offer "Meaningful Financial Commitment" precisely, how strong or secure a "Meaningful Financial Commitment" is, I have no idea. Perhaps someone can clarify.