Like Your overview mate. Good writing.I agree and like I told...

Like Your overview mate. Good writing.

I agree and like I told its really open ended right now, it could go so many ways. But I cant get over from word usage - additional 15% requirement is strategical parter has to SECURE project financing. English is not my mother language but SECURE means to me backing the whole financing. I cant find that additional 15% requirement for strategical partner is secure part of the project financing or secure 60% or 70% of project financing.

We can pretty much find any major miner or auto producer in the world to provide 100mil AU dollars for DFS and secure their share of 50% of financing. We can raise own equity of 30% of capex and apply for 70% loan through different institutions. Yeah its coming down to capital cost which is higher, but majority of me believes that ARL set their requirements for strategic partner and kept door open for partners who are willing to put 100mil into DFS and SECURE financing. It tells me that they have to care of capex and set terms on ARL for servicing these finances later.

Again, AP has been really proud of our tight SOI. Why to often mention this if it doesnt mean same in 2 years from now. And like I mentioned in my previous post then management cant possibly take that risk. Nobody cant tell that share price can not be 0.1 dollars in 2 years from now. Thats why I think management is de risking the project and want partners to SECURE financing. Who has a guarantee that institutional investors want to buy shares issued ? What if we fall short ? And Im sure Consortium is fully aware of that. And ofcourse I dont think that project financing can be done without own equity, but one of my ideas were that Consortium hopefully can find sources on ARL behalf and Ardea can repay later from operational cash flow.