Grade

Included in its response to a speeding ticket from the ASX, on 31 October 2017 AUZ said stated the following:

Whilst Australian Mines is unable to talk to the exact reasons why other such funds may have invested in Australian Mines, the company does note that Canadian broking and investment firm, Canaccord Genuity, released a BUY recommendation on Clean TeQ holdings (ASX: CLQ) on 29 October 2017. The target price for this BUY recommendation was $2.00, which values the Syerston project (having a mineral resource tonnage of 101 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.13% cobalt and 0.59% nickel) at $1.1 billion.

In comparison, Australian Mines, whose Sconi project has a mineral resource tonnage of 89 million tonnes at an average expected feed grade of 0.11% cobalt and 0.80% nickel, was valued at only $208 million.

Many reading this would infer that the two resources are of a similar size and cobalt grade. The grades are in fact very different. AUZ's grade across the whole resource is around 0.06% NOT 0.11% and less than half Syerston's 0.13%.

AUZ used "expected feed grade" for its deposit as opposed to "average grade" for the Syerston project.  Why didn't it use the same measurement of grade for both deposits? Not doing so surely invalidates the comparison?

Can CLQ not high grade its feed so that for the first ~20 years its "average feed grade would be well north of 0.13% ?

Zen