ARL vs AUz vs CLQ, page-299

ARL on the left, AUZ on the right for ore reserve calculation.

1		.81% Ni Eq, Nickel price ,120/t, Co price 96,000/t	.4 - .45% Ni Eq, Nickel price ,841/t, Co price 66,137/t

spelling it out, ARL uses 30% lower Ni price and 30% higher cobalt price than AUZ, but Ni is 2/3rds our revenue and we apply a cut off grade almost twice as high as AUZ - i.e. if we applied the same standard as AUZ its likely our deposit would look far bigger.

and then look at resource statements below - look at the pricing AUZ needs to assume to get its deposit size looking bigger than it is economic to mine - has to assume Ni price about 70% higher than ARL and still get the deposit(s) to look as big

ARL - goongarrie Sth only	ARL - high grade deposits only	AUZ - Sconi only	AUZ - all deposits
98.7	215	75.7	115
0.74	0.71	0.6	0.64
0.07	0.06	0.08	0.062
729,300.00	1,522,700.00	455,579.00	738,359.00
67,700.00	130,700.00	57,157.00	71,757.00
> .5% Ni or > .08% Co. (Note; uses .81% Ni Eq cut off in scoping study on 2.25Mt)		NiEq - .4-.55%, assuming Nickel – A$27,946/t and 94.8% recovery, Cobalt – A$93,153/t and 95.7% recovery.

Readers can be the judge I think of the significance, noting the vast majority of the revenue for ARL comes from the Ni, and as per the WINNER update coming, the Ni will only become a larger % of our revenue.