Ann: Further Testwork to Enhance Opuwo Scoping Study, page-427

My understanding is that (given what PG said and recent announcement), the major advantage that CLA will have over other sulphide deposits is the ability to cut down on roasting by emphasising the dependance on the flotation and leaching processes, and therefore reducing the need for roasting (if not eliminating it).

Understandably, that has a huge energy dependency. Cutting that down alone will reduce costs significantly.

Their last announcement also indicates that they may also be able to reduce head grade on the flotation process in order to optimise the cut-off grade. To me, that is promising.

High leach extraction results indicate that they can also save on reagents, and reduce the intensity of the leaching process.

You combine these factors, if you can then ontop of reducing roasting also reduce costs associated with the flotation and leaching processes, that already is an ample cost reduction in comparison to neighbouring sulphide deposits.

Additionally, as COB have highlighted, sulphide is a cheaper extraction than laterite alternatives.

If understood correctly, that would suggest that CLA can cut down on all 3 major elements of the production process - making it already more viable than any competing mine. Hence, comparatively, I can't see the relevance to comparing this deposit to the likes of COB (aside for the fact they are both sulphide deposits). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Obviously the market doesn't like speculation. Obviously the market doesn't like delays. But in a world where EVs require cobalt for the foreseeable future, these mines need to get funding to make it to production. The world needs more cobalt.

And, like I have been for the last year, my money is on CLA to do just that.

I can't name a better non-DRC play.