PEER Comparisons, page-2

Theinformation contained is relevant to this thread because it deals with the PEERCOMPARISONS discussion, the calls for supporting information and the links tosuch information for research purposes. It also tries to shed light on thereasons why things might be as they are between peers.
This Study material is not a cross promotion, this Study lays out the officialdata in comparable form for research purposes by investors, links to data areincluded.

Attached is a side by side comparison of thedetails comparing Ardea Resources and Australian Mines

Firstly weneed to set some rules and understandings in place so that the numbers haverelevance, for this to be done effectively I have taken 2 primary documents asthe foundation of researched materials, then secondary comparable informationhas been added to satisfy the lofty claims and buzz words thrown around.

There is nopoint in having a discussion without acknowledging details and this informationto follow is all verified, the links are attached.

The first 2primary documents used are selected on the following criteria.
- That they are both from a similar timeframe to be fair
- That they are both documents that are credible and founded on JORCstatements.
- That both documents are foundational and being used to further thedevelopment case to date and beyond.
-That both documents are seen as Studiesand NOT presentations for marketing purposes
- In the case of AUZ I have used the Bankable Feasibility Study donewith SK International, Dated 20/11/2018.
- In the case of Ardea Resources the 2.25Mtpa Goongarrie Expansion Studywas used. Note that this 2.25mt Expansion Study carries on from the Pre-FeasibilityStudy in an earlier timeframe, thus is relevant. Dated 24/7/2018

https://ardearesources.com.au/downloads/announcements/arl_2018072401.pdf