PEER Comparisons, page-6

The informationcontained is relevant to this thread because it deals with the PEER COMPARISONSdiscussion, the calls for supporting information and the links to suchinformation for research purposes. It also tries to shed light on the reasonswhy 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.

Considering additional claims to superiority bysome
It is often askedif Ardea’s nickel resources are close to the surface, superficially this mightbe a reasonable question to ask.
It then stands to reason that in an underground gold mine this would be a substantialconsideration.

ARL and AUZare both open pit operations and this is purely a matter of excavation.
Last time I looked, the CI Operational costs were an inclusive cost ofoperations, thus CI Operational costs are inclusive of the entire productionprocess and that includes excavation.

Therefore becauseArdea has lower C1 Operational costs inclusive and exclusive of by-productcredits, the resource is either
- Shallower enabling less excavation costs, or
- The nickel grade and cutoff grades are higher than the peer compensating fordepth in the financials. Or.
- There is a difference in the properties of the ore to be excavated, Rock isharder to excavate than sand, it therefore stands to reason that even when therock is close to surface it is more costly to excavate. Just food for thought.
These three factors above considered in combination are resource specific andit is not one factor that rules over another, if the costs reflect a lower C1Operational cost the overall production facility is more efficient and that isa reality.
RED
https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/AUZ/02049947.pdf

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

KalgoorlieNickel Project Awarded Major Project Status
https://ardearesources.com.au/downloads/announcements/arl_2022031801.pdf