Ann: 2021 Annual General Meeting Presentation, page-36

on MHP/sulphate - horses for courses.

MHP is trending but payables are considerably lower than NiSO4/CoSO4 ~120%.
“According to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, MHP payables have been averaging over 87% for nickel and well above 75% for cobalt in 2021. We think that MHP is evolving into a liquid and transparent market that will continue to offer higher payables than smelters.”

Feedback from SRL management when they looked at going MHP route and although CAPEX is reduced slightly the economics were way worse because of loss of the premium in upgrading. it also bypasses the whole premise of SRL's technology which is to stay in solution for as long as possible using our cRIP technology. SRL on paper plan to produce high purity sulphate but with our partner what you'll find is we will go straight to PCAM. obvious benefits being more upgrading=more value, less carbon in transport etc. Technical work underway now on that.

If MHP works for your intended offtakers, and the economics stack up then best of luck i guess.

on geochemistry I've done some reading of ARL material and geochem specifics is scant. happy to be corrected on any of this.
though I appreciate the nearology of Bulong/Cawse/Murrin doesn't tell the whole story and may deter investors as these operations weren't the best
it would be prudent for ARL management to detail what the targeted goethite looks like and how it can differentiate itself from these horror stories
ie. -what's the Mg content of the goethite and ramifications of expected acid consumption? not just "Low sulphuric acid consumption from PAL leaching". some old tables below illustrate this:

ps. SRL will use 200-250 kg/t sulphuric acid

on grades
-if the goethite is targeted how does that reconcile with the tendency for goethite to have lower Nickel concentrations?
-what proportions of the overall resource are essentially excluded because its the deeper undesirable high magnesium portion? (basically what im asking here is if the goethite is targeted what's the grades look like and should it be more reasonable to stop discussing the uneconomical or unfeasible portion of the resource entirely? what effects would this have on the massive resource figures)

some investors have scoffed at the grades of Sunrise. understanding the ARL scope has changed from cobalt to nickel, if you compare what's published, the mill feed grades SRL comes out on top. using a 8% discount factor weight approach SRL grades are ~20% greater than ARL's 2018 2.25Mtpa study grades:
-moving to 1% Ni surely welcome but what happens to Co % then? I doubt it remains 8:1 ratio as stated though may be wrong



so from all published documents from SRL including front end engineering & design study all these questions are answered in detail so the assertion ARL is 18 months ahead very difficult for me to see to be honest