Originally posted by pangea
Can always find something to say about poor-quality ASX reporting GD.
The results from recent infill drilling are essentially "immaterial" and ARL has had to resort to cherry-picking a couple of holes in order to grab a headline whilst burying predominantly mediocre infill results within tables at the back of their report.
PANGEA'S PET HATE: companies that over-report results and misuse significant digits in tables thereby making them impossible to read by the layperson or someone with a PhD.
To call some of these intercepts "high-grade" is a real str...e...t...c...h.
I consider >1%Ni, >0.02%Co as reasonable lower cutoffs for CONSISTENT reporting of "high-grades" for similar Ni-Co laterite occurrences globally. Prefer to see them use an equivalent, combined metal value for Ni-Co since +90% recoveries of both metals is approaching some degree of metallurgical confidence (even though the combined recovery cost probably exceeds these lower limits).
The discussion on Scandium results, as they relate to the limits of Ni-Co mineralisation, appears premature ahead of metallurgical work to confirm ARL's ability to selectively mine and process Scandium-enriched material and to achieve significant commercial recoveries. ASX/JORC will probably frown if/when I draw it to their attention. As a matter of interest, ARL's Scandium results are roughly 10% of Scandium concentration levels at Owendale.
The description of the geology does not demonstrate an improved level of understanding as more drilling has led to more "ore" domains requiring 18 separate process variability studies. Not impressed that they make it sound more complex when the KISS principle should always be applied.
Of concern is a reduction in resource bulk density as this is a MATERIAL matter of negative consequence which is again buried in the report. When in doubt, obfuscate and confuse!
To finish off today's rant I point to a hilarious typo on page 8 of the announcement which truly sums up ARL's "predicable" reporting performance --> "
Goongarrie has a predicable Regolith, easily recognized in drill logging".
P
Thanks for your analysis always good to get different views on ones investments, I do however find it hard to see how highlighting the best holes is viewed as cherry picking. Every company reports in this manner and it is far from unusual practice. If you wrote the report, surely you have to admit you would highlight those holes/results?
Predicable is a word, so i'm confused what the typo is...
(20min delay)