Ann: World Mining Summit Presentation, page-4

Thanks for the tag @Lowkeyinvestor, that spreadsheet requires a little explanation... (pls regard this whole post in parenthesis to the thread)

Some background:
Mt Thirsty Scoping Study
IIR's Mt Thirsty report
GAL's metallurgical results

It's based on some assumptions regarding the ore-sorting potential already indicated by GAL, and currently being tested by the JV for the PFS. I apply GAL's deportment results to the JV's standardized resource to arrive at the improved leaching head grade. I also assume that by separating the fines (goethite) from the coarse (asbolane) overall leaching efficiency and recovery is increased (as indicated by company updates). This results in reduced reagent and power costs, because of lower leach t/put, and also improved beneficiation for both nickel and cobalt (because some of the nickel is contained in the more leachable asbolane ore). However, some of the payable metal is deported to the fines dump - this means beneficiation must improve, otherwise the overall lower amount of metal recovered will spoil the cost savings of the lower leach t/put.

This case is compared on the spreadsheet to the SS numbers (titled "blend"), except expanded to 2.5Mt p/a, which I believe is the higher goal of the PFS.

The costs are taken off cobalt, which is why the nickel part is abbreviated, and appears to be more profitable than cobalt. This gives the same result as taking the nickel as a credit against costs. As it stands the cobalt is profitable on its own with current prices. Everything in AUD, as in the IIR report. I assume fairly low prices, 75K AUD for Co and 12K for Ni.

BTW, here is another sheet that uses the 1.5Mt t/put of the SS:


And here is a Best Case with cobalt at 120K, 90% recovery, and nickel at 24K, 80% recovery cobalt already reached that high in Feb-May


All of this is just desk experiment and demonstration of dynamics - use the official releases for investment decisions!