I've quoted directly from AUZ announcement so no, not...

I've quoted directly from AUZ announcement so no, not "misinformed facts".

NCCC, I do understand that and how mining companies high-grade their ore-feed.

It appears you are unable to read what I have written. Why when making the resource comparison did AUZ decide to use the grade measurement that flatters its deposit only for its deposit and not for CLQ's ??

Why did it not compare like with like?

How much of the resource is AUZ referring to when it says expected "feed-grade" ?? Perhaps the highest 15% to get the average feed up to 0.11%.

Do you not realise that CLQ's deposit is not all 0.13% cobalt ? It will have higher than average and lower than average ore. So it too will be able to high-grade its feed. Its top 15% might be close to 0.2%. ie its "expected feed-grade" might be 0.2%. For those of you who struggle: 0.2% is almost twice 0.11%.

Using different notions of grade made the comparison meaningless. Using the same grade measurement would have shown that CLQ's grade is more than double Sconi's (in addition to CLQ's deposit having higher tonnage), as opposed to the contention that the two deposits are roughly the same !!