PEER Comparisons, page-3

Theinformation contained is relevant to this thread because it deals with the PEERCOMPARISONS discussion, the calls for supporting information and the links tosuch information for research purposes. It also tries to shed light on thereasons why 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.

.

There are supplementary conversations andclaims being made that perhaps deserve clarification.
Please note that I am only interested in published company information, thereis no place for hype and buzz.

Regardingthe matter of resources and therefore Life Of Mine, we need to understand thatthe capital costs as per the primary studies reflect as
US $918 million for Ardea Resources 2.25 million Tonnes Plant Capacity(Suplhate)
US $974 Million for Australian Mines, 2.0 Million Tonnes Plant Capacity(Sulphate)
The capex is for what is seemingly similar +- plant sizes, I accept thesefigures.
Both companies are pivoting to MHP technology, AUZ has implied capex costingsof US$832 Million.
With a comparable like for likeplant cost as illustrated above there is no reason to believe that the capex forARL and AUZ using MHP technology will be dissimilar, thus I expect a similarcapex (Like for Like +- MHP Capex Price)

Australian Mines has a Life Of Mine (LOM) 18 years in the study, (Links above)
Ardea Resources has a Life Of Mine (LOM) 25 Years in the study (Links above)

In a morerecent timeframe Australian Mines is claiming a 30 year LOM.
In a more recent timeframe Ardea Resources is claiming a 100 year LOM potentialresource because the known JORCresources are so large.
The ARL 100 year resource is based on the JORC (known resources) as defined at5,458,400 Tonnes compared to AUZ with known JORC resources of 735,933 Tonnes.
You cannot claim a 30 year LOM in AUZ and deny a 100 year LOM for ARL justbecause you do not like the figure. A JORC resource is audited and accepted byAustralian law. That is why we have the JORC statements at the bottom of claimsand additionally there are classifications like
- Resource
- Reserve
- Measured
- Indicated
- Inferred
It therefore stands to reason that if one assumed that both companies had acapital cost and a plant size of comparable and equal size and cost, Ardearesources would still be in production for 70years after the closure of AUZ.
https://ardearesources.com.au/downloads/presentations/arl_p2020090301.pdf
Page 17 of the presentation

https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/AUZ/02523854.pdf
Page 3 of the presentation

Now thereis the point regularly made that Ardea Resources should convert more of the considerableresources to reserves. I do not agree.
The reserves that Ardea Resources has are 329,458 Tonnes of nickel.
The reserves that Australian Mines has are 331,357 Tonnes of nickel.

Ardearesources has a 25 year life of mine with current reserves and that is sufficient to be building the 1^stproduction plant/ train, to get going. Once the first stage production plant isup and running, and the revenues are coming in, management can then focus onconverting the other resources to reserves from revenue.
To do this prematurely is costly and not necessary at the moment.
Consider the fact that ARL has a comparable reserve to AUZ already, which isdeemed sufficient for AUZ, enough reserve for one company should, by the samemeasure be enough for the other company ARL.

Now thereis the often lauded position that Australian Mines has the LOWEST COST QUARTILEwith long (expected LOM)
How can anyone really believe that if two production plants of equivalence -
- Each with a life of mine of 30 years or more, with a
- comparable capital cost, with a
- comparable effective production rate, with a
- Comparable C1 Operational cost of equivalence,
That they are NOT BOTH in the LOWEST COST QUARTILE is incomprehensible.
Ardea chose to not make claim of Lowest Cost Quartile, that does not mean they are not such and able to claim such.
Interestingly Sunrise Battery Metals also make claim to the Lowest Cost Quartile
https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/CLQ/02167042.pdf Pg 13

Furthermorewhen you consider that the Ardea plant will be running 70 years longer at2.25Mtpa due to its larger resource and effective LOWER C1 operational costsmeasured including, and excluding by-product credits.
Ardea Resources has the best long term investment opportunity and lowest risk.

ArdeaResources has a much larger total Resource than AUZ, This is proven with JORCdata.
Ardea Resources has a comparable Reserve with AUZ, This is proven with JORCdata.