Dmac, you seem very respected here and knowledgeable about PGM,...

Dmac, you seem very respected here and knowledgeable about PGM, so I am more looking to learn
from you more than force my opinions on anyone; and I will take your advice and read more about PGM.

On CLQ, I will answer your points as best I can, though I do not need to discuss CLQ on the PGM thread other than as a potential partner, which scenario is completely speculation; or on very relevant aspects as they may shed light on PGM. And I do have some unorthodox opinions on things, so be forewarned.

CAPEX the only capex figure I saw for PGM was the 2015 scoping study for a scandium-only.
The capex was $50-75 million. While I understand that an open pit operation, I was unaware of a BFS on the project, or financing.

SPEED TO PRODUCTION If these are indeed either in place or imminent, and it appears that PGM can be in production before 2021, then I would concede that PGM may be first to production. Possibly.
I wrote a post entitled "Why Speed to Production Matters", search in CLQ . I believe that CLQ will commission in late 2020.

CLQ "is cobalt now"...actually CLQ is now presented as a nickel project. But nickel, cobalt, scandium...no matter how it is presented, the changes are superficial and only occur in the investor materials and accounting. On the ground, all three targets are going to be produced, no matter how the mine is presented.

CLQ SCANDIUM, BY-PRODUCT BASIS In the February IP, CLQ presents their project as a nickel project, with cobalt a by-product, and scandium not included at all. (They presented their C1 by-product costs using $14 cobalt credits...but that is another subject). So if cobalt is a by-product, I do not feel I am on thin ice assuming scandium will be accounted for as by-product, as well. They go co-product or by-product accounting, and at the moment it is nickel, by-product basis.
[see CLQ investor presentation Feb 2o18]

Since the project is being presented as a nickel project and the scandium income is not included or being relied upon to achieve suitable financials, it essentially gives CLQ the ability to price the incremental scandium any way they want to.

The scandium-only PFS was from 2016, and they stated that the subject was for a small scandium-only project; but that a larger ni-co-sc project was another alternative, in which the scandium would be included in the larger project. The alternative has in fact been chosen; and the scandium production forecast in the larger project is a couple of dozen times higher than the amounts in the 2016 scandium-only PFS.

It is my speculation that they will price the scandium at levels that will guarantee 100% off-take. I expect CLQ to crash the price if necessary. This is a speculation.

SCANDIUM, MARKET DEVELOPMENT I posted a lengthy analysis on why I believe a major scandium off-take will be concluded by CLQ prior to Sunrise commissioning; possibly even by this year. The long and the short of it is that I think Friedland is in position to develop the market, whereas other miners are not.You are correct in that scandium world useage is probably a fraction of what CLQ says they will produce. I just believe CLQ is underplaying their hand.

There are several references I can give that support this speculation.. The first is the recent CLQ anns about a two-year collaboration with Chinalco R&D and Chongqing University, for the specific purpose of developping scan-alu alloys for use in aviation and world transport. The second is recent patents filed by CLQ for scan-alu manufacturing. The third is circumstantial evidence that can be deduced from CLQ's actions since the 2016 scandium-only PFS.
If PGM has contacts and potential counterparties of note I would like to know who they are.

I have summed it all up in post 31519693, titled "Announcement Archaeology". Also see post 31275907.

AUTOCLAVE CAPACITY You may know that CLQ bought a pair of enormous autoclaves at a mining garage sale last summer. The production of each autoclave is sufficient for their PFS production.
Since they have two, one deduces that they could double production if they elected to. I have suspected for some time that co-operation in ore processing, for example from Owendale, might be beneficial to both CLQ and to a counterparty who does not have such equipment, which can take 2-3 years to get from time of order. (assuming HPAL extraction methods are contemplated). In passing if PGM were to do a deal with CLQ, then obviously they would be tied in speed to production.

POTENTIAL FOR A DEAL this is pure speculation, the parties may not be able to agree on a price;
Friedland may not have interest or he might take too tough a position; and the holders would have to approve. But with an $800 million cap, and capex and opex savings, and no need to build another mine at Owendale, I would think a reasonable deal could be achieved.

WHAT'S a REGIONAL OPERATIONS CENTER ? Whatever it is, CLQ is building one at Parkes.
I doubt that it is for the workers to play bingo. The talks with Easpring to build a battery plant in NSW are also still alive.

Hope this clears up why I have some unconventional opinions. If any of my facts are wrong I would appreciate correction. Opinions and conclusions are subject to change.

Best to all