‘Lab’? ARL used Simulus. The same Simulus that AUZ are involved with. Surely you’re not casting doubt on or inferring impropriety by them? After all, their name is what backs up ‘the C1* numbers’ put out.*cost to produce. Basically the same people AUZ say are ok worked with ARL to calculate their C1 costs. ( $4.63? lb of nickel for ARL, $6.10 for AUZ. ARL can make sulfuric acid/neutraliser on site, won’t use a tailings dam etc so that helps keeps costs down ).
ARL Magnesium? There is no mention of overly high magnesium- only of the relative iron to magnesium content in the different levels of the strata. ( layers of rock ).
Just as there is mention of magnesium by AUZ- under the Geology heading we find: ‘these occur as lower crustal material rich in iron, magnesium and nickel’. We find AUZ will be making use of ‘high magnesium material from site in place of limestone for neutralisation’ ( pg. 6, 2nd last paragraph in the recent $5 billion Ann & elsewhere in the BFS ). A person might try to make that sound bad but if AUZ can make use of that material in a cost effective manner then it’s ok, wouldn’t we say?
National Park? BHP’s Nickel West is in the same area & we have mining leases.The word ‘generally’ in your helpful National Park II notations should tell most people that mining can be done there if it passes the tests.
DD? Due Diligence? That sounds professional but just means homework & from the above it looks like time ( you did your homework 2 yrs ago ), may have clouded your impression.
So you’ve cast doubt on a company ( Simulus ), AUZ works with ( to a national standard ), but actually revealed that the C1 costings of both companies was influenced by Simulus, helped us learn about the normal magnesium in an* ARL deposit while AUZ has at least some ‘’high magnesium material”**, the fact that National Parks are mined & that Due Diligence by normal people just means homework.
*There are many ARL deposits.**not saying that’s a negative- AUZ says they can make use of some of it.
Anyone see why I say that we shouldn’t throw mud ( infer dishonesty or misrepresentation ), at companies who have to all follow the same national standard? It’s silly & casts doubt on all industry participants- this time actually on one that the poster’s ‘numbers’ here rely on!
I’m sure Simulus would appreciate a chance to come back at you if you’d speak clearly. Perhaps they could help you learn something about how they operate? They might even want to know why you’ve cast doubt on them?
For any who made it this far I also did my homework 2yrs ago. I then put money in to all 3 peers- ARL, AUZ & CLQ but chose ARL as my main.
(20min delay)