Comparing different companies even within the same sector is akin to 'apples and oranges' but I just wanted to get some perspective in the sector as a whole.
Raw size of resource without the dimension of grading is useless and very dangerous. Each dimension of data present a more accurate picture beside the price chart trend. Without knowing much of the geology, strip ratios, depth, number of share issuance, cash in the bank, cost of the project and all that detail from a DFS, I was just looking at available raw numbers.
My reference was the size of resource and grading alone to understand why the big discrepancy in the market caps with the most obvious measure suggesting ARL is very much under valued. Obviously CLQ is more advance in this cycle and seeking DFS.
This Macquarie report interest me since that Cobalt production is very much concentrated in DRC with a lot of sovereign risks. In other words among the productive resource in Oz, CLQ has the highest production of Cobalt for each tonne of nickel produced and those wanting exposure in Cobalt 'play' like myself would be basing some of that consideration on this chart?
I presume if Cobalt prices keeps reacting to supply not able to meet demand as we move forward and assuming Clean iX is a proven technology, CLQ should have a very low cost base factoring by product credits. Currently I am not looking at the Scandium/water business besides as a potential since everything revolves around Clean iX.
Currently there are some weakness in the sector of battery stocks since that Morgan Stanley reports on Li pricing going forward.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
