I have tried to get a ballpark number, there aren't many (really...

I have tried to get a ballpark number, there aren't many (really any) very similar projects to this as it is similar to DRC style ore. I did use the NZC SS as my main guide for initial processing capex, it required around $50m USD for 1mtpa. So i feel that doubling this is reasonable for 2mtpa as they should obviously process better requiring less capex but economies of scale plus the available infrastructure should help to cancel out the difference.

The secondary processing I can't see being over $200m, we will be able to gauge this more when CLA has a SS and NZC has its updated study including further processing.

I had a quick look over that project you linked, and as said by @binwood, it contains a few differences that make it unjust to directly compare IMO. One of the advantages of the Opuwo project for CLA is the very simple mineralogy that should result in cost savings and ease to get to full production.

The autoclave thing will be interesting, I feel that for the temperatures and pressures we are currently looking at (based on the met testing) that this is largely a non issue as @ans25 made note of. We will get a better idea in a few weeks time though, at the moment we are all trying to make sense of it based on limited info. I think the analogy used that our likely temps/pressures is equivalent to a coffee machine is a good one, compared to the HPAL process that a laterite will probably be forced to use. There will likely be be a very significant difference between these two scenarios.


I did mention 2023 for ARL first production based on the PFS. I have looked over it and it does claim first production to occur in 2022 (my apologies), however looking at the cashflow diagram, 2023 is about half of 2024, so I assume that it will take some time to get everything running to nameplate/smoothly, as is a concern for laterite projects generally. Scandium is an interesting point as the market is so small, but it is likely to become incredibly useful in current/future applications, I am unsure how this will play out with a couple of Ni/Co projects looking to supply the market with Sc with regards to future pricing.


I don't think those items in your last paragraph will be relevant (especially when comparing to laterites as they would likely be at a much smaller scale if so) and this is why I am invested here. Even if the capex is say $50-100m USD more and it gets to production 12 months later, as it currently stands I still think CLA is better positioned than most laterites. If the SS can come in anywhere near my expectation, then there will likely be large interest in the project simply because of a couple of factors, in particular capex, time to production, reliability of supply and jurisdiction. I don't think you can say that about any other cobalt explorer currently.

Most of my focus on my current investment is placing a large emphasis on the next few years which places my focus on speed/ease getting to production. I think this will be key to success for all cobalt explorers as prices may drop suddenly and much sooner than people expect. This is the main reason I think laterites will be at a disadvantage looking back in 10 years time.

At this stage I simply think CLA is best positioned to take advantage of the situation, we won't know until the SS is released though obviously to get a more informed idea, these are just my thoughts on where it might end up and thanks for the questions and points you have raised, these are some of the risks simply because they can't be answered yet. These are what will need to be proven to the market so that investors are forced to stop using grade and resource size when comparing resources, IMO this is not a reliable way to value explorers at all.