I sort of agree with you - the only people who should be allowed...

I sort of agree with you - the only people who should be allowed to use metal equivalent reporting are companies that have a working mill on-site and a demonstrated revenue stream from all the metals in the metal equivalent calculation. Such as Cannington reporting a Zn equivalent which contains Pb concentrate and Ag reporting to the Pb conc stream. If you can't produce the metal from your mill in a saleable product/byproduct/credit in concentrate then don't report it.

This would have stopped CDU from their reporting Co and Magnetite metal equivalents because even though they did have a plant eventually constructed on-site (late and over budget) it was unable to profitably extract any Cobalt, Magnetite or indeed any copper or gold either!

Otherwise you can get ridiculous situation where a little "Blue Sky Mining Pty Ltd" can report a open pit resource of say 0.7g/T Au as something like 0.1% LiEq even though they don't have a gold plant or a lithium plant on site nor any metallurical studies to demonstrate a path to extraction or production..

As others have pointed out - its not the proper convention to report Co numbers in g/T, every other company in the world reports their Co in a % in the mining environment or ppm in the exploration environment.