A couple of points worth noting. Firstly, we are almost 10 cents...

A couple of points worth noting.

Firstly, we are almost 10 cents above the price of the options. It was only a couple of months ago that AML's options were at 28 cents (from memory) and a large precentage of shareholders did not take up their entitlement. Actually the share price dropped before the close-off date and I was a bit cross when I paid for my options (because I could have bought shares cheaper on the market). Water under the old bridge, but glad I could scrape up the money to buy the options. (At the time it was pretty clear that the length of the strike was huge and it would only be a matter of time before the drilling confirms it).

Secondly, AML has been doing tests on metal extraction and about 95% recovery was what I recall they reported (anyone else with a better memory?). For battery-grade cobalt sulfate they need about 99.5%. So, in the end, I think any company that wants to sell cobalt sulfate to the EV industry will need to use HPAL (ie, high pressure acid leach) at some stage in their refining process. That is regardless of whether they have laterite or sulfide deposits (so AML and ARL will each be a little Aussie hero, no worries). It all comes down to the "contaminating" metals (ie zinc, copper, lead, iron, etc) and their concentrations in the ore body. The more contaminants, the harder it is to produce cobalt sulfate for batteries and get the premium price. But hey, those contaminants are a bonanza for AML. So, if CAPEX is about $600 mil to recover high valued battery-grade cobalt, or $200 million for a mixed metal hydride of lower value, which way is the BOD going to choose? Guess it will depend on the difference in price of the two types of product. Decisions, decisions - the BOD can let us know at some stage. Whatever way it goes, AML is in a great position.