Not quite clear to me what their benchmark is (better than what?) - probably their first quite inefficient and expensive process.
Nothing in this announcement I could see which compares to ATC's (patented) process - and their reference to the benefit of not mining ... mining is for ATC not a risk, but an asset. Remember - they own a fully licenced open pit mine with several hundred years worth of feedstock which they just need to pick up.
On what basis do you think CLL might be "best"? They are ways behind ATC and I don't see any data stating that their process might be better or cheaper than the ATC process. As well - even if they would compare what they think about their process with the ATC process, they clearly would not know yet how well their process works, given that they have not even produced their first kg. But still good to see some others working in this area, ATC alone could never supply 100% of the forecasted HPA demand ...
Bookmarks