Agree, and I wouldn't be pandering to numpties like us either..,...

Agree, and I wouldn't be pandering to numpties like us either.., but it would've been nice to have some clarity around the net pay numbers used to derive the numbers (so we starry eyed types can try to infer things for the later info drops). I can't find the individual net pay figures for each subsection (this was best I could grab at quick glance). Would've been nice to know if McDaniels used the 538 number for this calc or if they stuck with the relevant 1B portion of the 243. One assumes the latter, but would be nice to have that clarity. I.e., if we know it was the relevant 1B section of the 243m (rather than the 538) then it is reasonable to infer this is potentially a very conservative estimate of the recoverable resource.

So in this announcement Amistad went from a total (inc Unit 3 - not included in the subsequent update) of 84m (inc unit 3) of net pay to 243 (ex unit 3) (of which 125m was just in 1A). Meaning ~122 of the upgrade came from 1A. Thus 1B and 2 were (assuming zero for unit 3 for ease) ~118 of net pay, I have no idea what the breakdown of that 118 between 1B, 2 actually was. So in this case we can infer that 1A has a larger (maybe much larger) net pay amount that 1B (but we also know that 1A didn't flow as well as 1B).

I think clearer communication and explanation of what net pay figures were used for each calc would aid people in making their assessments of the company.