Ann: Venture expands REE strategy with new priority targets in WA, page-67

Nav
As I understand it Livingstone has less clay overall and is surrounded by sediments as well as being a dipping body/lens.
Unlike the Riley deposit which is essentially a thin cap over a much larger area.
They are dissimilar except for their low grade.

Livingstone I understand will require more crushing of material than the relatively free dig and screening of the Riley deposit.
There are sure to be processing nuances involved if considering blending.
Hypothecating on enhanced returns through blending is probably a pointless excercise as the total tonnage is small c.1.8Mt @57% and the time for tweaking to maximise returns would be too short to make material difference.
More a commit and hope you have the op costs right on your committed plan.

The deposits were initially?
considered to be mined Riley first...
Livingstone second, but processed at Riley site - dealing with one orebody/properties at a time.

(On the face of it making more sense?... than blending and running two digging operations simultaneously with capacity to only process and ship one op.).

Livingstone footprint quite different to Riley and environmentally more sensitive area.
All IMO DYOR.