re "costs LESS". Exactly. People forget that. We have ~50% sand,...

re "costs LESS". Exactly. People forget that. We have ~50% sand, 50% of the stuff we want. In concrete there is heaps of sand anyway. Hence, in theory, we would not even have to remove the sand - were it not for the transport cost. You don't wonna ship sand from the Eyre peninsula to Sydney.

What it means though is that there is a huge tolerance in the "processing", ie if you're only removing 95% or even just 90% of the sand, it does not matter. The penalty is just a little bit of extra transport cost.

With only 1m of overburden, an operation that's more quarrying than mining, no super complicated equipment needed and hence low cost, a high operating tolerance and thus relatively low operating requirements, we have a super simple and robust process for the concrete halloysite.

Compare that to e.g. the high cost, highly complex and rather difficult to commission, operate and maintain spodumene processing plants where achieving design recovery rates can be rather challenging (as we know from some recent OZ hard rock Li producers), and you realise another big bonus ADN has.

IMO, that's a huge factor. It is unique to ADN and I am not convinced ppl have fully factored it in.