Some very crucial information being left out of your comparison...

Some very crucial information being left out of your comparison here @Ozprey64

Firstly, there have been several discussions on current silica sand prices already - see the two posts here:
1) https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/long-suffering-holder.8032129/#post-74138673
2) https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/long-suffering-holder.8032129/page-2#post-74225679

Secondly, the Stockyard HPSS project you're referring to at IND only has an "Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource of 9.6 million tonnes at 98.9% SiO2". This is in stark comparison to Arrowsmith North's Indicated and Inferred Ore Reserve of 221 million tonnes at 99.5% Sio2.

What is crucial to note, is not only the sheer amount of resource and quality of the resource, but also the simple definition between Mineral Resource and Ore Reserves. Mineral Resources can be defined as the concentration of material of economic interest in or on the earth's crust, whereas Ore Reserves are the parts of a Mineral Resource that can at present be economically mined.

You're quite right that Stockyard's HPSS project at IND is uneconomical - because it simply is. I tried to find market spot prices and couldn't even find any listings for such low purity silica sand. Only higher purity silica sand of 99.3% Sio2 and above is in shortage and high demand, because above 99.4% Sio2 is required to produce clear glass.

IND's silica sand resource isn't even worth looking at because the low resource amount and grade means it's not even feasible to build a processing plant. You simply cannot compare this to ASN's resource.

I can agree on the conservative comments here based on management & EPA - but ASN's resource can absolutely be economically mined at todays silica prices and anyone saying otherwise needs to provide better evidence.

IMO and DYOR