Main operational differences are proposed trucking JV at AMN and wet processing. Otherwise both over 400Ktpa and driving the same product to port, More similar than different and therefore big differences in operating costs stand out imo.
RWD closer to port by over 100Km.
The wet processing is supposed to reduce labor costs.
As we have seen in this sector the capital costs and other DFS estimates have had a significant degree of error.
The AMN operating costs look good now, Too good to be true?
Wet processing hasn’t been attempted thus far in the WA SOP sector. Will it work? I was at a RWD AGM quite a few years ago and Ruane said they had looked at wet processing and couldn’t get it to work.
RWD isn’t using flotation unlike everyone else, is that a risk? But thus far flotation has been a headache for SO4 and KLL?
AMN has a solid project. It makes RWD look good value.
Essentially similar size resources but RWD has far higher grade, closer to port, board with experience in this sort of mining and all environmental approvals in place.
A major difference is branding and perception. RWD hasn’t done itself any favours. Team at AMN comes across as young and dynamic but the guys at RWD know enough to have developed their own processing technique.
It remains the case that RWD, the pioneers in this sector, held the AMN resource but let it go. There was a NT road block back then after RWD had incurred significant NT issues elsewhere but the fact is RWD had years to weigh up the pros/cons of each resource and dumped MacKay. Doesn’t mean MacKay is not good but I think most would conclude the RWD is likely to be superior. Of course AMN has developed their lower resource since those days but the grade and flows haven’t changed. Neither have the superior physical factors at RWD (evaporation).
Liquidity may have improved at AMN but it’s still low at RWD.
My main wish is to see some success in the sector. Thus far investors have been disappointed.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
