I thought the JORC picture was pretty obvious. Firstly you define measured and indicated by geological confidence and then run your economic and technical parameters to get to proven/probable which underpin your feasibility studies.
You might want to look at that X axis again of that pic - it is pretty obvious to get to proven/probable reserves which, ultimately, your PFS/DFS is based (your technical and economic parameters) need to understand the METs (and undertake METs and to test the suitability of what you are proposing to produce especially with your customers on the product types, because your customers are going to want some samples to test before they commit to anything like Offtakes for example. YOUR PFS/DFS has to provide confidence that the product is saleable is my point because that is part of the economic parameters of selling a product in feasibility studies, and thus the assumed price you receive for that product. It is pretty obvious my post was saying there are a lot of steps required here before we can talk mining, i.e. LRS is at the start of a journey, and most exploration plays never get to mining (hence the risk/reward equation this side of the market which I have spelt out in the past when investing in exploration companies). I am pretty sure most investors know the steps to mining, including importance of METs, testing, offtakes, feasibility studies like a PFS/DFS, approval processes including getting a mining licence and environmental approvals etc etc. I am sure investors know some of these steps can run sequentially whilst some can be done concurrently. We are talking here of a MRE that has resources in the Inferred category, which obviously is the start of a process, i.e. no point skipping to things further down the road when LRS is still seeking to generate a MRE. We don't need to complicate things given where LRS is at in the process.
And I am sure investors know the upfront capex costs also depend on what process you may adopt - wet or dry based.
As to the water issue you are harping on about - yes water is a key to process. I went through the technicalities of that in ADN in late 2019 where initially ADN were proposing a dry process back but then in 2020 they decided they could access water and changed the process to wet in Australia. Infact one of their initial proposals was also about getting tollers in China to produce a wet product for them as well. Funny how mining finds solutions to problems when a company thinks they may have a viable project. It is no point jumping down the straight in horse race (wet verus dry) when the race has just started (here they are still seeking to get to a Measured and Indicated resource). (Might actually go find them again now that HC has got that 'beaut' search function.) Anyway, exploration is risk reward hence why I always say those who can free carry can think about it because exploration plays are risky per se
For others, in simple terms, a wet process, compared to a dry process, takes out more impurities and provides a more consistent product blend in the kaolin (and greater purity) than a dry process and hence why it generally produces a higher value than dry product (as well as having better recoveries). A wet process also uses more chemicals than a dry process in production, as well as requires more energy intensity in production as well, but produces a higher valued product. A wet process you also tend to have a slurry type product as well. Not worth going into the specifics because LRS need to establish a Measured/Indicated Resource first, then see if it is feasible to do anything with it (METs key yes to that as well and customer testing), before doing any feasibility studies etc etc, which is what moves it to the Proven/Probable reserve category (including running your economic parameters over it).
And yes working out whether you will sell a dry or wet product the key to feasibility studies, which obviously assumes customers can use whatever you decide to sell, and I am sure that LRS will seek to move heaven and earth if they believe they have a viable project to get water. If not they will need to do any feasibility type studies on a dry process etc etc. ADN's initial PFS based on dry showed feasibility by teh way, and when they went to wet it was ironic in my my mind that the IRR didn't differ between the studies that much btw.
I guess in terms of the Bruce Rock/Southern Cross so called stranded deposits as stated by you, be interesting what their resource specifications were to comment further - was it stranded because the quality of the resource was poor or was it stranded because of water and/or some other issues?
Obviously seems LRS management has a different perspective on speed to market, moving quickly to do infill and other things, agiven the Ann also flags doing feasibility studies in due course. Time will tell whether they stay on schedule. So will be interesting when they detail plans which will need obviously to have MET work at the forefront as well, so be interesting the pace they undertake and whether LRS management are been too aggressive in timelines as perceived by the Ann.
People would know here that a lot of water has to go under the bridge (pardon the pun) between now and if feasible to a mine, note the term íf feasible'.
Finally best wishes for your SUV investment as well. I don't see things as a competition between stocks btw.
(20min delay)