1. That generic spreadsheet is in fact specific to PAM. It's...

1. That generic spreadsheet is in fact specific to PAM. It's modelling the Lithia content from the rock in the ground ... no matter how hard you try you can't magically increase it - that's the max we got!. That's why 0.45% is used. ONLY AFTER ORE SORTING do they get to 0.92% as one possible FEED grade scenario .... which is good as it means less ore goes through crushing and milling - so less wear and tear and less sized equipment needed ... less of everything which means less Capex and Opex.

2. Pam's noted recovery rate of 77% to 87% ... that is high IMO (but DYOR research - most of the newer entrants have struggled to replicate labwork recovery rates to real world rate) ... so I've used a range of recovery rates from 68% - 80%

3. I used 90% for recovery to Carbonate ... PAM noted excellent work with roasting and leaching recoveries at 88% ... IMO they will get to 90% because that process is very well understood.

4. I'm glad you found it pretty ... did that mean easy to read.

5. If you want I can put in the ore benefication parameter and take off 20% of ore off the top (waste) and look at recovery rates above 78% only to produce the concentrate grade needed to achieve their carbonate test results.

And your statement "What we know at the moment is a bankable reserve of RK measured and indicated lce 124,664" is - well untrue - that's just a fact. PAM has neither a Reserve (only has a Resource) nor is it bankable. All these terms have (precise) meaning. So its a greater risk for our potential partner (IRPC) ... so do they want to take on greater risk to accelerate Thailand "Lithium Economy" or not?