I understand where you are coming from, but we are talking to...

I understand where you are coming from, but we are talking to results with only half the picture.

For example, lets compare two clay met results, company A and company B.

A is on a limestone belt, so their material is full of limestone. They share their met results at pH 1 with sulfuric acid and 60% extraction but their (not disclosed) acid consumption is very very high as they are leaching limestone, say 500 kg/t (not unreasonable for limestone rich material).

B is on a granite belt, so their material is low alkali (Ca, Mg, Na, K), high in quartz. They share their met results at pH 0 with hydrochloric acid and 68% extraction but their (not disclosed) acid consumption is actually moderate as quartz does not leach, say 25 kg/t.

Comparing A and B, on face value of the data the companies have disclosed B looks worse than A economically. But clearly, knowing the acid consumption rates, B is actually economically superior to A.

So until any of these Australian clay plays start to share their acid consumption rates, we are all blind and have to make a bet based on available info. Some will put their chips on A, some on B...