General Discussion Banter GLN, page-11177

Hi Paul,

I wasn't sure exactly what you wanted but here is my best guess:

1) I have used "kg of LCE per dollar" for the size of the bubbles - so bigger is better. I normally use EV (or price as you said) per tonne of LCE in my spreadsheet but this means smaller values/bubbles are better which makes it visually awkward in a bubble chart. Let me know if you wanted something different. The "kg of LCE per dollar" is also included in the 2nd line of the labels.

2) I retained the grade on the Y axis which means I can't include clays/sedimentary resources (the software only allows 2 Y axis). I wasn't sure if you wanted me to exclude grade but I think it's important in terms of the economics of the resource.

3) I retained the size of the resource (MT of LCE) on the x axis which is still on logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale does hide the size difference between these resources somewhat but a linear scale causes the smaller resources to bunch up too close together and its a bit of a mess.

4) I have retained the resources which have been sold off - but I have made them semi-transparent to make them more easily identifiable.

Let me know if you want any changes made or if I missed the mark completely.