The resources listed in the label are on a 100% basis (i.e. the entire resource that the company has defined). I do this so that it aligns with the resource statements that are issued by the company (and what people think it should be). This means that people can quickly tell whether the underlying data I have used to create the chart is accurate.
The size of the bubbles and the placement on the x axis is based on the percentage of resource owned. I do this because it better reflects the value to the investor (i.e. what you actually own with the dollars you spend). So, in the chart above the "kg per dollar" in the label and the size of the bubble is taking the ownership into consideration.
For ownership I assume that all "deals" that have been announced to the public, where both parties are still in agreement, will be completed. So if there is an earn-in agreement based on spending a certain amount of money on exploration, or completing a feasibility study, I assume that the company will make it happen, and the ownership is based on that assumed future outcome. This gets complicated and I'm copping a lot of flak on twitter regarding this - as it become a fairly subjective call. In the case of AVZ I assume the Cath transaction of 24% will go ahead bringing their ownership down to 51%. If the company releases a statement to say the Cath transaction is off the table and they are looking to renegotiate I will move back to 75%. I do not include the 15% that they might get back from the DRC government because that transaction is in major dispute and it could easily go either way. Part of me thinks maybe I should be more positive and assume that good will prevail and that shareholders will get what is rightly theirs (my opinion here is based on a very limited understanding of the situation). However, they key here is that the transaction is in major legal dispute which has been ongoing for almost a year. If it was just a small hiccup along the way like the recent Lake/Lilac dispute then I would assume the transaction was still going to proceed (until an announcement states otherwise). In the case of Lake I assume the full 25% will eventually be award to Lilac however I have not included the recent SK On and WMC Energy offtake agreements as there are too many conditions surrounding these agreements and we have already seen the previous ones fall over. Also, these agreements require a cash injection which would also need to be taken into account - which adds a further complication. Apologies for such a long and boring paragraph but I believe methodology and the resulting consistency is important - plus people are getting very emotional about this on twitter, and accusing me of fabricating the data, so I wanted to explain myself. Please let me know if you can spot any flaws in my logic and I will take the advice onboard. At the end of the day this is really just my view on things and not everyone will align with my way of thinking.
Lastly, in the case of companies like PLL and SYA who have a number of projects with varying percentages of ownership I have to calculate the resource size myself in a separate (more detailed) part of my spreadsheet. The resulting total after the percentage ownership has been applied at the individual project level is then included in the chart above. This is why you see PLL and SYA at 100% even though they don't own 100% of the majority of their projects. Here is the example for SYA - the resources in project line items are listed on a 100% basis and should align with the resource statements, the "Total" line however is calculated by applying the individual "Share" percentages and is what is used in the chart above:
Hope this helps... I will update the AVZ ownership once the legal proceedings are concluded and the result is advised by way of company announcement.
(20min delay)