Its not my spreadsheet behind Hoopz's work so I hadn't realised...

Its not my spreadsheet behind Hoopz's work so I hadn't realised WR1 has an issue.

GT1 has 322m shares on issue and at 11c the MC would be $35m. The March quarterly showed $10.2m cash making the EV $25m. I'm sure some source somewhere across either Chi-X or ASX showed a figure of 11c at the Hoopz looked, even if 10.5c or 10c may have been better if referenced as 13May..

There does look to be an issue for WR1. With 190.8m shares on issue per ASX at $1.25 (13 May) less $44.6m cash I'd have expected an EV of $193.9. Its hard to speculate on where the error has emerged but its close to as if 290m shares were used.

The bigger issue is not singular vs multiple deposits but Australian JORC vs Ni43-101 resource statements. Under the Australian code companies are putting less onerous economic constraints onto the resources. Its more if its there we will define it as Measured, Indicated or Inferred (as applicable). The scoping studies then work out what is economic and frequently only a modest proportion of measured and indicated makes it way into proven and probable. Sometimes the percentage of the deposit used in the feasibility study is under 50% creating the implication you need a resource double the size you actually do for the project outcomes.

Where the resource is defined under the Ni43-101, there is the imposition of formal high-level economic constraint meaning a seam that might be economic via targeted UG mining may be excluded from the JORC definition. I'm not sure how UG or OP to UG works on Ni43-101 because the lithium projects have so far not formally presented on UG. This is creating resource in earlier stage companies that falls into a grey zone - the company knows its there but can't report its there.

I believe GT1 is experiencing this issue at both Seymour and Root Bay. Both are currently defined as open pit mines. They have used high pit constraint numbers to try and get closer to the Australian code effect, but the problem with this is people look at the high pit constraint and think its a massively high cost operation. Even then, a good 200-350m deep UG project may look hopeless in the context of an open pit scenario modelling. Most likely later studies will remove some deep material with a high strip ratio that is better done via UG mining and replace it with a formal UG mining proposal.

What these early constraints mean is that the conversion rate from resource to a plan to mine it (at least via the PEA) is huge. GT1 may "only" be 24.9Mt at 1.13% but the PEA wrapped a mining plan around this that had 20.4Mt being mined (82%). Someone like LTR had a much bigger 156Mt to work with but their mining plan was only able to include 68.5Mt (44%). Even open pit operations in WA have huge gaps between Resources (including just M&I resources) and what's included in their mining plan.