Having re-read this I see what you mean about them modelling the...

Having re-read this I see what you mean about them modelling the operation using the top 3M, the in situ resource and 50% recovery. The trenches will be 4.5M.
21MT spread over 2600km2 compared to RWD having approx 18.5MT (0-3M) over 750km2. How can anyone come up with the suggestion that larger area equals lower risk????? Makes no sense.
They have to have the area, they have to dig the trenches because the resource dictates they do.
Nobody would ever suggest that any other resource of lower grade spread over a larger area was a good thing.
I reckon the company has been selling its "largest lake in the world" story and the analysts haven't actually stopped to think.
What is clear is that skinny lakes like Beyondie aren't economical to develop without bores. Even Beyondie with its excellent grade lacks the area to lay enough trench to produce a significant annual tonnage.
When it comes to playa lakes the area must be indirectly proportional to the resource contained within the upper lake bed sequence. Lower grade, lower SY resources like Mackay need a large area because they need more trench.