Comparing apples with apples

This post could just as easily be called AMN versus RWD! After going back through some old posts I came across a fairly colourful discussion between two posters regarding differences in the measurement of resource between AMN and RWD. It appears that AMN uses "In Situ" and RWD uses "In Brine". Then to add to the confusion there were times when RWD was measuring just the amount that was drainable by trenches (24.4Mt "In Brine") before switching to quoting their resource as all the way to the basement (596Mt). AMN are just talking about what they can produce from trenches (cheap) rather than boreholes (expensive).

In order to compare apples and apples we must look at what can be produced from trenches alone. Based on specific yield, which is the correct measure to use if you want to work out how much SOP you can produce, AMN has 9.8Mt of SOP in the top 6 metres (drainable with trenches). RWD has 7.48Mt of SOP in the top 6 metres. AMN's *productive* resource is 31% bigger than RWD's.

RWD supporters will tell you that the drainable resource for trenches is 12.4Mt as opposed to 7.48Mt. The difference of 4.92Mt is contained in the Exclusion Zone. In my opinion it is not reasonable, and potentially misleading, to include in your competitor analysis resource included in an Exclusion Zone (See page 2 of RWD's 7th February announcement). Whilst it's in an Exclusion Zone they should not be able to claim it.

For me AMN is the clear winner.

(Thanks DOREY for making me think about this!)