I thought I'd summarise the research I’ve done on all three...

I thought I'd summarise the research I’ve done on all three projects based on my interpretation of public information.

RWD
Groundwork – have performed many tests and collected a lot of good data giving me confidence in their PFS. They have more work to do

Corporate – nothing out of the normal. Past announcements show they have looked after shareholders in the past when raising etc.

KLL
Groundwork – have performed tests only on the area closest to the highway. Have yet to start/complete tests covering the entire 200km long project. The PFS provides no confidence in the entire project because it only covers the area closest to the highway. They simply expanded it to cover the whole area.

Corporate – Mr X, the unknown consultant, receives 20m shares when they get to DFS/funding? That’s currently $10m. It doesn’t include the performance shares given to the others ~ 5-10m? Incentivising management, i.e with a $10m payout, is extremely risky. The incentive is not setup properly so the chance of low quality, bare minimum, DFS being prepared is quite likely

AMN
Groundwork – they haven’t started pond trials or worked out the logistics. They barely have a PFS and after reviewing the haulage proposal it could even be considered a scoping study. I'd like to see more data on these two key parameters

Corporate – they have done a good job marketing the project but forgot to actually work on it

Summary
Groundwork – RWD is the most advanced, then KLL, then AMN

Corporate – RWD is doing a good job. KLL is doing a good job - at getting their millions. AMN have excelled at selling a project that doesn’t exist yet

This is just my opinion on the data and the projects are most likely more advanced than I am aware of