You don't like what I say over on AMN because you now have a...

You don't like what I say over on AMN because you now have a basic grasp of chemistry. You now appreciate that grade equals solute concentration and no about of spin will change the fact that lower solute concentration equals the need to pump more brine into bigger ponds. In the case of AMN v RWD, by a factor of 1.5. That means that AMN needs to pump 1.5 times as much brine. That means that assuming equal trench flow, they need 1.5 times as much trench. And they also need 1.5 times pond size to match output.
Now these things don't matter if the only question is a potential profit but if you want to compare projects at a level that is independent of management they do.
Do the fund managers have a basic grasp of chemistry or do they just accept what AMN tell them?
You appear to have two answers to justify the 5 times greater MC:
1. Better management
2. Bigger surface area to dig 250km plus of trench
That is all you have at this point in time.

Other important factors are rates of evaporation, annual rain fall and potential to extend mine life or upscale using bores, all of which favour RWD.

The AMN thread is no different to the APC thread. It's all about discussing SOP. Nothing wrong with highlighting dubious claims or pointing out inconvenient truths. It seems the only thing that anyone can say about RWD is about management, well that has changed.

Please come back to us if the LD trench data fails miserably or if the sector first environmental submission tanks.

Cheers