Please take this as an attempt to give you some insight into the question you pose, which is one of the best observations made yet. If you model two resource projects for npv, using the identical and consistent assumptions for market risk and interest rates, in most cases you will find the following to be true:

The higher the relative all-in capital costs, the longer the development time and the higher the all-in projected processing costs relative to unit selling price, the lower will be the relative in-situ value % of the resource , ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL.

For that same reason, NOT's in situ rises significantly once someone else eats the main rail cost.

I believe at present, the big problem for NOT evaluation is the higher cap/op costs associated with Ni and , simply not knowing what will be a sustainable processing rate until the resource has been defined. I think that latter uncertainty when eliminated should result in the NOT % in situ going up significantly from wherever it is currently perceived.

(Meanwhile, CLF knows FWR is a bargain regardless.)