I don't want keep taking part in this conversation given how...

I don't want keep taking part in this conversation given how it's going, and won't stoop to the level of using terms such as "champ" or insinuating I'm somehow part of the PMET marketing. I have no affiliation, but I do follow the Li space very closely, WR1 included. Like I've said, I love the Adina deposit and should invest, they have the second best Li exploration results in Canada (by far). But Corvette is just a better deposit that has some significant advantages. Hopefully we're all grown up enough to treat other posters with respect. The point of this forum is to help make informed investment decisions at the end of the day, which I make make based on facts, data, and geology, not to participate in reddit-esque squabble. I get the sense many of the posters are trying to produce "aha, gotcha moments", but I haven't seen any data that proves an "I gotcha now PMET", to be honest.

@Helios11 I think the concern folks had were that some statements, e.g., PMET having small grain sizes, not being amenable to DMS, not mining the Nova Zone until 20 years into mining, etc, are just simply false. It's hard to figure out what comments to take seriously. But the last post is more succinct and easy to have a conversation about some topics/questions. I remind you, the 43-101 is a market sensitive doc that's filed upon completion of a resource estimate. The environmental report is something that just kicks off environmental permitting, a lot of what is in that report is likely to change as more engineering is figured out. But I don't have insights on this.

"Phase 1 needs met tests.": the main thing the data has shown thus far (see above), is that at CV5-CV13, when head grades are above ~0.8-0.9 wt % Li2O, the head grade has a minimal impact on recoveries on a DMS-only circuit. Definitely not the case at all deposits, but it shows the advantages of the coarse-grained crystallinity at Corvette. That is the data that is important to me as an investor. The grades and nature of the pegmatite at the phase 1 area is comparable to rocks that already have met tests. You are correct, there are no met test from drill holes in the possible phase 1 open pit area, but the data to date makes me fairly confident there will be 0 issue with metallurgy from these rocks. This is honestly a non-issue to me. The pegmatite geology has been incredibly consistent above CV5-CV13. Full met tests for CV13 coming in resource estimate this year, most likely. When you conduct met tests, you're trying to input representative samples that vary in head grade from max to min Li2O wt%. Current results do that very nicely already (tested from ~0.6 wt% Li2O to +2 wt % Li2O). They have more met tests than any other co to date, by far, for perspective.

"Phase 1 and 2 need met tests with host rock included, then float tests re same." including@dtab I don't know where the idea that including host rock for dilution in met tests is industry standard, but do feel free to point me to studies that do so, outside of WR1. I think it's a cool idea, but does adding 5% of host rock at the bench-top (lab) scale simulate a real mining op environment thus provide a real estimate of recoveries? The real question is: does it make a huge differences in recoveries when you crush two together two rocks that are already separate (pegmatite and host rock) to test for mineral liberation/recoveries? I'm uncertain.

Worth conceptualizing what an HLS test achieves to do, which is effectively liberate a mineral of interest from rock where the minerals are stuck together. In a real mining op, you'll input welded pegmatite and host rock into your plant feed, so it's commonly different. There are studies that indicate that if you conduct bench-scale HLS, you should apply a 2-10% reduction in recoveries to simulate real mining op dilution/decrease in recoveries. So most metallurgical tests conduct HLS testing on non-diluted core, and then apply 2-10% reduction in recoveries based on lab tests. Imo, that's likely the best approach.

@dtab asked, paraphrasing "is it fair to compare Adina and Corvette met tests because of this difference in adding dilution at the bench-top scale vs not addition dilution". Not sure if this is a genuine question or if trying to create "gotcha" moments. I'll note, the first Adina and Cancet met tests, did not have 5% host rock dilution in the HLS feed (data point from Adina at ~0.9 wt % Li2O head grade above). That data point fits nicely on the linear regression of the data points that did have the host rock dilution. There are other differences not noted by @dtab. WR1 conducted HLS testing at a crush size of 6.3mm, PMET conducted HLS testing at a coarser crush size of 9.5 mm. Higher recoveries would be achieved if PMET reduced the crush size, but recoveries already looked good, so not necessary (lower opex). Another difference worth considering when comparing met tests.

So is it ever a perfect comparison whenever comparing met tests between companies? No. Is it fair to compare these diff met tests? I believe yes.