Ann: Exceptional Lithium Drill Intersections from Andover, page-179

Thanks for this - I extended the analysis and did a reconciliation to actual assay results (took me a few hours)

I have estimated the grade and thickness we may expect from holes 209 to 215 for the longer intervals. To arrive at my assumptions and approach I reconciled the grade and thickness for holes, 202, 206 and 208 quite well by excluding bookend intervals of 0% spodumene and bookend intervals of 3-5% spodumene (see results below).

I had to use the largest number in the % spodumene range to reconcile the grade closely e.g. used 20% when the range was 15% to 20%. I used the 8% Li2O assumption for spodumene lithium content.

My estimates reconcile quite closely, which surprised me, as follows:

Hole 202 – 11.2m @ 1.79%; my estimate 8.9m @1.86%; and actual results 38m @0.97%; my estimate 29.3m @1.04%

Hole 206 – 54.4m @1.07%; my estimate 54.5m @1.03%

Hole 208 – 52.1m @0.91%; my estimate 53m @0.88% and actual results 105m @1.26%; my estimate 106m @1.17%

The smaller intervals in holes 205, etc did not reconcile very well.

Using the same assumptions and approach for holes 209 to 215 I achieved the following estimated results:

Hole 209 – 42.6m @0.73% and 25m @0.98% (total thickness from hole is 67.7m)

Hole 210 – 52.6m @1.23% and 62.5m @0.98% (total thickness from hole is 115.1m)

Hole 211 - 67m @0.37% (if you look at the table in the clarification announcement you will notice very low % spodumene eg 36m @3% to 5%)

Hole 214 – 90.1m @1.13%

Hole 215 – 20m @1.20% and 104.5m @1.09% (total thickness from hole is 124.5m)

Your grade estimates are too high. For example, no way will 3% to 5% spodumene results in LiO2 of 0.5% to 1% - it's more like 0.25% to 0.4% LI2O assuming spodumene contains a maximum 8% Li2O which is the theoretical maximum