3 days have passed and there is no reply from the accuser...

3 days have passed and there is no reply from the accuser documenting what is false.

My view is based on basic facts. Don’t believe me, in fact it’s not about believing and following, but looking at the facts.

What facts am I talking about here?

Simple ones

For example interested readers here should simply search to do a peer comparisons in lithium by comparing JORC tables of lithium peers that LTR names in its presentation.

I say ‘name’ not the actual peer comparison inputted by LTR but instead look for those named companies that show deleterious element counts.

When you do noting milestones of these peers in the explorer stage, you will see a discrepancy, showing that LTR is not showing data points it really should show if it wants to do peer comparison. In my plain view, LTR is cherry picking data points and has been for some time.

So noting the screenshots.

The code mentions sufficient perspective, transparency, comprehensiveness, as attributes either necessary and also encouraged.

In my plain view, I have yet to find where LTR has provided key statistics such as mica and Fe like most of its lithium peers.

Even it’s not fool proof as we saw with PLS appearing very fit with its factored Fe and yet it could NOT manage to keep Fe low in reality. Low is below 0.80% as per Talisons benchmark.

You may wish to ask Scarpa what full assays for a hard rock lithium company looks like as well considering he says that such a thing exists. And what it shows compared to an incomplete release.

The trend for WA lithium peers and beyond is to show deleterious elements along side the JORC resource table as these factors impact the economics and also show readers of the report another key set of statistics indicating the nature of the resource.

Without those key statistic shown a lack of perspective is generated and investors could conclude they are being mislead by withholding data impacting economics.

It’s unclear what full flotation means in LTR’s presentation whether the company is of the view that a DMS & flotation model akin its WA peers is viable or not and hence whether a full flotation to negotiate the impurities and inconsistencies of the resource and hence a full flotation to manage at a fine grind size (like MLL has proposed) to make a lithium product.

It’s possible that 100% full flotation adopting an end product like lithium sulphate as MLL proposes with a kiln technology that lowers cost of conversion may be feasible if this is what LTR is considering. Bear in mind what it is done to MLL market cap.

The issue is interested readers of LTR reports are kept in the dark about the actual metrics of deleterious elements. At best you see “ferrous impurities” and this could imply there is mica as Fe is often embedded in with mica. But also other Fe species mineralogy. Even Talisons has Published the geological complexity of its Fe species present in its TG (tech grade) pits with a mathematical formula based on experience calculating the resource Fe, back in 2012. This is a level of detail even PLS has failed to publish on its Fe statistical sampling (20% of drill holes) methodology and probably why it has problems since commissioning, the data points on Fe and mica were questionably realized on, in my opinion, likely on incomplete evidence not just an insolvent contractor getting it wro

ng.

So this is one risk here, that readers of reports are fed inchoate information (as much as “ferrous impurities”) to form a view on the economic merits of the resource.

My claim can be defeated if anyone here can post the data points for deleterious elements that lend comparsion to LTR’s assumes lithium peers as in its last presentation.

The JORC for sure does not make mandatory what is not resource strictly speaking but has guidelines that indicate the company should really show the full assays where aspects for f the mineralogy affect economics and in this case, if they are trialling different procedures for processing lithia to SC5-6 then this shows a changing view of the mineralogy from an economic perspective.