Hi Bezzo, I respect the fact you are up for discussion. In...

Hi Bezzo,
I respect the fact you are up for discussion. In response to your comments -

1. "Salisdorf mineralisation has been previously tested with LITs Sileach" - Simply I ask... when?

I can direct you to the same mineralisation that has been tested by Cobre/Strategic Mettalurgy, from the Cinovec deposit just across the border, also similar to the Solar World mineralisation on the German side. Using LMax, before "Sileach" was even a thing.

The confusion being LITs ambiguous wording. That type of "mineralisation" has been tested, but not at that exact location.

Seriously, it would be a stretch to think that this was not an LMax licence.

2. "Less than half as efficient" - see diagram below, you won't need a calculator to spot the difference.

3. Didn't LITs patent app state in the order of 2000kg of HF per tonne of ore? LIT lied to you, that's irrefutable.

At that scale it's a different ball game and comes with very different risk profiles to the pots and pans scale piloting ANSTO completed. For what 2 days before "malfunction".

Anyways, the HF thing has been well covered already. A little YouTube and Googling of hydroflouric acid, should set that straight.

4. Has anyone found out who this other Griffen is? That you're giving $7.5m worth of shares for? For a mothballed pilot plant, I thought we were done with piloting - we seemed happy to skip scoping, PFS and DFS and go straight to CPC with an end design.

All that on two days of failed Spod testing, never did get the cost profiles and final recoveries for Spod BTW.