I see people want to try quantify grades from visual estimates....

I see people want to try quantify grades from visual estimates. A bold move, but realistically, a poor choice from posters, and again, an even worse choice from CRR management for reporting estimate spodumene concentration; who really should know better with a geologist on the board. But let's review how they've done previously with visual estimates and how that quantifies into grade:

MF22-64 (hole 5) they estimated 20% spodumene across 18.1m. The assay returned 18.1 @ 0.98%. If spodumene has 8 wt% Li2O, then in theory with an unaltered spodumene product, that 18.1m interval should be returning ~1.6% Li2O. A 0.98% Li2O result is a near 40% miss on theoretical value; some of which can be attributed to alteration, possibly to cookeite or smectite, but more likely, its because humans are terrible at accurately estimating percentages, especially in complex pegmatites. So really, it is poor practice to publish estimates as it creates false standards for assay results, and consequently, you have retail running for the door anytime assay data comes out to sell the news.




So based on their previous estimates, here is the recent holes with an estimated Li2O grade based on CRR's estimates. And surprise surprise, not terrible but not great results either. Hence why even releasing spodumene %'s is poor practice for setting up unrealistic expectations.