Ann: June 2017 Quarterly Activities Report, page-20

You can't argue because you don't have an arguement. The report tells us that the zonation arises from petalite, the primary mineral in the pegmatite, being trmasformed to spodumene by a chemical tramsformation, not by original magmatic crystallisation, i.e. there aren't necessarily distinct concentric layers of spodumene and petalite, more like the deposit is divided according to the chemical drivers/mechanisms/pathways of fluids that came later.

You can immediately downgrade the JORC resource size by 10% based on what they are prepared to admit and by anywhere between about 10% and 90% based on the ridiculously broad range of the ratio that they have presented. What's more if the deposit was zoned from south to north (spod-petalite), it would be much better as the shallow ore is to the south. The east - west zoning has more potential to effect the shallower portions of the deposit to the south. Dividing the zonation with those carefully chosen and restrictive divisions might give a very biased perspective on how much of the deposit is contaminated by petalite to the west. Like always they play with the numbers to produce suitably ambiguous results, a bit like the depth verses tonnage of the deposit was never specified when it could have easily been. They gave us tonnage verses grade. Bury your head in the sand if you like but the announcement talks above a break fee which was never mentioned in previous announcements and also how it will be dealt with should the transaction not proceed towards the finalisation of the JV. It's not like these lithium deals haven't fallen through before (I won't mention names). You might want to also try and read between the lines on this paragraph in the metallurgy section.

First stage crushing to 10mm and then a second stage at 2mm resulted in several concentrate sample grades at plus 5.8%, however more work is required to op mise increased recovery from the middlings. Testwork is ongoing and further op misa on is required to increase the yields to acceptable levels.

Notice they use the word several, not "most" or another phraseology which would denote overall success. Also the collolary "of needing to increase yields to acceptable levels" is that "yields are not yet at acceptable levels". That is just basic logic.

Maybe if you have some arguments instead of childish analogies, it would be time to actually add to the conversation and put them. Esh