True, on the face and of it the indicated and inferred resources...

True, on the face and of it the indicated and inferred resources compared to Galaxy for example are not dissimilar

                   

                     Indicated     Inferred

Galaxy          1.14              4.02           5.16

Lake             1.00              3.14           4.14 

Those figures are for the contained LCE in situ (before pumping)

Of course although we doubtless have a  (very) valuable resource, a direct comparison cannot be made on those numbers alone even less so the by the all too often unqualified comparisons to our "neighbours" the  frequent use of which in my view detract rather than add to our presentation

From the Maiden Resource statement

"The resource hasbeen quoted in terms of brine volume, concentration of dissolved elements,contained lithium and potassium and their products lithium carbonate andpotassium chloride.

No mining orrecovery factors have been applied (although the use of the specific yield =drainable porosity is used to reflect the reasonable prospects for economicextraction with the proposed mining methodology)".

There are many factors that will determine how much of the indicated and inferred resource is recovered for sale (not the least of which is the extraction method (Lilac / Tenova equivalent or evaporation) and whether carbonate or hydroxide. The concentration in the Li in the brine should not be a negative other than higher pumping costs and Lilac opex at the front end of the line. That should  be offset in whole or part by Lilac / Tenova equivalent potentially higher end product recovery and shorter recovery time.

"gassed;s reference to the "quality" of the Maiden 4mt LCE Resource Estimate is fair comment but I guess the reporting protocols determine what that document has to be, 

However with the greatest respect to the CEO and understanding his heavy work load and travel schedule the "updated" presentation left questions in my mind and would no doubt with other prospective small investors less familiar with the Company. The all important first two slides numbered 3 and 4 are  simply too complicated and  nebulous for the uninitiated who might have been checking out the reason for yesterday's price rise.  Those first two slides must convey our message succinctly with clarity in less than 10 seconds otherwise the reader moves on will move on.

The unqualified references to values of nearby projects quoted on the slide 3 "Investor Highlights" have little meaning unless you are "in the club" The same applied the twitter interview just posted by "kashmir89a" kaleidoscope of unknown names and unqualified numbers. Much of that message would pass in one ear and out of the other and out of the other

A similar comment applies to slide 4 "LKE Deep Value". It looks impressive but just what does it mean ? Who are the abbreviated companies. What does the ochre line graph linking the companies mean. We may know but the uninitiated but it would mean nothing to the uninitiated. It  would be much more effective to concentrate on the comparative value of production even if heavily conditioned. Alternatively a much clearer indication (numerical) of the resources of each of the explorers / producers. 

But from my perspective the elephant in the room is no  reference to Lilac progress with their provisional cost analysis (in progress for more than a month). Similarly only an oblique reference to Cauchari when diamond drilling was expedited to allow samples to be progressively rushed to the US for analysis. Has the first hole been completed ? Has the rig been moved to the pre-pared second site ?

I would have expected that if we are to hit the $0.20 sp before December 15 (option date)a successful outcome would have been made known with the presentation off the   $0.13 overnight springboard

It is possible that a combination of those factors led to lack of buying support this morning rather than short term speculators.

The positive Maiden Resource statement has unfortunately been offset by the ambiguity / lack of clarity in the presentation (IMHO)

·        

 

·