Ann: Quarterly Activities and Cash Flow Report, page-148

Mondy, with respect, your implication here ( that there is possibly something lacking in the resource because of the limited conversion in the last dfs from measured resources to "proven" reserves, hence this could by why there has been no other takeover offers because other entities operating in the space and who might be potential acquirers have some sort of concerns Galan's resource might be deficient) is a bit of a stretch. Some of the JORC code wording is very relevant here. The following paragraphs are straight out of the JORC code with my highlights of key clauses and definitions.







The code makes it clear that a Measured Resource should have the same level of geological confidence as a Proven Ore Reserve - see highlight in para 2 of subsection 32. If a Measured resource hasn't been disclosed as a Proven resource but as Probable only Reserve then the issue should only be with the "Modifying Factors". I have bracketed the last sentence as it makes it clear , where such a conversion happens it does not imply ( or should not imply) a reduction in geological knowledge or confidence .

Given the commentary from the DFS that the mining plan from Yrs 8 - 40 comes from areas of "less confidence" which is likely to mean there has probably just been less pumping tests actually done to validate the data, hence the competent person here has simply chosen the safer route and called them "probable". Also given by that stage too you are 8 years out into the mine plan and given the weakness in prices we saw last year and that Galan at time of this Dfs didn't have an offtake in place and is selling chloride , something that has not been sold for some years, the more likely rationale here rather than the competent person having some deep lingering uncertainty is more simply exercising a degree of conservatism on these outer years until that very high level of knowledge is directly to hand. The code makes it clear but that Probable reserves still have sufficient quality to serve as the basis for a decision on the development of the deposit.

So for me its a bit of a bridge too far to suggest there remains a question mark over the quality and volume of resource here. If that were the case, the code makes it clear the resources simply couldn't be categorised as "measured" of which from DFS2 at 4,737 t of LCE is more than enough to cover stages 1 & 2 for 40 years of production ( in fact 141 years if you do the maths) , even allowing for loss due to evaporation (circa 40%) in conversion from resource to reserve.

That's because the code makes it clear there is supposed is supposed to be a two way direct relationship under the code from "measured" to proven ( as shown in diagram below) unless a "modifying factor" is in play and those modifying factors can only be factors like processing related , economic ( usually the most likely) or legal, but it should not be geological. So either the competent person doesn't understand the code which I think is unlikely or its more likely both the competent person and Gln mgt at the time saw no reason to do that extra level of testing & validation needed to move the measured resources disclosed as "probable" over into the "proven" column.