speaking of language and sentence structure, I reckon I can pick...

speaking of language and sentence structure, I reckon I can pick what could be rummy’s stakeholder submission(s)

Im about halfway through the supplement EIS. Boy...anyone who has accused management and the team to be sitting on their hands doing nothing, I suggest have a read of the draft and supplement EIS, you might get a greater appreciation of just how much work is going into getting this project up and going. I certainly have a greater appreciation anyway.


found a stakeholder submission response that I found interesting in relation to backfilling of the mining pit. I always thought it wasn’t to be backfilled purely because the cost of doing so would eat too much into the profitability of the project. But in a response they also say one of the reasons is because “backfilling would make it unviable to develop a future underground mine targeting the already defined ore resource beneath the pit.” I think this is the first I’ve heard of this. Looking at the pit designs in the DFS, looks to be quite a bit of inferred ore leftover beneath the pit. And as we know, some of Grants incredible intercepts at over 2% Li20 occur quite deep (same with BP33). Getting this high grade ore via an underground mine would equate to additional tonnes and additional profits

hoping to get a bit more free time tonight to finish going over the report

IMO

GLTAH