Ann: Strong lithium mineralisation from first Adina assays, page-734

i've been analysing cross and long sections for a long time and am very familiar with differences.
A cross-section will show the apparent true width, and a long-section will show the continuity along strike for the entire deposit and hence why I used it to challenge Squirts calculations.

Using @squirt9394 dimensions of 720L x 50W x 350D = 12.6 million cubic meters (= approximate to his modelled volume of 14.6).

However, JORC resources are calculated based on a grade cut-off mineralised profile, and the total tonnes quoted will essentially exclude the waste/unmineralised rock.

To get anywhere close to Squirt's figures based on the data so far physics dictates that mineralised area will need to approximately encompass the physical dimensions used by Squirt above and therefore the drill intercepts in the long-section should essentially show continuity at depth and along strike ie. all drill holes show red spodumene interceptsfor the majority of the hole, and there should be hardly any black (unmineralised) sections in any holes, which clearly isn't the case!

I've marked in purple the obvious holes where depth and strike extent is missing.


Therefore I stand by my statement that based on the drill hole data so far, the figures presented by Squirt are grossly overstated by a huge margin.

If you're a geo as you claim, and claim that "Squirt is on the money", you probably need a refresher in basic geo analysis or ethics101.