What an absolute
disaster of a release.
They've created some artificial "lithium mineralised corridor" to include their Coondina project, which has no spatial significance with the Wodgina, Pilgangoora and Archer deposits. No other significant deposits within the southern section of their supposed "corridor". No emphasis placed on granite/greenstone interactions and how this is related to significant pegmatite emplacement. No reference to the Tin and Tantalum historical mines which is likely what they've tried to make this off.
MGA are claiming to report
LiO2 values when lithium does not form a stable complex with 2 oxygen atoms.
Six times they used LiO2, not even a hint of scrutiny pre-publication. Every other company gets even the most basic things right such as reporting correctly in Li2O. If this company does not understand basic chemistry, how can they be expected to find the target commodity?
Recent site visit grab sampling has demonstrated the strong potential of the project area with six samples returning positive values including up to 248 ppm LiO2 and 1,496 ppm rubidium".
"Strong potential" is apparently having rock grab samples turn up lower Li2O ppm than what other companies are finding in their soil samples. Again, an absolute disaster. They've picked up near barren rocks which likely have residual Li enrichment from their sedimentary origins.
Look at the percentages when converting ppm to %. Awful results.
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
Column 5 |
Column 6 |
Column 7 |
Column 8 |
| 0 |
Sample ID |
East |
North |
LiO_{2}(ppm) |
Li(ppm) |
Rb(ppm) |
Cs(ppm) |
Ta(ppm) |
| 1 |
UC0001 |
751189 |
7581256 |
13.56 |
6.3 |
235.36 |
4.57 |
0.08 |
| 2 |
UC0002 |
751167 |
7580398 |
173.1 |
80.4 |
1496.01 |
78.64 |
0.54 |
| 3 |
UC0003 |
751093 |
7580635 |
247.81 |
115.1 |
986.47 |
112.91 |
67.33 |
| 4 |
UC0004 |
749702 |
7579380 |
78.58 |
36.5 |
125.84 |
10.08 |
1.07 |
| 5 |
UC0005 |
748926 |
7579189 |
56.41 |
26.2 |
317.61 |
7.47 |
2.37 |
| 6 |
UC0006 |
748779 |
7579415 |
136.28 |
63.3 |
237.8 |
5.41 |
0.19 |
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
Sample ID |
East |
North |
LiO_{2}(%) |
Li(%) |
Rb(%) |
Cs(%) |
Ta(%) |
| 9 |
UC0001 |
751189 |
7581256 |
0.001356 |
0.00063 |
0.023536 |
0.000457 |
0.000008 |
| 10 |
UC0002 |
751167 |
7580398 |
0.01731 |
0.00804 |
0.149601 |
0.007864 |
0.000054 |
| 11 |
UC0003 |
751093 |
7580635 |
0.024781 |
0.01151 |
0.098647 |
0.011291 |
0.006733 |
| 12 |
UC0004 |
749702 |
7579380 |
0.007858 |
0.00365 |
0.012584 |
0.001008 |
0.000107 |
| 13 |
UC0005 |
748926 |
7579189 |
0.005641 |
0.00262 |
0.031761 |
0.000747 |
0.000237 |
| 14 |
UC0006 |
748779 |
7579415 |
0.013628 |
0.00633 |
0.02378 |
0.000541 |
0.000019 |
And yet it seems to be getting worse. They've assayed for lithium utilising a four acid Aqua Regia/ICP-MS finish when in reality they should have used a sodium peroxide FP1/OM finish.
Truly, an unmitigated disaster.
(20min delay)