TG6 sensibly paused drilling at Burmeister because the market...

TG6 sensibly paused drilling at Burmeister because the market had reached a point where it was not reflecting incremental drilling results (and cost) as incremental EV on the share price. If you drilled, and even if successful, the incremental increase to the EV was less than the cost of the drilling so shareholder value was being eroded by continuing with lithium exploration. Some companies continued anyway but if they needed a CR, massive dilution ensued.

Lithium sentiment is improving. PLS got down to a low of $1.07 on the 3rd of June 2025. They are now back at in the $2.20's/share. LTR got down to a low of 42c on the 7th of April 2025 and bounded around just above 50c on a variety of dates. They are now up in the $90c - $1/share range. CXO got down to a low of 5.7c, also on the 7th of April 2025 and have since rebounded to ~12.5c. GL1 got down to a low of 13.5c on 20 June 2025 and has now rebounded to ~23.5c. SYA got down to 1.4c on several dates in June 2025 and is now back up at 2.8 - 3.0c. Values have materially pulled off their low's and in some cases provided 100% or higher return's from that low point. The GFEX futures exchange has now had a few days over the last month where contracts have hit the daily up-limit condition requiring price increases to stop for the day.

If the next lithium cycle hasn't started, its showing signs of being very soon.

Burmeister has some great grades in the reported intercepts and the highly unusual characteristic that unmineralised intercepts are not being encountered and even the thin pegmatites being hit are mineralised all the way across. If you look closely at many other lithium explorers, they have areas of their pegmatites with low, very low or no material grade. Its often not immediately visible because they often only report mineralisation but its happening again and again. This would appear to increase the chances that if a thick pegmatite were intersected, its probably well mineralised right the way across.

TG6 does have some good Burmeister intercepts that need further exploration. Two of the best intercepts so far are RCD24: 17.8m @ 1.66% from 203.7m and RCD43: 23.5m @ 1.52% from 127.4m. Additional details around RCD24 is below. At some stage I'll get to a similar post re RCD43.

RC22 / RCD24: RC22 intersected 19m @ 1.52% from 206m . The DD twin hole TG6 drilled reported 17.8m @ 1.66% from 203.7m on 17 Jan 2024.
This was the original map reporting with the grid lines being 200m spacing. RC28 was extended looking for the depth extension of this peg, but 200m away the source wasn't found by the bottom of the hole. More work is needed to track its source.


From more recent maps, RCD24 is the left most start between the infill drilling of RC1020 and RC1023. Its only the eastern side that has drilling and some of that drilling is too shallow to test for the main peg intersected in RCD24.


In the spreadsheet below, each square represents a spot on the 100m grid spacing currently being used. 5 of the 100m grid spacing drill holes around RCD24/RC22 are yet to be drilled. Nothing with a infill spacing closer than 100m (other than the twin's) has been drilled. There is variation in drilling angles and drill orientations so each drill hole may not be quite like-for-like with those nearby.


It seems pretty likely that 14m @ 1.55% from 240m (RC1020) and 17.8m @ 1.66% from 203.7m are the same peg. An additional 50m infill would be needed to more definitively know if the 9.3m @ 1.43% from 139m was the same peg (RCD33), although its very likely that is the same peg as 9m @ 1.38% from 117m within RC1023.

If this peg has got narrower to the east, does it get wider to the west, and if so, how much wider? Only infill/extension drilling can confirm this.