Again, I don't want to sound pessimistic, or negative - just cautious...
Yes, I did really read the TRU report. The source(s) it cites are the same as those used by ASN and others - old reports from the 1960s, with poorly recorded details. And a discrepancy between a "1,700 ppm Li" figure in a Table and, in the text, a more detailed "The precipitated Lithium content, as determined by the U. S. Geological survey, is 0.017+ percent to 0.018 percent...". In preparing that old report, it appears someone made a mistake with a decimal point, either in calculating ppm from %, or vice versa. Given the more detailed % figure references in the text (0.017+ % to 0.018 %), it might be more likely that the original analysis figure(s) were percentages and the ppm figure is in error. Especially since 1700 ppm would be more than 3-times the lithium content in any other wells in the area, including one only 100 metres away (500ppm). To its credit, TRU does admit all of its own uncertainty about this. To its discredit, ASN does not appear to have done the same. It continues to cite the 1700 ppm figure endlessly, treating it as the EXPECTED lithium brine grade, rather than as (at best) a single isolated historical analysis result.
And yes, also, I realised after starting this thread that the TRU report had been discussed previously. I should perhaps have added my comment to an earlier thread. My main query, though, regards the lithium recovery figures in ASN's benchtop testing of synthetic brines.
But No - to say "they all know about this report and yet are buying in" is pretty unbelievable. The vast majority of buyers will be oblivious to the seed of doubt cast by the TRU report. They will be reading ASN's announcements (with the 1700 ppm Li figure plastered all over them) or following the flock.
But yes again - The truth will be in the drilling. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but don't hold your breath waiting to see 1700 ppm lithium brine results.
Expand
