elm's res.estimation 4 holes doubles stb's res, page-14

anatol, thanks for the info. Yes I agree STB's deposit is severely constrained in all directions:

south - border of Eritrea
east - geological boundary
west - see their map dotted line between holes 3 & 4 meaning interpreted geological boundary
north - rapidly thinning deposit width

Any resource upgrade would be mainly to confidence not size, ie inferred to indicated etc. The consultants reduced the deposit size by 25% due to continuity question marks to be resolved when the outstanding hole assays come in.

Also, note their total sylvinite and upper carnallite resource of all categories is only 119.21Mt @ 23% = 27.58Mt of potash, and at 60% attributable is 16.5Mt for STB's share. They have excluded the Lower Carnallite and Kainite from this second calculation which is interesting as these actually contain 74Mt of potash or 73% of their project resource, with a lower grade again of only 17.3%. This 17.3% is derived by my simple maths, of course STB would not say that would they?

The lower potash beds may well be too low grade and too deep to extract economically and as well they are possibly contaminated by excessive amounts of MgCl2.

For me ELM is clearly a better play on potash, for all the many reasons we have been discussing.