This is a good email. It doesn’t deny there is no mica makes no...

This is a good email. It doesn’t deny there is no mica makes no comment on iron levels in the resources. My main objection is the misleading use of “ore body”, as if it’s one “ore-body”. Obviously it is not an ore body it is a collection of ore bodies sampled.

I’m a bit disappointed with the keyboard warriors here, for the simple reason, pointing to Tim Goyder’s investment does not replace assay data.

Management have not published iron data because in non-homogenous Resources its very difficult and time consuming. In fact even with Greenbushes it’s an ordeal and they have years and years of experience and data to ascertain iron species and other deleterious element counts. Example is here by Talisons. attached, highlighted in blue as to why LTR are silent on iron for JORC tabled data and have not shown
the 6 Daimond drill assays data tables, or have they?

When Nagrom conducts testing it does so under instruction from the company, and there is little information about the methodology that is how they got the %s.

For perspective and that’s what JORC Code 2012 is for, an example of a full Nagrom preliminary METs report you need only check the largest African peer for transparency.

In any case LTR would need to be more explanatory on omissions, and I think LTR are wise for dodging trying to make out what the Fe levels are in the resources,

1. Because RC drilling is seen as unreliable due to introduced iron contamination.

2.because doing what PLS did, a 20% sample w/ daimond drill holes duplicating RC drill holes assayed, and doing a statistical analysis on this across the 7 zonations is a bit dodgy. Why do I say that?

Well so far PLS has possibly misled itself or deliberately misled retail about its iron levels. To preface my claim, I don’t fully ascribe to the claim it’s all introduced iron from grinding contaminating the SC6 because PLS disclose iron staining and introduced iron from grinding as causal for quality of exported SC6 to WA authorities, contrasted with nowhere in ASX announcements do they make that dual claim for Fe contamination.

Simply, iron staining is from iron species locked in the lattice of spodumene crystal. Hence why homogenous resources are so prized with such an unstable spurious element as lithium.

The fact is ascertaining Fe levels especially in non-homogenous Resources is notoriously difficult.

Even for GB Talisons for its tech grade element % determinations was a long process of discovery through extraction and developing a methodology based on a pattern of mineralogical characteristics, because, the way to do statistical analysis for Fe is indirectly via counting iron species elements, so I’m not confident with the information LTR have given our so far that punters have adequately identified what they are investing in and LTR should explain why they are avoiding the PLS path and the full transparency of the AVZ path. It’s all about optimising the optic no doubt and they’ll cover it in the PFS level MET testing. I’m sure then we’ll see more comprehensive data on iron levels (as well as explanations on how to make recovery economic) as also other deleterious elements, including a statement on mica.

Hence the capital raise at such a market cap is quite remarkable, at a time WA producers, bar GB, have high opex, because the LTR mineralogy is likely as inconsistent as it’s peers and a very much moving target to model feedstock characteristics. Which later impact converter end costs to process to SC6. As Deboss pointed out, the targets for LTR at KV would be based on Ganfeng investment appetite, 1.2% LiO2 and 2.1mil LCE size resource which will be enough to make this a commercial asset albeit at what cost base and learning from early movers is a moot point no doubt.

Lastly I just want to say that, to say there is no mica is ludicrous when the host geological setting has muscovite. And the ore bodies are seams and thin for quite some depth. Intrusions and dykes will and do exist...