Good old fireside chat, page-228

As promised I am back and here is the report.

I will draw your attention to page 61 of the report "Recoveries and Comparisons": where it highlights relatively high amounts of lithium. That cant be a mistake. The next paragraph talks about tonnages etc on the analysed brines undertaken by the USGS and other labs. Although it doesn't say what percentage of lithium, it would appear to be a truck load. I will leave someone else to undertake the maths.

My apologies I digressed - back to the lithium values that the bods at Tru highlight in the 4th paragraph on page 61. These are precipitated values. It does not indicate what the loss of lithium was in the precipitation process and to basically say that the 1700 ppm will reduce to 170ppm to 180 ppm is a bloody stretch.

Also, the Tru bods failed to mention that the published data on the Searles Lake Brines - American Potash and Chemical Corp identified that it is considered a major source of supply of lithium.

Now, the biggest thing that the Tru bods have failed to consider and so blatantly is technology. Don't you think that processing technology has changed since 1967? May be the Tru bods are luddites.

Lets turn to page 62 where the chemical analysis of the White Cloud Brines as at 13 February 1967 is stated as being correct by USGS. Now, again I have to apologise but I am no authority or expert but isn't the USGS an upstanding institution and organisation. May be the Tru boys could take on the USGS and not waste our time with their frivolous claims.

I think I forgot to mention: the Tru boys are trying to compare a precipitated value to a chemical analysis of the brine where it clearly states 1700ppm. May be there not that smart after all. Because as a layman I can pick up the difference. Did they miss that deliberately? Who knows but one can always ponder that thought.

Good night and Good luck. Until we meet again enjoy the report.