also; "Firstly, and the main point; LTR has one deposit in one...

also;

"Firstly, and the main point; LTR has one deposit in one pit over 1 km.
That's why the characteristics of the ore samples won't be much different than the other holes. If you know a little bit about geology you would know that."

If you knew anything about geology you would know that the ore-body composition can change within a couple meters of each-other. In fact that's the difference between being mining dirt and the ore body in most of LTR's case.

To state that the characteristics of the drill holes and ore body will be similar because they're going to mine one pit - is wrong - Attempting to condescend on that point as well - is laughable. Unless the resource is reported as homogenous in nature then and only then can certain assumptions be legally allowed when compiling JORC's. These assumptions are detailed in the annexure of most announcements. The same section is where i snipped the "deleterious elements not considerin JORC" from.

You mention 4 tonnes being more than enough to be representative. Actually not the case either. AVZ used 12 tonnes and it's fe feed grade was less than half that the reported fe in the ore body. I stated this as a risk and that people should temper their expectation. So not a cross promotion.

Citing management "that the ore body is representative" is investors decision to take on board. PLS stated the same thing. But its evidently not been the case. As they've failed to replicate reality in their pilot/met testing work.

Finally; i am not accusing LTR of hiding anything or conducting any wrong doings. Just stating the haven't reported the Fe in the JORC and that people need to make their own mind up about whether or not the met test's are representative of deleterious elements.

SF2TH