Price rise, page-41

Basically, they are comparing a precipitated value (solid) to a super saturated brine which is a liquid. The 2 samples, as the two results mentioned have assayed for 2 different commodities. The sample that the TRU report refers to was testing for Br in particular and the sample they had was participated (solid), now even TRU say they don’t know what this means or how it got to its participated state. If participated did all the Li participate?

The dissolved value was tested by USGS in its natural form, how it comes out of the ground and tested 1700ppm lithium and the solid sample TRU refer to tested 170ppm. It is already difficult to get lithium out of brine at a high recovery rate with modern day procedures, let alone precipitating it in the 1960’s by an unknown or unpublished way. It is clear that they’re not comparing apples with apples here and trying to undermine the paradox basin by comparing apples with oranges. You just have to look at another sample taken nearby that assayed 500ppm to see the error here. I always knew from the calibre of the report that the TRU report was shonky, but validation is always good.

Also all the surrounding leases like voltaic minerals are on the anticline, and ASN's lease is on the syncline. As brines are heavier then water they are found in the highest concentrations in the deepest parts, the 1700ppm reading intersected a fault called roberts rupture which is why the reading was so high.

Also if your not convinced you should check the high level of bi-products in the same assay, are they all wrong too. They are comparable to the highest grades being produced at mines world wide. Is the one page TRU report true or is the paradox basins brines rich. I'll let you decide after you DYOR.