I hadn't seen that. School boy error from a company that is paid...

I hadn't seen that. School boy error from a company that is paid by companies and by its members.

As for finding 20% LESS true thickness, it might have needlessly fluttered a few stomachs in some investors but still not a non issue. If this was a gold bearing system, lithium etc I'd worry, but potash is sedimentary in nature.

Think of the compression forces of 800m of top cover over the 100s millions of years. Variance is to be expected. A great example of this is the fact that OHM-01 is expected to be only ~3m thick when OHM-2 was 7.5m (having expected 5.5m)