I'll drop my 2 cents on this comparison,
I feel like this is a difficult comparison as we have only done a 2D MT survey and Belmont have done a 3D survey but lets first look at what we have.
The dimensions and size of Belmont's target area are clear as we able to see a lengthwise cross-section, as well as a width-wise cross-section for areas under 10 ohm-m (below)
View attachment 1036714
Can't seem to find a scale for this chart but I believe the south view (bottom left) is around ~4km at varying conductivities. Now, I also had a look at one of the most conductive cross-sections. I believe it showed around ~0.2 ohm-m as the minimum resistivity (below). This minimum area looks to be approx. 400m long x 200 deep. This resistivity minimum area is around 900m deep whereas everything else is around ~0.5 ohm-m.
View attachment 1036741
The biggest 'target area' cross-section is below. I believe is this around ~0.6/0.7 ohm m judging from the colors and scale. NOTE* this is the biggest and deepest area survey. Most are significantly shallower and vary in conductivity. Refer to the spartan mt survey report for more images of surrounding tests.
View attachment 1036720
The whole decently conductive area looks to be around 4km (excluding rise at KB640 marker): This is at 500m. NOTE* the 'conductive' region for >500m and <500m are all significantly smaller. This is simply the biggest one I could find and is not representative of all depths.
View attachment 1036726
So, for Belmont, we know that their Lithium project in Kibby Basin is around 4km x 1km wide with a minimum of ~0.2 ohm-m resistivity @ 900m depth, while most of the project is around ~0.5-0.6 ohm-m. The project looks fairly good as the target aquifers are big. Yet, the problem will be the costs associated with drilling for such a small company. Remember, RLC's 1000m drill is costing us A$2.4mil all up to drill, pump, sample, assay + additional drilling and hydrology to convert the well to monitoring. This is about 2/3 the value of Belmont. Could be an issue attracting the necessary capital. But, if they do manage to drill, this could have an interesting opportunity at assaying some lithium brines (hopefully).
Now for RLC. A quick recap of our MT surveys:
View attachment 1036732
View attachment 1036735
View attachment 1036738
So for CM, our resistivity minimum is similar to that Belmont, at ~0.2 ohm-m, while the bulk of our resistivity is around 0.4-0.5 ohm-m, which, seems to be marginally lower than Belmont.
But it is impossible to comment on the size of our conductive area as although our 'basin' is 800m wide, we don't know how long it is. Could be 1km (or less), could be 5km (or more). We also don't know if 0.2 ohm-m is the true resistivity minimum for CM, or if it is even more conductive 100m to the east/west/north/south. We simply won't know until another MT survey is done, or a 3D one over the whole project. Same story with Big Smokey South and Alkali Lake North. Once we drill and test, we will find out if it is worth spending the extra money to do more in-depth (and expensive no doubt) geophysics.
I've tried to compare this as accurately as possible. Please comment if anyone finds inconsistencies or errors.
Also - get excited for next week or two. Will be some big announcements and deciding moments.
Happy Easter Reedy Lagoonians.
p.s I'm not a geologist. The last time I did 'geography' was in year 9...
p.s another difference between Belmont and Reedy... We are drilling and fully funded for 2 drills!!!!!
View attachment 1036744
(20min delay)
