geologist or mining engineer help please, page-60

Pelm,

Thanks for the comprehensive reply and I acknowledge you are not an investor (yet) and so are unaware of the exact details re the project. Sorry, I was being lazy by not fully detailing the proposed beneficiation process. I think you have assumed Westcott is the company geologist whereas he is actually a HC share investor that reported back on a conversation he had with the company geologist (Aning). Here is a more comprehensive summary of the beneficiation process taken from various company releases: (Let me know if you require direction as to which BRM announcements these came from (they are drawn from several).

---------------------------------------
Simple Gravity Separation Flow sheet constituting Crushing, Heavy Media separation, jigs, cyclones and/or spirals

Beneficiation Plants have been designed and operated at various mines throughout Western Australia –including BHPBilliton’s -Mt Whaleback and Finucane Island, Rio Tinto’s –Brockman 2 deposit, Tom Price and Paraburdoo Projects

Technology is well proven –low technical risk. Low capital, operating and energy costs associated with processing of Detrital ores

No secondary, tertiary or quaternary crushing /grinding required. Product suitable for direct Sinter or Blast Furnace feed

The silica on the beneficiated ore is 25% and the alumina is 6.2%. Preliminary test benefication work has indicated Al2O3 grades were reduced by 25 – 40% for pisolite detritals and by 28 – 38% for mixed detritals. SiO2 grades were reduced by 55 – 70% for pisolite detritals and by 25 - 45% for mixed detritals. Pisolite mineralisation represents about 25 – 50% of the total detrital accumulation.

>The detrital ore upgrade process may result in a fines product PLUS a pellett-like granular product of >6.3 mm (resulting in a potential premium priced product)

>All detrital/pisolite ore is free dig at minimal incremental mining costs,as the ore overlays the CID mineralisation.

-------------------------------------------
Further beneficiation testwork (on larger samples) has been progressing for months and should comprise part of the announcement expected very soon. The company appears confident that their preliminary testwork figures will be improved such that their will be low contaminant levels. My assessment (being an economist it holds no weight) is that the silica is far less problematic than the alumina given the testwork completed so far. Informal comments provided by the company geologist (as indicated by Westcott above) indicates the alumina is not embedded which is promising.

From this, I assume we are looking at a beneficiation process that fits in the Number 3 scenario you outlined. As there is only primary crushing, this will reduce the capex/opex. I will take some more time to fully comprehend your comments and read the references you have provided.

I will get back to you tommorrow, well before you start buying BRM on Monday morning LOL.