Ann: Lyons REE Project Maiden Drill Program Commenced, page-42

@salpetie Thanks so much for your detailed response! The fine detailthat you provide has helped to give some more insights beyond my rough generalisationsthat I’ve put together from some peer reviewed articles and the geology of theregion. Your detail of the various minerals that come from various intrusions isespecially appreciated. I feel better informed about the risk that theintrusions, although registering on the MS, may not necessarily becarbonatites.

My broad understanding of what is going on with the storm ina teacup are…

A subducted slab has created an enriched magmatic source(milk)

I assume that this source isthe host of the mineralisation through the Gascoyne and currently being foundby HAS, DRE, KFM, LNR

The magnetic source (milk) come to the surface in slightlydiffering magnetic intrusive bodies with differing mineralisation, as a resultof the high temperatures and an unhomogenised source

I assume that this LNR’s interpretationin figure 6is accurate because it must be coming from the same sources as HAS, DRE, KFM

The intrusive bodies are the source of HAS’ dykes and the LI03,LI01 and LI05 intrusions look to have been obstructed by brecciation (figure13) which could be the cause in the crescent intrusions.

I’m assuming that late-stagepulses are responsible for the migration of the magma past the breccia to thesurface, and some of this magma is what is being found in the LNR’s outcropping.

I’m guessing that the brecciationhas caused several small arms coming to the surface as seen in 3D MS model figure 5

The outcropping shows an obvious pattern of increasing NdPrratios moving from west to east through HAS and LNR’s samples peaking at LI05 andthen reducing moving east.

This seems too coincidental andtoo me it supports the idea that the mineralisation comes from the same sourcethat has a pattern of alteration. Therefore, I’m assuming that to make this happen,the magmatic source should follow a similar pattern.

The outcropping follows the same lines of the MS and Thoriumhighs, so assuming it is from the same source how could the outcropping be enriched,and the same originating subsurface minerals not be mineralised? Weathering surelyplays a part, and we are next to the Lyons river after all, but doesn’t monazitehold up well to weathering?

I made a mistake about the fenitisation that occurs within 5kms from the carbonatite. I was thinking of the metasomatic zone that surroundsthe carbonatite intrusion. HAS’ geology makes several references to metamorphismoccurring through the Durlacher Supersuite. I haven’t found anything about theincrease in metamorphism as you get closer to HAS’ east, which I assume wouldbe happening if there are intrusive bodies that are responsible for the dyking inthe region, do you have any thoughts or info on this?

I am quite confused about the comment that BT made about the erosionof the intrusions in HAS’ land. The crescent shapes look like the surface expressionof LNR’s and LNR state that they are intrusive targets in figure 4.

I’m wondering what the look like in their subsurface MSreadings, how LNR came to make the guess that they are/were intrusive targetand how they could be eroded if they were once intrusions?

Could the Ce-monazite in the west be more susceptible to erosionand the Nd-monozite in the east not be (a complete reach without any backgroundknowledge)?

DT made a comment that all roads lead to Rome or in DRE’scase, their Carbonatites (C1-C5). I don’t get how this could be the case and I thinkit’s more likely that our LNR’s magnetic intrusive body and their carbonatitiesboth play a role. It’s hard to imagine that 800m carbonatites 20km away are thesources of HAS’ mineralisation when LNR have a likely source 2kms away. Is there something I’m missing here?

I feel like I’m slowly piecing it together and the more I knowthe more there is that points to us being onto something huge!

Thanks for all the help!!