Charly Creek REE scoping study soon + IAC REE Brazil updates, page-10

Smacky

Good call & I'm glad others here know a bit about the history

Your download of the the April 2013 release leaves out the words highlighted in yellow below - which try to explain why the release is actually "not compliant"

"Cautionary Statements

The Scoping Study and this report on the results thereof have been prepared to comply with therecently updated 2012 edition of the JORC Code. As such, the following should be noted: ‘TheScoping Study referred to in this report is based on low‐level technical and economic assessments,and is insufficient to support estimation of Ore Reserves or to provide assurance of an economicdevelopment case at this stage, or to provide certainty that the conclusions of the Scoping Study willbe realised.’ (JORC Code Cautionary Statement).

For the purposes of ASX Listing Rules 5.16 and 5.17 as amended, the Scoping Study containsparameters that are defined as “production targets” in these Listing Rules, and these productiontargets are used to generate “forecast financial information”. It should also be noted that as statedimmediately above, a Scoping Study is not based upon Ore Reserves, but primarily upon MineralResources. Initial Resource estimates at Charley Creek (May 2012) produced the following results:
 Indicated Resources of 387Mt @ 300ppm TREO, supported by
 Inferred Resources of 418Mt @ 290ppm TREO.

Within these Resources, the block models contain approximately 70Mt @ 500ppm TREO.

The production target outputs utilised in the Scoping Study require:
 54Mt @ 500ppm TREO in the first five years of production, followed by
 300Mt @ 300ppmTREO over the succeeding 15 years.

Therefore, there are “reasonable prospects” that the “production targets” will be achieved,particularly given the large prospective areas at Charley Creek (around 2,500km2) where drilling willbe extended in the next round of Resource definition.

In the absence of the mine scheduling studies necessary to convert Resources to Reserves, it isprudent to classify some of the required production target of 54Mt@500ppm TREO as ExplorationTarget, since no studies have yet been completed to establish in what sequence the Resource can beextracted. The production target is therefore based as to approximately 85% on Indicated Resource,and up to 15% upon Exploration Target.

The use of the term “Exploration Target” in association with a production target necessitatesinclusion of a cautionary statement under the ASX Listing Rules: “The potential quantity and grade ofan Exploration Target is conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration to determine aMineral Resource and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in determinationof Mineral Resources or that the production target itself will be realised”. An Exploration Target alsorequires a JORC Code cautionary statement: “This target remains conceptual in nature, and there hasat this time been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource, and it remains uncertain iffurther exploration will result in the estimation of an additional Mineral Resource”. (JORC Codecautionary statement). The Exploration Target referred to here, and to be explored in the next roundof Resource drilling is: 50Mt to 100Mt at grades of 500ppmTREO to 1000ppmTREO. A more detaileddiscussion of the Exploration Target is to be found on Page 6 of this document."

I had extensive e-mail discussions with Eric during the period October 2019 to July 2021 because like many here I thought the 2013 announcement was JORC 2012 compliant. It wasn't, according to the new BoD who took over when the Crossland rescue took place.

The REE is there, of that I am convinced (IMOO) & in my discussions I pointed out that I felt the BoD was going about proving everything in an illogical manner - I said, in one e-mail:

"2. It would seem to me to be entirely logical to know that the company actually has the REE (from the assays results) before spending money on figuring out how to extract those REE if they are in fact there because if the assays prove to be inconclusive, then the company has wasted all its funds chasing a dream because there are no REE to extract"

To which the reply was

"a. We have established what is in the ground. Enova cannot released yet until we establish a cut-off grade and ensure ore recovery. To establish a cut-off grade you must know the process-ability of the ore and the economics to do so. Under JORC reporting , we can not refer to Charley Creek as having resources or ore with present information.
b. Enova has assayed all the holes necessary for resource purposes (105 holes on a regular grid). The partly assayed infill assays are for metallurgical test work. However, it also adds assays to our drill hole database too, so why wouldn’t we also use them for resource purposes"

& on went the discussion

Charley Creek is the icing on the cake - not many shareholders have come to realise this yet. Look at the "indicated & inferred" resource above (387mt + 418mt). Something is obviously sitting there in the ground ready to be extracted. How much & how rich is yet to be formerly proven, but when it is.....?