Hi Mate,
Responding back to this post as none of the recent posts seem to be discussing process circuitry or this WOF. I Agreed with your comments that there must be something more to desired change of direction regarding this WOF process.
It does read all quite well and seems like an improved process circuitry at least for the kathleen ore body, but i couldn't understand why they would change in this direction given the ore body grades are better than the like of AJM and PLS whom have used DMS + flotation.
I was surprised by this comment though
View attachment 2254977LTR has copped some criticism by not having reported deleterious elements as part of the JORC, so i found it a little bizarre to make pointed inference that this process can help extract iron, (a known deleterious element).
They did however indicate their stance as such in the JORC reporting as per below.
View attachment 2254992Now i must say that when i read this a few months ago, i was glad they clarified their stance but was equally confused, as i have not seen any other lithium developer or producers make statements that contamination can occur from the drill bits or in the sampling procedure. Additionally iron isn't the only mica so there is the potential that there is other deleterious aspect which have not been delineated but investors can more their own assumptions. But that's just my opinion so we'll press on.
However, i had previous read information that the kathleen valley contained traces of lepidolite.
https://www.mindat.org/locentry-836734.htmlWhilst LTR had went on the record on twitter and stated that
"We can confirm the mineralisation is spodumene hosted. Please see above a recent photo of diamond drill core with +3% Li2O - note the white spodumene crystals throughout. There is no lepidolite."
It was then queried if this was representative of the entire ore body to which the company responded.
"This core is very typical of Kathleen Valley ore, where the dominant lithium bearing mineral is spodumene. Extensive metallurgy testing continues and will form part of the Definitive Feasibility Study"So maybe i'm a stickler for wording but that seemed quite deliberate. So it prompted me to review the recent announcement and understand if there was any correlation between something to do with the ore body, and this change in direction regarding the process flow sheet.
And i found something i hadn't read before, nor have i seen discussed here (may have been but i don't read all LTR posts)
From recent announcement below
View attachment 2254971So the above statement says that the mineralised pegmatites are hosted in iron rich **bro. And additionally that the sample was deliberately compiled. This actually seems like they've taken a sensible approach as this sample was based on the mine study. As per the below.
View attachment 2255031However, the figure here with 1.42% seems higher than what a lot had been quoting in reference to the Fe content. It is chemical grade, but IMV they wouldn't get the price they put in the PFS even at the time for this. I recall PLS was producing around this level and had made substantial steps to try and reduce this. IMO this is one of the key reasons they may have opted to investigate WOF. Which may allow technical grade.
Given there are approximately 18-20 pegmatities the Mt Mann Kathleen Valley complex, and as per the LTR announcements are hosted in iron rich **bro they obviously expect a quantities of this iron to enter the process circuitry in the economic ore body. So the statements regarding the iron within the spod lattice being low appears to be accurate. However, it appears that the pegmatites (given are hosted in iron rich rock) will mean some of this high iron will enter the process flow sheet.
I actually agree and commend them on using the sample they have as it likely to be much more analogous of the ore body. This is a mistake PLS made, and currently still appear to have. They also have lepidolite in some section of the ore body, which i haven't been able to locate in LTR and given the statements by the company aforementioned it appears that if present is very minor and would likely not be mined.
Anyways thought i'd share that info on part of the reason i believe they are taking the WOF approach. It provides a better concentrate grade and helps to remove deleterious elements such as iron. Which in LTR's case is not in the spod lattice (unlike MLL which grinds it's stuff to dust to remove), but rather in the rock which host the stacked pegmatite system.
To balance the convo, to hopefully have the post hold more credence, Tim has once again filled his boots and again credit to him. One thing is for sure, if the company is not successful it's not because Tim Goyder didn't believe in it or didn't put his money where his mouth is.
IMV Kathleen will be economical, but i'm personally interested to see it's revised IRR and NPV for a WOF flowsheet as part of the revised DFS.
SF2TH