@tbirdsrgo .... "Any JORC compliant mineral resource will not...

@tbirdsrgo .... "Any JORC compliant mineral resource will not extend
into the tenement that hosts historical Dam B4, located on tenement 832.150/1989."

So how come they included some of the mineralisation from that very block in the presentation last week, and didn't mention this last week?


Notice hole AA-DX 013 on the cross section presented last week. No mention that it's not being included in any JORC compliant resource in last week's announcement, because it's on the eastern tenement, likewise for the hole further east.

Itafos's PEA had resources of indicated grade extending around 100 metres into this Eastern tenement. This can be seen on pg 62, figure 19 of the PEA. The inferred resources extended further.
Their total Measured and Indicated resource, to the Canadian NI43-101 standard, was only 6.34Mt at 5.01% TREO, 8.4% P2O5, 1.02% Nb2O5 using a 2% TREO cutoff. Pg 63 PEA.

To get High grade Niobium, which the company next door as in CBMM talks about their resource at 2.5% Nb2O5 (something like ~450Mt). WA1 has over 53Mt at 2.1% (so far).

How much does SGQ have of this type of 'high grade' material??
According to the PEA, Itafos had a measured resource of 80,000 tonnes of ore at 2.2%Nb2O5. That's with a 10% TREO cutoff. Anything lower drops the grade of Niobium.

Go and check for yourself!! It's very clear if you look at the actual tables of the MRE on pg 63 of the PEA!!

I do not think Itafos were stupid, and didn't bother drilling in the best areas for the mineralisation. They spent a lot of cash on the drilling and all the reports. The link to PEA

https://itafos.com/site/assets/files/1773/itafos-araxa_technical_report_final-.pdf

I'd like to know what you expect to be markedly different from the Itafos PEA and why.

If you and other holders actually discussed whether this project was worthwhile, from all the known information, good and bad/poor, there would be no reason for me to post...

The project clearly wont go ahead, unless shareholders vote for it in the EGM, so why are any holders not discussing every detail, to see if it is any good??