Yeah, no problem assuming +5m per hole saprolite depth beyond end of hole in mineralisation for Inferred MRE. My point (though layered on a bit thick in the effort to be heard) is that it's deceptive to talk about "average depth of drilling to date" and how "deeper drilling could add a lot more tonnes" when a lot of depth 'potential' has already been included (but hidden) in this MRE with an arbitrary extra 5m depth (50% on average). It was not made clear but buried in the JORC tables, demonstrably hidden because nobody on HC had joined the dots and said hey, a lot of depth upside has already been assumed in that MRE.
In simple terms, yes the saprolite will be deeper than average and tested by shallower historical drilling. Experience and science tells me ICD's are not as simple as 'all the clay will recovery from ammonia salt leach'. Think about the different chemical conditions and processes going on in the weathering profile. REE's and other elements are dissolving from one part and some precipitating in another part, either as loose ionically bonded ions, or as with buddies as colloidal or other mineral forms. The laterite profile is well studies and, as with other ICD deposits I looked at, recoveries vary with depth in different parts of the weathering/lithological profile.
Be careful in extrapolating the 'obvious' upside as conveyed by companies. It's a game at this stage... create as much sizzle as possible, CR as high as possible, some early buyers and those knowledgeable about what is going on exiting to those who think there are more bags just around the corner. Time will tell, but considering current REO pricing and the sausage sizzled crisp, be careful what's already priced in. The 5m depth extension was not made clear and indicates to me a cynical and deceptive sales pitch. To be clear, a valid and clever lift that sailed under everyone's radar, fair play and hat tip. I see much worse with little or no justification regularly.
Scale and mine life are important, who wouldn't want to add to the MRE. It's already very large, sufficient for +25 year mine life on high grade core alone. Extra tonnes won;t add proportionally to project value because at >$250M it's now more about technical risk, capex/opex/margin, sovereign risk, etc etc. Ammonia sulphate is expensive at 160kg/t ore and the leachate has to be recycled at cost back into appropriate leach solution because ammonia and nitrogen are pollutants (hopefully a lot cheaper than additional 160kg/t ammonia sulphate).
Someone else posted "MEI management probably had to get all their ducks in a row before running around shouting from the tree tops"... yes, yes they very probably did lol. Mind you, it was back at 1.6c when insiders got their trotters in the trough. I don;t know how hard Sprott or other will sell it or what those next lot of buyers will pay. Every chance they take it to the dumb money in London where old money will chase it like Forrest Gump. It's a real ICD, comparable to Sierra Verde in Brazil and other ICD deposits ex-China like Myamar and Vietnam. IMHO, the easy money has been made riding it up to mid teens on the release it was ammonia-salt leachable. Now it's about playing the technicals, roadshows and RE pricing of course.
GLTAH
Expand
. Let the carnival begin !
(20min delay)