IMO. DYOR. If anything is wrong, let me know.1. Resource...

IMO. DYOR. If anything is wrong, let me know.

1. Resource andReserve Assessment

1.1 Grade of Resource

• Average Heavy Mineral (HM) Grade:
  • Across all drilling intersections, average grades range from 7.1% to 13.6% HM, with exceptionally high-grade zones reaching 26.3% HM (Hole 24RW019 at 29m depth).
  • The mineralization is dominated by valuable titanium-bearing minerals, exceeding 95% Valuable Heavy Mineral (VHM), primarily consisting of rutile, leucoxene, and pseudorutile.
  • New intersections (from the latest announcement) confirm exceptional continuity, with results such as:
    • 24RW005: 25m @ 7.1% HM from 8m, including 5m @ 16.6% HM from 28m.
    • 24RW019: 28m @ 13.6% HM from 10m, including 8m @ 26.3% HM from 29m.
    • 24RW036: 16m @ 12.1% HM from 14m, including 8m @ 19.6% HM from 15m.
    • 24RW031: 19m @ 9.0% HM from 5m, including 3m @ 19.5% HM from 6m.
• Comparison to Industry Benchmarks:
  • Economic titanium deposits typically require at least 5% HM to be viable—Rosewood significantly exceeds this benchmark.
  • The project’s titanium dioxide (TiO₂) content is above 93%, reinforcing its economic potential.
• High-Grade Zones Offering Economic Advantages:
  • Several thick, high-grade intercepts indicate a potentially low-cost mining operation due to shallow depth and concentration of valuable minerals.
  • Mineralization is continuous over a 15 km² area and remains open in multiple directions, indicating expansion potential.

1.2 Resource Size andClassification

• Current Resource Extent:
  • The known mineralized area extends 15 km² with an 8km east-west extent and widths between 500m to 2.2km.
  • Open mineralization to the north, west, and east, with strong indications from historical drilling that mineralized sediments extend at least 3 km further north.
• Classification Breakdown:
  • No JORC-compliant Measured, Indicated, or Inferred Resource has been disclosed yet.
  • Early drill results suggest a significant deposit, requiring further infill drilling to confirm resource categories.

1.3 Reserves and MineLife

• No Proven or Probable Reserves yet due to the early stage of exploration.
• Potential mine life:
  • If the 15 km² area proves economically minable, it could support a long-term mining operation.
  • Future drilling is expected to expand the resource base, potentially increasing the scale and longevity of the project.

1.4 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Key limitations:
  • No formal JORC-compliant resource or reserve statement yet.
  • The project currently relies on Inferred Resources, necessitating further drilling to confirm deposit size and quality.

2. Feasibility andCosts

2.1 Feasibility Study

• No Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) or Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) completed yet.
• Next steps:
  • Collection of bulk heavy mineral samples for trial mineral separation.
  • Processing using standard ore separation techniques to confirm recovery rates.

2.2 CapitalExpenditure (CapEx)

• No official CapEx estimate, but key cost considerations include:
  • Processing facilities for titanium mineral separation.
  • Infrastructure investments (road access, power, water).
  • Exploration and development drilling.

2.3 Operating Costs(OpEx)

• No disclosed cost estimates yet.
• Given the high-grade, shallow mineralization, OpEx could be competitive compared to industry peers.

2.4 Breakeven Price

• No official breakeven price yet.
• Market prices for rutile (~US$2,500/t) and leucoxene (~US$1,500/t) suggest strong revenue potential.

2.5 Limitations andInconsistencies

• No economic model released yet.
• Inflationary cost pressures and permitting costs remain unknown.

3. Revenue andProfitability

3.1 Financial Metrics

• No official Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), or payback period has been disclosed yet.
• Early indications suggest that the high-grade nature of the deposit and strong titanium market demand could contribute to high profitability, but this is not confirmed by feasibility studies yet.
• Revenue Potential (based on grade and market prices):
  • Rutile price: ~US$2,500/t
  • Leucoxene price: ~US$1,500/t
  • Given the high TiO₂ content (>93%), the project has the potential to yield premium-priced products.

3.2 Assumptions

• No formal financial assumptions have been provided yet.
• However, market analysis suggests:
  • Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) demand is increasing due to its use in aerospace, coatings, and pigments.
  • Supply constraints globally may provide pricing support over the long term.
  • Inflation risks and production costs remain unknown, as no feasibility study has been completed.

3.3 HedgingStrategies

• No disclosed hedging strategies yet.
• Future potential strategies could include:
  • Offtake agreements with pigment or aerospace manufacturers.
  • Long-term contracts with industrial consumers to stabilize cash flow.

3.4 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Key limitations:
  • No formal revenue projections or cost estimates yet.
  • The profitability depends on market conditions and the ability to produce high-value TiO₂ concentrate efficiently.

4. Timeline andMilestones

4.1 DevelopmentSchedule

• Next 4 Weeks:
  • Infill and step-out drilling to further delineate the deposit.
  • Additional metallurgical test work to refine processing and recovery models.
• Next 6 Months:
  • Potential initial resource estimate (JORC-compliant).
  • Bulk sampling program (500+ kg of material) to confirm heavy mineral separation efficiency.
• Beyond 12 Months:
  • If results are favorable, a Scoping Study / Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) could be initiated.

4.2 Past Performance

• Petratherm has met exploration milestones efficiently.
• The company has consistently expanded drilling programs based on successful results.

4.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Regulatory and permitting timelines remain uncertain.
• Financing for the next phase of development is not yet secured.

5. Geological andTechnical Risks

5.1 Geological Models

• The mineralization model is well-defined, based on a fluvio-deltaic marine placer system.
• The deposit is relatively shallow and laterally extensive.

5.2 Mining Method

• Open-pit mining is expected due to:
  • Shallow depth of mineralization (~0m to 14m depth).
  • High-grade zones concentrated near the surface.

5.3 MetallurgicalChallenges

• Preliminary metallurgical testing suggests that over 95% of the heavy minerals are valuable (VHM).
• Key considerations:
  • Heavy mineral separation trials ongoing to confirm concentrate recoveries.
  • Processing plant requirements are still unknown.

5.4 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Metallurgical recovery rates have not been formally established.
• Potential contaminants in the orebody are not yet identified.

6. Infrastructure andLogistics

6.1 Proximity toInfrastructure

• Located ~120 km from Coober Pedy.
• No existing on-site infrastructure (water, power, roads will need development).

6.2 DevelopmentRequirements

• Road access must be constructed for bulk transport.
• Power and water sources need assessment before scaling up operations.

6.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Infrastructure cost estimates are unavailable.
• Project viability depends on cost-effective infrastructure solutions.

7. Environmental,Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors

7.1 Permitting andCompliance

• Located within the Woomera Prohibited Area (Green Zone), requiring additional regulatory approvals.
• Native Title considerations:
  • The SCD2011/001 Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara claim applies to this region.

7.2 CommunityEngagement

• No formal agreements with local Indigenous groups or communities have been disclosed yet.

7.3 EnvironmentalImpact

• Key considerations:
  • Land disturbance due to mining and infrastructure.
  • Potential water usage for processing.
• No disclosed environmental mitigation strategies yet.

7.4 Limitations andInconsistencies

• No environmental impact assessment has been completed.
• Community consultation status is unclear.

8. Management andTeam

8.1 Experience

• CEO Peter Reid has a strong mineral exploration background but limited experience in large-scale titanium mining.

8.2 Track Record

• Successfully expanded the project through multiple drilling campaigns.

8.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Lack of experience in titanium project execution.

9. Financing andOwnership

9.1 Funding Status

• No secured funding for feasibility studies or project development yet.

9.2 Ownership andPartnerships

• Petratherm holds 100% ownership of the Rosewood Prospect.
• JV partners: Narryer Metals (EL6715), G4 Metals (EL6873).

9.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• Funding strategy is unclear.

10. Market andEconomic Context

10.1 Commodity Market

• Rutile prices (~US$2,500/t) and leucoxene (~US$1,500/t) are strong.
• Global TiO₂ demand is increasing, particularly in aerospace and coatings.

10.2 Supply-DemandDynamics

• Limited supply of high-grade titanium globally.

10.3 GeopoliticalRisks

• Australia is a stable mining jurisdiction with strong regulatory oversight.

10.4 Limitations andInconsistencies

• No disclosed market strategy.

11. CompetitivePosition

11.1 Benchmarking

• Rosewood has higher-than-average heavy mineral grade compared to peers.
• Competition: Iluka Resources (ASX: ILU), Tronox (NYSE: TROX).

11.2 CompetitiveStrategy

• Expansion drilling planned to confirm large-scale deposit.

11.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• No disclosed cost advantage analysis.

12. Exit Strategy

12.1 Path toMonetization

• No defined exit strategy yet.

12.2 Long-Term Vision

• Potential for large-scale production expansion.

12.3 Limitations andInconsistencies

• No defined long-term business plan.

Final InvestmentRating: (Strong Potential, Requires Further De-Risking)

✅ Strengths:

• High-grade titanium mineralization.
• Significant exploration upside.
• Strong market demand.

⚠️ Risks:

• No feasibility study completed.
• Financing and permitting uncertain.

Final Verdict:Promisingearly-stage project with strong fundamentals but requires feasibility andfunding clarity.