Replies to the many comments. This WR1 bias is baffling.
@kevin103 “Everything will need to be permited including building the plants, the mine the roads the lake drain. It will take up to a decade imo”
This is based on what? For reference, I do think the permitting may take longer than PMET anticipates. Critical Elements is the last Li project in Canada (Rose project) to have been permitted, and their process did take about a decade. Their process took long because they needed better upfront work on environmental baseline monitoring; Cree and Quebec government kept having questions. Partial lake drainage at Corvette will require a HADD permit, and that is an extra step, no doubt. However, I can’t emphasize enough to those not familiar with Canadian mining that establishing a good relationship with the first nations (Cree in Quebec) is a major (maybe the major) critical step in mine permitting, and one that WR1 must also overcome. PMET has been extremely active in this regard. The link that @Helios11 keeps posting is a major step that provides preliminary information for environmental communications.
@peppered no relation to PMET management. See posts on ceo.ca for many critiques of PMET management.
@Helios11 I can't keep track. I'll synthesize
PMET is lying and met will be bad
Linked to me: https://twitter.com/helios_newy/status/1782205681736765730
So what is it? CV5 is or is not crappy? You also posted a figure from PMET’s 43-101 that shows a flotation flow-sheet, and indicate: “There are designs for DMS/Float and recommendations for more tests re same. Why?” Along with other sentences, suggesting that PMET is being deceitful about metallurgy and may be a flotation processed mine at Corvette. Let’s set the record straight with numerics and more on the inner-workings of metallurgy, the correlation of head grade to recoveries can weak under certain circumstances. PMET published results in their 43-101 that help illustrate this.
The “benchmarks” data (grey) is fit with a linear function, that is, in reference data that is likely mostly from WA, recoveries are a strong function of head grade. PMET published DMS results based on heavy liquid separation tests, and they are plotted in blue (11 samples from CV5 across strike). They then apply a 10% deduction on recoveries to account for the difference in recovery at the lab scale vs potential recoveries under conditions less ideal than those in the lab (orange dots). Note that recoveries are nearly constant (blue) at head grades above 1 wt % Li2O. The data point at ~0.6 wt % Li2O exhibits lower recoveries. To fit the data, they applied a power function regression to predict recoveries at different head grades.
I plot additional data that includes data from Adina (WR1). The key is that head grade and recoveries have a weak linear relationship at CV5 (R2 = 0.41, ignoring low grade sample at which recoveries significantly drop). Note that Adina exhibits lower recoveries at the same head grades, and exhibits a stronger linear relationship between head grades and recoveries (R2 = 0.76).
Hmm…. why is there a weaker relationship between head grades and recoveries at CV5 than at Adina, why are recoveries higher at CV5, and what does that mean about metallurgical processing? Again, if spodumene grains are large enough, the relationship between recoveries and head grades is diminished. Coarser grain sizes allow the minerals of interest (spodumene) to more easily separate at coarse particle fractions, without other stuff sticking to the spodumene and changing its density (high recoveries sustained). Could also be a function of impurity differences at Adina and Corvette (lower impurities at CV5/CV13 leading to higher recoveries), but staring at core, my hunch is this is mostly due to differences in spodumene grains at both deposits (CV5 average grain sizes higher).
Let’s add some CV13 data to the mix, which is ~3km along strike of CV5. Heck, CV5 and CV13 may even connect? Is there geophysics/magnetics data that suggests they connect? I wonder… hmmm…
There’s unfortunately no table in the NR (https://shorturl.at/dnyPZ/) on CV13 met results, and I could only pull the data above, but the data indicates that recoveries at similar head grades are similar between CV5 and CV13. They state in the NR: “recoveries ranging from 67% to 77% at an interpolated spodumene concentrate grade of 6.00% Li2O. Recoveries also remained strong on the lower grade samples, which is a testament to the coarse-grained nature of the spodumene making it more amenable to liberation. Collectively, the preliminary HLS results strongly indicate that a DMS only operation at CV13 is applicable. Further, the results support a joint processing approach for the CV5 and CV13 pegmatites, whereby both could be processed at reasonable recovery in the same process plant.” So, ~3km away from CV5, met results look similar.
Your main comment has been that there are no met results from the phase 1 open pit area at CV5 (west end of CV5). That is a fair comment, there aren’t met results from there yet. However, the current met results reasonably suggest that there should be no difference in metallurgy at the west end of CV5, on strike with CV13. Heck, you can go look at the core photos and see that spodumene grain sizes are similar from the west end of CV5.
Is PMET going to be flotation?
Hmmm… let’s investigate. PMET states in the 43-101: “Although a DMS only flowsheet appears to be the preferred process route for CV5, preliminary flotation test work was conducted to understand the amenability of CV5 material to flotation.” Well that seems clear, but who am I to read. They put together an example flotation flow-sheet for two reasons, because any company producing spodumene concentrate should honestly test their recoveries via flotation, and to process fines. No one wants to be the next Core Lithium where unanticipated fine grain size fractions are encountered and recoveries plummet on a DMS only circuit. I wonder if other companies test flotation during metallurgy? Hint: https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/WR1/02774362.pdf “Current test work on these samples is investigating the results of flotation on the combined fines and middlings streams from the HLS tests.”
So with the above considered, do know that recoveries at Adina will only be lower than at CV5 based on the data to date. If you believe that Adina is a perfect DMS operation with large grains, high head grades, and that will not require flotation, do you still think this statement applies? “Between low grade, smallcrystals and host rock its not DMS to begin with. Patriot_battery have been selling porkies.”
(20min delay)
