Ann: High-Grade Muckanippie Titanium Heavy Mineral Test Work, page-24

Sorry GKeden, but as others have noted, your selectively seeking the Iron content after HM (Heavy Mineral) separation from PTR announcements makes little sense, when PTR could so easily have simply published the simple Fe content of their samples. Who knows what proportion of iron (Fe) is captured by the HM separation??

The MEU total Fe content of 5% to 11% does seem extremely low. And the only place I can find in the PTR announcements where overall simple Fe content is stated is the announcement of 11 Sept 2024. At page 8, PTR draw the distinction between overlying HMS (heavy mineral sands), on the one hand, and weathered basement further down the same hole.
Here is what they say:



For those who cannot see the pic, here is the text:

• In drill hole GM25.2, a single cover sediment sample was taken of the overlying HMS unit returning10.1% TiO2.Further down the hole it passes into weathered high titanium and vanadium basementrock recording up to 18.2% TiO2 and 0.44% V2O5 (Figure 5).

Then, PTR provide a table showing the results in the overlying sands section, at GM25.2 with the 10.1% TiO2 (the bottom row here), and it has 27.6% Fe (iron). In summary, in what PTR call the overlying sands, their iron content is about 3 times the TiO2 content. That's about 5 times higher Fe (iron) than in the MEU samples.

Here is the PTR table:


PTR results showing iron content in the overlying sands

Hope that helps