I've been ruminating on the Halloysite variance question...............with regard to halloysite content as determined by the analysis presented in this report it's all about what is happening in the sub 2 micron particle size fraction...........
This Table from Feb 12th ann:
- Particle size distribution (PSD) for -2um is approx 68% once screened to -45um.................i.e 68% of the -45um fraction is comprised of -2um particle sizing............(that's how I read this).
- Hence this should help explain difference between H % content as reported in the Oct 30th ann vs. this result set...............
- When screened to -45um we get 18.4% average H content.
- When screened to -2um we get 59% average H content (much smaller sample set which includes sampling from 'outside' CW but you get the idea)........."A selection of 9 holes drilled at Carey’s Well, Tomney and Condooringie recorded an average of 59% halloysite in the minus 2 micron fraction".
"The 9.7 million tonnes of halloysite kaolinised granite will yield
5.3 million tonnes of minus 45 micron halloysite kaolin product containing 18.4% halloysite, which is
significantly above the typical 10% threshold required for the ceramics industry". This resource would contain 68% at approx sub 2um particle size (again if I'm reading the whole PSD thing correctly).
So at the very least it would appear to me that ADN, in
loose terms, are producing a 'halloysite concentrate' by screening to sub 2 micron particle size.........
.............certainly by screening to -2um and then analyzing, the halloysite content has increased significantly..............
These are the results from Oct 30th showing only those holes that were reported/assayed in the 12th Dec ann for comparative purposes:
Compare the H content in the Table below to that assayed in the above:
"At Condooringie,
CD19AC05 in particular had a 30m intercept (from 9m) with
tests on the minus 45μm fraction averaging 27% halloysite by XRD testing and 38.3% Al2O3 by XRF testing"...................(from 30th Oct ann). Now by screening to -2um the average H content has shifted from 27% to an average of 70% for the same hole...............a very significant difference...........(55%-91% H content range here).
So this could also be seen as a 'first step' on the road to delineating a purification pathway to produce HPH from 'lower H content' ore bodies.............?
What is the end game here........is HPH like HPA for example are they looking for 3N even 4N HPH.........?? Or is say 90% plus good enough......?
I really don't know on this score tbh..............
This approach strongly suggests to me that the reporting and analysis of the sub 2um fraction is primarily about delivering 'quality and consistency' in terms of delineating a global High Purity Halloysite JORC compliant resource.
And so we progress along the road to becoming world leaders in all things Halloysite.
That's just my take on all this, so if I'm way off base let me know. Have a good weekend people.
(20min delay)