"despite the fact that the samples were: of limited volume, composited across thick intervals of the weathering profile, exposed to the atmosphere for a considerable period"... lol, MS doth protest too much, methinks, even by the standards of ASX 'fake it till you make it'
"iTech undertook diagnostic metallurgy on 11+ year old samples (
always lead disappointing results with an excuse lol)... from the Eyre Peninsula Kaolin-REE project
to identify whether themineralisation had a REE ionic adsorption clay component"..."
The aim of the initial phase of diagnostic test work"... diagnostic, component lol, the geological community would be shocked if there was not some IAC component (
mobile ions) in deeply weathered laterite kaolinite clay at 'geochemical levels' which these are.
" sent to the ANSTOlaboratories in Sydney where they specialise in the metallurgical extraction of REE from IAC deposits.
The results will give an indication of expected recoveries and whether ionic adsorption plays asignificant role in the REE mineralisation style"... this quote taken from the 16th Feb drilling release demonstrates how quickly management turned the narrative 180 to fit disappointing results. Results indicate an
insignificant IAC REE component, and
very poor recoveries from traditional cheap ammonia salt leaching under moderate pH conditions (and a 50:1 leach liquor to solids ratio I note).
While these results are similar in quantum to other ex-China ASX listed clay deposits from ammonia salt, mid pH leaching (eg IXR, AR3), the big difference is ITM met tests are on -45micron samples making high level comparisons apples and oranges. The clay fraction by definition hosts ionic absorption clay hosted REE, and one would expect virtually zero salt leach of REE from the >45micron fraction (approx 2/3 of the primary sample). Without doing the weighted mean math, approx 1/3 sample to <45micron at 200% of whole sample grade assuming close to zero recovery in >45 micron component means the un-beneficiated insitu material (ie what other ICD type deposits are reporting) would be roughly 2/3 of the reported <45 REE recoveries in this data.
2/3 of not much is f-all to be blunt. Not that ITM is completely out of the game. Even IXR's much touted (but still suspect imo) Makuutu deposit had low recoveries from ammonia salt leach at pH ~4 as per below. 'Total RE Recoveries' as reported include a likely large discrepancy between different RE's. La and Ce represent ~55% of TREO at Makuutu and about 60% at Ethiopia for ITM on rough average. La and Ce are known to form insoluble colloidal minerals with much lower recoveries, and given these two RE's are over 50% of TREO they bring the Total average recovery down. In this respect ITM is not a lot different to Makuutu except ITM have high graded their met samples by beneficiating to <45micron thus flattering greatly both the REO grade and recoveries.
Despite some of IXR's noisier authorities claiming Makuutu is a IAC deposit, the fact recoveries jump substantially with addition of enough sulphuric acid to bring pH down to 1 indicates almost half the recoverable RE is present in colloidal form (probably similar to ITM's Ethiopia?). So long as lower pH increases recoveries substantially and acid consumption is low, decreasing pH shouldn;t be prohibitively expensive (as it looks to be for AR3's Sth Aust deposits). The only thing ITM needs then is higher grades (currently too low imo) in thick, near surface clays of the right part of the profile (probably not too deep in to the upper or lower saprolite which in Makuutu's case has much lower recoveries than upper clays as per below (IXR didn;t even bother plotting the lower saprolite results...)
Geologically one risk for ITM is that erosion has removed the most likely IAC upper clay acorss the Eyre Peninsula (no laterite cap, mottled zone often as preserved at Makuutu). Tests on new samples from current drilling will obviously tell the story, I'm just saying geologically it looks much like Western Australia south coast same latitude where erosion of very deep laterite profile has often removed the upper parts of the clay profile (buyer beware).
One also has to ask why the release had no individual hole data, references or even individual element recoveries as per the above IXR chart. The leach extract was assayed for all individual REO's and of course recoveries of the 4 main valuable REOs is critical (no point having good La/Ce but poor Nd/Pr recoveries).The absence of any individual hole data would have been illuminating, especially comparing recoveries on low grade vs high grade holes, but nada. Much crowing about hole ETH-29 high grades (artfully held back until last batch of REO re-assays btw) yet nothing on this much touted leading light...? Colour me cynical, but as the old saying goes "if you have nothing good to say, don;t say anything at all" is the obvious explanation.
FWIW, hole ETH-29 looked chemically so different from the rest (eg TiO2 levels an orders of magnitude higher throughout, and TiO2 is generally an immobile element in the weathering profile) I thought it might even be a sample mix-up or lab error, though it probably just reflects a dolerite dyke of some radically different lithology in the sediment package. ETH-29 is an outlier and it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the 0-10% recovery Ethiopia holes, probably closer to zero.
Results are not "encouraging" imo you won;t be surprised to hear. Management have spun the very best light on results and hammered the excuses for the obvious reason they know results are actually disappointing but you got to keep hope alive and pray for a miracle. Investors are being sold the idea that air exposure for 11 years has altered the IAC nature of REE in samples of intensely weathered clays already oxidised over millions of years. Geologically makes no sense to me, but it's an excuse and I'm not an expert to dispute it.
I'm surprised the market seems happy to assume all excuses are valid and new fresh samples will turn things around... good luck to holders that the price rose on bad news (buyer beware). That or I assume investors have run the price up and keeping it their for the graphite project because the risks are many and higher with these first met results...
Good luck
