"one minute you are saying they are not out of the game and comparing to IXR (a $200m MC) then you are effectively saying they are spinning a yarn and it's a huge risk."... yes, they were hoping for more Chinese style high recoveries for salt leach (up to 90% at pH4 in China) and are spinning results as encouraging when clearly they are disappointing compared to true IAC deposits (as hoping for as per 16 Feb release "
The results will give an indication of expected recoveries and whether ionic adsorption plays a significant role in the REE mineralisation style"). These results are not significant thus it's now only 'qualitative' etc..
"The reality is there are limitations in the samples tested, that is a fact. There was only limited drilling, with small composite samples. They are genuine limitations, do you not agree?"... I do not think it likely fresh samples will provide recoveries much different to 11 year old samples (air exposed only). Seems unlikely imo, changing pH conditions my ass, can't prove it obviously, Time will tell.
"You mention the clays needing to be at/near surface. The initial physical inspection of drilling would suggest kaolin clays, especially at Ethiopia are from/near the surface."... I haven't researched the geology but gut feeling is lower white kaolinite clay exposed at surface (see google maps) not red-brown laterite soil, gravels or even mottled zones (though that can be subtle), grades often better deeper, but deeper is by definition more likely lower saprolite than upper saprolite... FWIW Makuutu has the full laterite profile preserved, (kaolinite exists in mottled zone right through to saprock btw) which is much thinner than the very deep laterite profile I do know from WA research and I suspect is the case Eyre Peninsula (I may take time to look into that further and prove it?).
Given Makuutu has shallower laterite profile and the upper clay section preserved like in China, risk is it's very important part of what makes an economically feasible IAC deposits. Something to consider...
"It's not like a high probability REE project is anywhere near being priced into the current SP - I would suggest a very low probability is currently being reflected especially when compared to peers."... agree, which is why I said ITM MC must be reflecting the graphite project.
Never held this stock, but have been running my knuckles over all things REE for a while so I follow developments and post occasionally. Disclosure, I am a geologist with enough experience and nous to pick up and run with most geological situations (god bless google and the information at one;s finger tips these days). I'm not a metallurgist and thus not an expert to say that air exposure rendered the majority of IAC REO's formed by oxidation over millions of years into some refractory colloidal mineral over 11 years exposure to air. If we were discussing sulphides which will oxidise then yes I agree, S + O2 = SO2. But REO's bonded to clays (hydrated or not)... where does the REO element go and where does it go without fluids etc? I don;t believe it is all, at best it's a major risk that 11 yaers in air has done nothing what so ever...
"You also seem to suggest you are sceptical of the IXR IAC REE project, which others who I think would be considered "experts" are very positive on"... it's not widely understood (not on HC that's for sure) but the only way IXR got recoveries an economic type level was addition of substantial H2SO4 to drop pH =1 (suggesting a major colloidal TREO component). This is why I suggest ITM is still in with a chance, highly acidic conditions will always recover colloidal and some other RE carbonate minerals etc. It then becomes down to acid consumption which quickly escalates costs (high for IXR, horrendous on early work for AR3), grade, strip etc. Keep in mind the Asian ICD's often get 90% recoveries without any acid addition which is why they are so cheap (ipso facto, IXR is not as cheap opex and not as good as the market thinks imo). Obviously high RE prices are a must, as proven by IXR's PFS which had basket price assumptions well beyond even today;s toppy levels for when they ramped up to meaning 10M tpa throughout.
" Just interested in your motivations for this post as I question whether you are not doing exactly what you infer within your post."... sharing my thoughts in case others might find them interesting or valuable despite their negative contrarian nature. Like I said, very unfashionable
"These guys are experienced geologists (some might say "experts") so I am happy to back in their judgement as all experience to date would suggest they are going about things the right way.".... please, these guys might be all that and great blokes to boot, but they are also running an ASX junior explorer trying to keep up the excitement, sell the upside and keep raising money until hopefully they get lucky with the real thing. Investors need to sift through the perma bull release spin of all explorers and think for themselves what is really going on and what does it mean. Most projects are not good enough to ever get developed and most explorers end up sinking back to shall value before vending in the next good thang. I can't remember any junior management ever saying things look crook, better take your money out before it goes to zero... but most go back to zero, see the contradiction here?
I was clear that this is still an exploration play and fresh results my impress (and surprise me). They may either get much better TREO numbers form a better area and/or better results from salt leach at pH4. I expect they will definitely get better recoveries at pH=1 and acid consumption might be very low (which is good). They still have a chance... good luck.
