I posted my views re: PNN in Post #:63207805 excerpts below but...

I posted my views re: PNN in Post #:63207805

excerpts below but in short.
Too thin and too deep, not widespread, unconfirmed met work.

"Firstly i'll start by saying that i will keep this brief - and link a few further recent posts for reading.
Secondly, i am strictly only going to be commenting on the Rare Earth project and thus any other projects this company has may mean it's a bargain.

Okay so firstly 53 samples sent away 12 had values over 500ppm (roughly the cut-off of economics or atleast ball park where you want to be) so i don't have a visual of where the holes are spatially but basically only 2 holes that hit so not sure how continuous.



moving on


The first hole is fairly low in HREO mostly La/Ce so not good. It's also 5m's thick but 12m deep.
That's also why the next 2 hits aren't that great.
7/8m's thick 30m's deep.
4m's thick 39m's deep.

A few people have shared some hits from IXR and ITM. *disclosure i hold both.
But a good yard stick to use is that thickness of the intercept needs to be the same or larger than the depth it's at.

This determines a basic strip ratio. So 1:1.
1m deep 1m or thicker
10m deep needs to be 10m or thicker.

As pointed out in this thread for ITM all results are thicker than they are deeper and IXR results are the same.

Intersections at Caralue Bluff include:
o CBAC22-071 – 12m @ 2,343 ppm TREO from 9m
o CBAC22-074 – 17m @ 1,774 ppm TREO from 4m
o CBAC22-068 – 12m @ 1,326 ppm TREO from 6m
o CBAC22-034 – 12m @ 913 ppm TREO from 13m
o CBAC22-013 – 16m @ 776 ppm TREO from 2m
o CBAC22-064 – 12m @ 784 ppm TREO from 11m
o CBAC22-055 – 15m @ 747 ppm TREO from 4m

Ir-respectively, and in addition they would also need to prove the REO can be extracted easily. Ideally ionic material is present as easily leachable. But to reiterate, based on the thickness and the depths it wouldn't matter if its ionic or not - the strip ratio would probably render it uneconomic.

Now on a few positives;
PNN hasn't tried to claim its ionic at all which can't be said for a lot. Including 1VG which was tagged here.
PNN has only limited drills and so just because these probably aren't going to lead to anything further exploration may turn up something better.

Just on 1VG because it was a slight cross promotion almost a similar circumstance as TNR now known as ASR. I was tagged initially back in Feb and provided some high level info and made inferences to what kind of deposit it was. Despite the company marketing it as ionic. Post #:59459291 i provided some basket calc for them Post #:59495492 explains how it's computed. Now this was something i assessed and provided and opinion on in feb. 3 months latter the company was sending information directly to investor via PM with comparisons to IXR Post #:61238611

After I called it out again - they subsequently revoked the commentary and released an announcement shortly after explicitly stating it wasn't ionic which was not what was being marketed prior. 6 months later and not much progress beyond what i was able to devise in 6 hours. Why am i mentioning all this. after a 30 min review 1VG looks like it will be a similar style as TNR/ASR. They've also engaged the same professor ASR are using - who seems to have a recently acquired interest in find things that are kind of like ionic clays building references to IXR but without the actual data to support it - so bit of a professional/industry concern i have.

Anyways - thats a corporate red flag but outside of that we're seeing the same sort of testing which is becoming a fingerprint. a 4 acid digest is not indifferent to the weak aqua regia. Some of the more technical discussion i actually disagree with it being all that indicative.

"Table 1 below compares concentrations by 4 acid dissolution ICPMS (4A) and fusion ICPMS analysis (fusion). The majority of analyses yield almost identical concentrations by 4A and fusion dissolution. Y in this case is a proxy for the HREEs. This indicates that the HREEs in these samples are likely associated with saprolite clay minerals from which the REEs and Sc are easier to separate."



well no, actually it hasn't told you much. The weak aqua regia (which is actually very strong acid) when used by other in the space produced results for a lot of people 20% lower in PPM compared to fusion assaying. Those clowns marketing that as recoveries... god knows why. Here we have something similar but credit in the reporting whereby they effectively say the Yttrium (which is a HREO) assays under 4 acid digest is similar to fusion. This doesn't tell you all that much as the 4 acid digest is actually quite strong and it should be no surprise that if you dose something with enough acid you can expect most of the same material to drop out.

In clay systems you can expect colloidal bonds to be the predominant phase. Its when exchangable phase is present in large quantities that you have an ionic material. ion exchange.

1. Colloid phase: REE deposited as insoluble oxides or hydroxides or as part of colloidal polymeric organometallic compounds. These species have low occurrence in ores at the slightly acidic natural conditions and can be recovered only by acid leach.

2. Exchangeable phase: REE occur as soluble free cations/hydrated cations or part of positively‐charged complexes in solution adsorbed species on clays. These species account for 60‐90% of total content of rare earths in ores and can be recovered by ion‐exchange leaching with monovalent salts.

3. Mineral phase: REE part of solid fine particles with same mineral matrix as the host rocks (REE part of the crystal lattice). This phase usually accounts for the balance from the ion‐exchangeable phase towards the TREE content and can be recovered only by aggressive conditions (alkaline bake and acid leach).

So anyways clay deposits usually mixtures predominately of 1 and 2. A lot of hopefuls simply doing tests to say we know we have material in phase 1 but that's almost always not going to be economic when the ppm is 500-1000ppm. Hence why ionic component is important.

That's a little off-topic because irrespective of the tech mumbo jumbo 1VG has produced (which was admittedly enjoyable for me to read) it would be dead and buried as a REO project based on current results because they're too thin and too deep.

They're best results are;
16m thick from 48m deep
12m thick from 36m deep



So really on these results even if the material was largely ionic it would still be uneconomic.
I wouldn't waste time doing any met work if the economics are killed on the ore mineralogy.
They need to find clay profiles as thick as they are deep. Hopefully 500-1000ppm+ then leach is with a neutral Ph and a more aggressive one for comparison.

it's what all the companies that actually have ionic clays present done.

here's a list of recent posts which are explaining some of the basics in the space.
Post #:63191059 what a junior iac project should look like.
Post #:63185173 Post #:63174292 explain why weak aqua regia is pretty well useless without a ph3-5 result and some early IXR results as a baseline of what economic looks like.
Post #:63004813 on another project i don't hold explaining what good looks like.

I said this would be short, but short and my posting is not really synonymous. I atleast try and be relatively comprehensive otherwise it seems like it's a dash and run and for many still learning the space it's good to bring them on the journey.

So as i said at the start this is just the REO project - i have no idea what other projects they have could be excellent RvR.

-In regards to this tenement on the data present. Nothing exciting for me.
-Drill results need to find some thicker stuff closer to surface and widespread at 500-1000ppm.
-If they hit a few holes of that - take a composite sample and send it away for leach tests under neutral Ph and maybe a ph2 and Ph1.

Disclosure; i hold 2 REO projects both prospective for ionic clay. One advanced development and one in exploration phase. So opinion may be bearish by bias.
I was also bearing on 1 of those stocks until better info starting to come back to a point where it turned risk vs reward back into favour. So my view aren't static i will alter them and invest if it stacks up.

Sorry for the long post and if this confuses people further.
Again credit to PNN for not trying to make silly comparisons and sticking to facts."

SF2TH