G'day
JandJ– You're wondering whether you should run the numbers on the basis of:* these initial Stage 1 resources (from just 1.2% of the area of the anomaly)...
* using a Monazite concentrate basis (for the heavy rare earths and light rare earths) or Monazite Equivalent basis (for the Heavy Minerals).
Stage 1 (1.2% of the anomaly area)
IMO, you'd be doing investors a service by doing so if you have time – that was what I had a rough swing atin this Post #: 74069146.However, given the Stage 2 resource could be out within say the next month(ish), I'd be most keen to see your thoughts on Stages 1 & 2 combined, since this project is of course way more than Stage 1. After all, the area of the anomaly will end up spawning the aggregate of :
Stage 1+ Stage 2 + however many other Stages are JORC'd before a resource figure is estimated for the total area.
That said,Stage 1 could provide a very profitable interim mining operation with early production potential through a couple of possible routes.
Stages 1 + 2 (circa 4% of the anomaly area) plus Exploration Target (awaited)
This is such a big project, potentially.Even Stage 2 (which apparently is circa twice the size of Stage1) when combined with Stage 1 (1.2%) together only cover circa 4% of the area of the anomaly. I'm very keen to see the size of the Exploration Target that will be estimated for the total area. It's going to be huge. Which leads to the next point …
Assay results
Unsurprisingly,investors and no doubt the Company are hanging out for assay results on the final parts of Phase 2 – and for the fence line drilled up to the northern boundary - to see if this project really does have the size indicated by current drilling results correlated to radiometrics.If those assay results show good enough results including consistency, that will be another big step forward.
Bulk sample metallurgy (can't see why it won't remain good??)
And if the metallurgy of the bulk sample looks good, as the earlier met. testing showed, thenwe've got a beauty. I'm not a metallurgist but I don't see why the results shouldn't be similar, given that they would be broadly in line with:
- met. results done in the era of the highly-regarded JOGMEC, circa 2010;
- met. results done by the highly-regarded Mineral Technologies for AHK recently, on smaller samples.
Those Mineral Technologies' produced results (underlined by me for emphasis) were summarised in AHK's announcement of 29 May 2024 - linked here Post #: 74060091"...
* First pass un-optimised beneficiation test work of the Sandy Mitchell Rare Earth sands has produced a high-grade rare earth concentrate.
* The beneficiation test work has shown the greatest upgrade is by simple gravity separation, confirming the material is amenable to straightforward beneficiation by gravity processing:
** The final concentrate assays returned 51.9% TREO, and contained mostly La, Ce, Pr and Nd, plus Heavy Rare Earths Dy and Tb, which collectively represents a very high-value saleable product.
** Directceriumoxide(CeO2)recoveryfromgravityfeedtoREMconcentrateisestimatedtobe 71.7%,with indications that >83% may be achievable..."
Monazite concentrate and Monazite Equivalent approach
I think it's a good idea at this stage to use this basket-type approach rather than go down he path of calculating the value of numerous derived elements of Nd, Pr,zircon, rutile etc., because it more likely correlates to the much quicker to build, and cheaper and simpler gravity facilities that we seem likely to use and/or build to process our mined material.
More importantly, this is the approach the Company is taking, and they have the most information.Ben Emery is not just a very experienced miner of bulk commodities but he also knows way more about marketing minerals than I ever will.
This approach also has the advantage of there being a live market (Shanghai MetalsMarket) for Monazite so you can see quoted prices, although because of the natureof that market I think we could reasonably expect to get higher prices than quoted. The Monazite Equivalent approach likewise should give a rough numberfor the Heavy Minerals – although clearly there are markets for the HeavyMinerals elements.
Multipleproducts
BTW, inthis Post #: 74071724jogo gave a timely and helpful explanation of the differences between rareearths (whether heavy or light) and heavy minerals.It's a useful reminder that we have both categories, so a broader potential range of buyers than some projects have. We also have other elements such as garnet and phosphate, each of which might be a viable product stream for someone, so that potentially increases the likely price that we will get for our products, even if sold in just a simply beneficiated form.
The PFS will be really interesting and if that looks good we'll look back on this as a sub A$10M MC and say "That was a compelling investment!"
(20min delay)