DRE (ASX) Ann: Metallurgical Test Work Supports High-Value Concentrate

Originally posted by 2ic: ↑

I'll try again? "results today are broadly comparable to what we see over at Yangibana at a comparable beneficiation stage"... indeed, disappointing but as expected. Same 90micron grind, followed by 20micron rougher con re-grind, though not sure if Yangi still uses 4 or 3 stage float? That first 40% TREO met result based on ironstone float chemically completely unrepresentative of the ironstones at depth as defined by HAS met work. Given today's met comp grade 2.36% is substantially higher than Yin MRE avg, and that Yangi ore has proven to recover better to a higher TREO% con with higher head grade feed I expect Yin MRE mon-con to head below 30% TREO also with more representative met work int he future.

I'm interested to see what and when they detail where met work for the fresh Fe-Carbonatite ore at Yin. As a reminder, Yin is currently approx 1/3 Ironstone (today's met work I'm guessing) 1/3 fresh Carbonatite (siderite) and 1/3 Fenite waste.

The following paragraph from HAS recent Yangi Feb 2023 MRE Update is very interesting with the above Yin MRE in mind...

Ore Feed Chemistry Tolerances
Assessment of ore mineralogy across the project deposits has identified the main RE-bearing mineral in the
ore is monazite. The main gangue minerals are iron oxides and hydroxides, biotite-type minerals and apatite.
Iron carbonate (siderite) has been identified at depth in Yangibana North. The siderite boundary has been
mapped and higher siderite-bearing portions have been excluded from the planned mill feed ore, pending
further metallurgical developments on treating that material.

Doesn;t read encouragingly, >10 years into Yangi studies and met work, yet the fresh siderite Fe-Carb has been excluded from planned mill feed and still pending further met metallurgical developments... I suppose first mover advantage only takes you so far right, and we can't go to school on Yin's Carbonatite ore regards a current mon-con operation or depth potential yet.

Meanwhile, 1Mtpa Yin operation just went from producing 31.5ktpa mon-con @ 40% TREO, to 41.5Ktpa mon-con @ 31% TREO. ILU's $1.3B capex hydromet plant i only rated to 55Ktpa mon-con feed, so 41.5ktpa Yin would be 75% of total plant capacity. Given ILU own numbers have A$200M opex for 36Ktpa mon-con feed, a plant that handled 41.5Ktpa Yin mon-con is unlikely to operate for less. It looks fair to approx half ILU's Eneabba mon-con plant opex is for cracking and processing into a MREC like intermediary product (like Yangi plans) and the other half for refining into RE-Oxide products. Certainly not free, and mon-con certainly not valued the same as MREC downstream product lol.

No wonder the sales pitch has reverted back to the refuge TO-target valuation. M&A won;t happen any time soon imo, and not before two things happen. HAS needs to come up with a solution to their funding/off-take/equity risk dilemma, which probably requires RE prices to move substantially higher from where they are. HAS would desperately love to avoid the capex/opex/risk of MREC hydromet plant to sell a mon-con into a toll-treat mon-con plant ex-China but they simply don't exist at the moment. Time will tell if all this talk of US funding and supply chain security turns into toll-plants for Gifford Ck type mon-con or not?

GLTAH

Expand

Thanks for the input and analysis 2ic.

“That first 40% TREO met result based on ironstone float chemically completely unrepresentative of the ironstones at depth as defined by HAS met work”
Agree with the statement, but… I still view this as a natural progression and not unreasonable in the context of the project stage at the time. By that I mean I’d rather have known this preliminary information rather than having to wait until representative drill sample testing was to become available.

But on the topic of representative drill samples, the choice of sample selection from the current results is interesting, as you say it is ironstone (plus fenite) material, but also from quite a limited portion of the current MRE, shown on the wireframes below (approx. depth):

YINDD003 for instance was essentially a re-drill and duplicate interval of YINRC040:

Do you know why HAS made the decision to exclude the higher siderite-bearing portions from planned mill feed?
I would have assumed that the relatively large difference in SG between siderite vs monazite would make separation possible somewhere in the flowsheet?

By the way can anyone point me to the announcement containing the assay results from YINDD007...the core that was highlighted in the maiden MRE announcement: