Some interpretation of the results from EVM(first set) and PTR...

Some interpretation of the results from EVM(first set) and PTR (second set). Note that i am not a geologist but i found this somewhere and thought it was interesting :

Key Differences

Factor	TiO₂ Results (First Set)	HM Results (Second Set)
Grade Range	10.1%–16.4% TiO₂	7.1%–26.3% HM
Intercept Thickness	16.4m–67.0m	16m–28m
Depth of Mineralization	From surface (0m) to ~40m	From 2m–29m
Highest Grades	16.4% TiO₂ over 6m	26.3% HM over 8m
Mining Potential	High-grade TiO₂ with thick intercepts	High-grade HM, but needs confirmation of TiO₂ content

Interpretation of the Results

1. TiO₂ Results (First Set)

• Higher TiO₂ concentration (10.1%–16.4%) directly indicates titanium-rich mineralization.
• The thicker intercepts (up to 67m) suggest a large deposit.
• Near-surface mineralization favors open-pit mining, reducing costs.
• Likely source minerals: ilmenite and rutile (used in pigment, aerospace, and industrial applications).

2. HM Results (Second Set)

• HM% measures the total heavy minerals, but not all heavy minerals are titanium-based (e.g., zircon, garnet, and magnetite may be present).
• HM grades are higher (up to 26.3%) but may not fully represent TiO₂ content.
• Smaller intercepts compared to the TiO₂ results, but still significant.
• The high-grade zones (e.g., 8m @ 26.3% HM) suggest localized enrichment of valuable minerals.
• Further mineralogical analysis is needed to confirm the TiO₂ content within the HM fraction.

Which One Is More Economically Attractive?

✅ TiO₂ Results (First Set)

• More reliable indicator of titanium content.
• High-grade and thick intercepts suggest economic viability.
• Better understood extraction process (ilmenite/rutile beneficiation).

⚠️ HM Results (Second Set)

• Potentially high-value, but TiO₂ content is unknown within the HM fraction.
• Requires mineralogical studies to determine if the heavy minerals are commercially viable.
• Higher grades in small intervals could mean selective mining is required.