"There are several known types of regolith hosted REE deposits globally including;
ion adsorption clay deposits,
alluvial
and placer deposits (Jowitt et al 2017).
The development of potentially economic regolith-hosted REE deposits requires a combination of a REE enriched protolith and weathering processes that concentrate the REE in the regolith⁴.
Ion adsorption type REE deposits are the dominant source of heavy REE currently mined in the world, with all economic examples of this type of deposit confined almost exclusively to areas underlain by granitic rocks in southern China⁵. REE mineralisation in the Murray Basin at Australian Rare Earths (ASX:AR3) Koppamurra Project is hosted by clay material interpreted to have been deposited onto a limestone base (Gambier Limestone) and accumulated in an interdunal, lagoonal or estuarine environment. The mineralogy of the clay is indicative of formation under mildly alkaline conditions in a marine or coastal environment from fine grained sediments either river transported or windblown thereby supporting this interpretation.
EMTPost #:
51947584,Post #:
51965283 which is the nearology play for MRD was a stock I initially invested in and exited several months ago after I found nearology plays (splinter) privately owned by salazar which had unfavourable results. Post #:
54177383 Post #:
54212087Basically they (salazar) delineated that although there are rare earth in clay they were not ionic.
I provided further context on EMT when questioned
Post #:
54369497"No, I'm basing it on the fact the private entity (which has shareholders, it's just not publicly listed) is worth next to nothing. As far as I'm aware Salazar and the controlling shareholders therein aren't worth 23Bn but by all means feel free to correct me otherwise.AndBasing it on the fact that there are slim/nil non-physioadsorped clay hosted projects which have proven economic viability for extraction of REO - Or to be more specific are far less likely to be economically extracted given the additional processing requirements.AndI had better opportunities within my current port-folio.To date; financially that decision has worked out just fine for me. However, i explicitly stated that;1) Just because Salazar had one thing does not mean EMT would be the same2) if it wasn't ionic adsorbed that it wouldn't preclude it economic.It was EMT whom marketed Cowalinya as ionic clay deposit in it's acquisition. If you're acknowledging that salazar's splinter is not an ionic adsorbed deposit then they (EMT) will need to re-market it's project to be aptly named should underlying geology been proven to be similar to that of splinter.There are around 20 ASX listed REO projects to which may 1/2 are economic at current REO pricing so economic viability in the REO space means naught to project and therefore company valuation.If they either proven that either;a) it is infact ionic or partially ionicb) it's economically viable elsewise to extractthen I'd consider re-investing.Will be my last post in response here as had only opted to respond to a tag whom someone requested my logic of divestment. (be it right or wrong).Wish yourself and the rest the best of success and hope my opinion is entirely incorrect. Until they report the drill results and test its really all just best guessing (mine included)."EMT recently announced that it's 'clay' REO project was uneconomical (in no uncertain terms) as posted by
@bsumisu on these threads. I have also provided the same context on IXR Post #:
54954728Even in MRD's announcement they had a thesis support comments that the nearology was not ionic and a residual lateritic clay.
To answer your query in short. the nearology is not ionic. Ionic is the form of clay projects which makes them economically viable. IXR is the only asx listed project which has proven substantively to be ionic. AR3 is a close second but still needs further confirmation. But it is only 2m's thick compared to IXR 10-15m's and it has it has much more overburden increasing the strip ratio. So IMHO even AR3 which is ionic is not as economical compared to IXR.
EMT and splinter - which were not ionic and deemed lateritic (although EMT never specifically specified) are IMO not economical. MRD would need to find significantly higher grades and/or prove significantly different geology to EMT.
Disclosure;
I hold IXR and personally think (despite the MC) is the only viable ionic clay project. As has been proven the not ionic counterparts are not economical (see EMT and Splinter). Of the current other likely ionic (AR3) it shares a similar MC to IXR but has 1/10th the resource and worse ore body geology.
MRD - well unknown to exact outcome here and so my comments are formed on the best laid opinion. Grades are better and resource size will be better than EMT but question is whether the grade will offset the viability of the metallurgical hurdles.
Also disclosure than I have researched these types of projects almost exclusively for 2.5years and often provide research to associates and companies I am interested/researching in. I'm not paid by anyone and not engaged by anyone - A sole investor so I have no vested interest in any of the comments I make.
disclosure; my only REO hold is IXR and so i will likely have confirmation bias, but no other projects have yet to fit the risk verse reward profile - but i am constantly on the hunt for other viable ionic clays. The lateritic clay, or weathered regolith hosted, alluvial placier counterparts are similar, but not the same. It's why ionic clays and really only ionic clays provide 90-95% of HREO supply and not those similar counterparts - It's not because the market doesn't understand the geology/economics it's because generally they aren't.
Will finish as I did on the EMT threads and subsequent stocks I am tagged for opinion that I hope i am catastrophically incorrect and everyone makes money here. I've generally been right in my assessment in the REO space so far but like all I am only human and can't control what the market will decide. Personally think that there's probably money to be made in all these projects if marketed correctly but my general investment criterion is such that the commodity project makes economic viability, which means the underlying geology and process circuit therein needs to support it. If I don't think that to be true, i generally won't invest despite having a good indication that the market will probably still go ballistic anyways.
If that monologue suggest anything it's pretty much that, people will probably make money here if market thinks it's ionic or clay or viable. My personal opinion (currently) is that it isn't. The only commercially viable clay project listed on the ASX (that i'm aware of is IXR) needless to say that's where my money is - but will happily invest anywhere where the RvR stacks up. That was the case at EMT until i done further DD which proved to be accurate. Doesn't mean MRD will be the same.
As always important for everyone to DYOR and the above forms only my interpretation and opinion of the information to date and currently at my hand - should not be taken as fact or gospel but felt my opinion here could be informative and there is months of research I have done which may be of use to individuals or save some time, but again urge people to do some of their own.
SF2TH
(20min delay)