can someone tell me

I am trying to get my head around the report. And it does not add up to my thinking.

Maybe some of you guys who know about Iron Ore can sort out the following for me?

As I understand Iron Ore:

1. High grade ore = Massive haematite at above 60%fe (for good economics in extraction and production etc)

2. Low grade ore = 25-30%fe (this is fairly easily upgraded by wet magnetic separation)

Here's my puzzle:

3. Magnetite is the dominant economic iron mineral in low-grade ore. Magnetite = Fe3O4 74.2%fe

From the report:

"...Block 1, hosts a significant iron ore zone estimated at between 1.7-3.0 billion tonnes of 20-35% magnetite,”


Isn't there a BIG difference between:

25-30%fe

AND

25-30% magnetite?

Let's use 30%fe as an example. That means that every ton of ore dug up contains 30%fe or IRON.

BUT, the report uses magnetite as its measure. So,that ton containing 30% MAGNETITE which in itself is only 74%fe, would NOT contain 30%fe

Calculation: 100 x 0.74 == 74. 74x.0.3 = 22.2%

So, each ton or ore at 30% magnetite would actually contain only 22.2%fe.

No matter how I cut it I get the same answer: Sub economic on todays prices.

So, can someone please tell me where I am wrong.

The whole market is going ape over what looks to me to be a theoretical 3 billion tons of sub economic grade rock.

Yes, the vanadium may add value, but that's only if it's enough content to even justify extraction.

Beats me....

Cheers