Can you share sources for either of those? Might want to brush...

Can you share sources for either of those?

Might want to brush up on the post i put up earlier. Which indicated was it was selling for along with what it is selling for long term Post #:65100256

"was around 25-45% TREO (btw) selling around $25usd/kg according to MP but long term pricing flagged at $7.5usd/kg, which is fairly consistent for an HREO biased oxalate at that concentrate grade. (Worth noting as you elude to that the Dy,Tb content is important. Again not as a head grade, as a grade to which it exists within the SEG. They reference 4% being a cut-off.) Noting that they reference the other sources from the IAC in the form of a MHREE carbonate. ~8% Dy/Tb (FYi). Good link here for more info on that and all things SEG re MP. (400 page doc) https://minedocs.com/22/MP_Materials-F-10K-12312021.pdf

It's the second time I've asked for a source for the information in respect to the composition and production rates for LYC and you've refused to answer telling me to email an 8bn company.

We can use 60tpa.
Okay only 6 x Lynas Tb output to meet deficit.

Just share the information if it's so readily available and cite the source.
"webcasts and interviews" aren't exactly great sources. Ideally it's in a public announcement, if not at least documented somewhere. And i'm not saying you're wrong - i'm just saying you're figure is currently as unsubstantiated as mine. Although mine has some logic applied to it.

I mean we can accept the blend but we then also would decrease the overall head-grade.
Duncan deposit.

What do i mean we'll 1000T at 8.3% TREO = 83T with 0.09% Tb = 74kg of Tb
Duncan was around what 1000T at 4.8% = 48 with 0.26% Tb = 124.8kg of Tb

What kind of blend we talking? Not published (that i'm aware of) but for illustration i don't think it's 50:50 i think Mt Weld is more of the blend than duncan. Why do i think this.

240,000T processing capability (from their website)
Assume same parts equal blend.
120,000 @ 8.3% TREO = 9960T
120,000 @ 4.8% TREO = 5760T

15970T of TREO was the reported output last year so it would be impossible to recover more than the total TREO.

So this means that the 'blending' concept you've been pushing regarding Duncan ore is probably not 50:50. and even if it was is only dragging the LYC content from 74kg per 1000T processed to 100kg. Which supports my point that it's a negligible addition as you offset the Mt Weld grade.

Anyways; If we somehow assume by miracle that the blend was 50:50 and they were 100k per 1000T.
And lets also assume the head grade was around 8%. So it's mostly Mt Weld with some duncan thrown in. (noting this wouldn't likely achieve the 100kg Tb for 1000T but we'll be optimistic.

BTW table below.


240,000T processing capability @ 8% TREO head grade is 19,200T in the front end.
Reported production figures of ~15970T TREO.
Therefore average recovery of TREO from mine to output of concentrate TREO T is ~83%


FWIW 5880T of that 15970 was NdPr
Means 36% of their concentrate basket is NdPr (their existential primary revenue source)

Compares to a head grade composition of ~ 23% (depending on where they mining at the time).
What does this mean. Well it means compares to the rest of the elements. They recover NdPr at better rates than the rest of the other lathanides. Either La,Ce is not recovered well. Or all the heavies.

The only way i've been able to get ~15970T of total production with ~ 5880T of NdPr is with a very high recovery rate on those elements and to drop La/Ce to 40%.

Which means 52% of production is La and Ce. 36% is NdPr and 10% is SEG.
That also required me to assume around 90% recovery on all the HREO. (pretty generous).

So what does all this mean.
240,000T feed with an average Tb content of 100kg per 1000T.
Means there is around 24000kg of Tb going in the front end of that plant or 24T.
@90% recovery there is around 21.6T Tb coming out the back end.

That's a back of the napkin calculation which unless i've made a grave miscalculation (which i may have thanks to little published technical detail) there is not actual 60T of Tb in the front of the circuit to begin with. Thus i'm curious as to how they end up with 60T of it in their SEG. unless of course we should just take your word for it.

The only way that 60T of Tb out the back end is actually achievable is;
Either the processing circuit is 3 times larger = 720,000
Or the TREO grade is 3 times higher = 24% TREO
Or the Tb content is 3 times larger = 0.3% (average) whilst maintaining a head grade of 8% TREO.

Maybe I should email the company.
Beer time for me - have a good weekend.

SF2TH