To find the full report, go to www.sedarplus.ca -> Search Sedar+ -> Select Profiles to Search On "Aclara Resources Inc", then search, it will be the second link "Technical report (NI 43-101) - English.pdf"
It is the same process as Penco and what MEI are testing, pH 4 with ammonium sulphate. They do have a patented 2-stage leach process which MEI don't have (not sure how much of a difference it makes to recovering soluble REE from the leached clays).
100% agree that higher recoveries and grades for MEI will mean much better economics, whilst OPEX would be comparable. This Carina module is improved from Penco at least and throughput much higher (9.6 mtpa vs 1.7 mtpa for Penco).
I will note, and very keen on your thoughts once you have digested, that Aclara did not once mention acid or impurities in the entire scoping study. All the met work is just leaching tests only (similar to MEI's current met work released). They are making the assumption that they get the same impurity extraction and acid consumption as Penco (it appears they copied the reagent OPEX from the Penco study). Seems amateurish to me, as Penco and Carina are on opposite sides of a continent. Penco also had half the REE extraction so that suggests lower clay "reacitivity" = lower acid consumption and Al/Fe impurities. So a bit suspect to copy those numbers into a scoping study with no downstream testwork basis on Carina material. Keen to see MEI's downstream met work due shortly!
MEI Price at posting:
20.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)