Respectfully as possible, thanks for this information but I think you're presuming A LOT from a very short passing comment. I've worked in an Assay lab and currently work as a minerals processing engineer (both for base metals), so this comes across as a pretty condescending assumption on your behalf.. Especially when you weren't even involved in the conversation.
If you had realised where I was going, you would know AVL holds the ground next door and I know their host body has titanium however I also know that they haven't targetted it either by recovery or drilling because thus far their metallurgical studies to date haven't proven a clear by-product value/cost. (see reports on AVL 7th of December 2015 and 10th October 2016).
I don't disagree with the majority of what you've said but some points are borderline your opinion vs actual fact. For instance, Globally accepted practice is not a term anyone could use for most things, even fire assays have relative standards between AS/ISO/CSA etc etc.
Also, while vanadium is a transitional metal, it's oxidations and hydroxide states are relatively similar from a chemical reaction point of view. V2O5 is used NOT because it 'increases the ppm' as you suggest but because industry has most use for V2O5 amount due to it being a catalyst to produce sulphuric acid. The only other common industry usage form is FerroVanadium. Native assays was simply my way of saying what the lab will generally give you based on the deposit usage.
Please, keep sharing your information but I'd suggest looking at your audience and how you present your opinions/facts. I didn't really like the tone of this one.
