They finished it but it’s not complete by company’s own admissions especially as articulated on page 19 of the DFS.
I don’t think it’s done enough representative ore sampling metallurgically. Happy to be tutored on why first 5 years of cherry picked samples (1.75% ) converts to a 20yr LOm? Ore proven and probable reserves are conflated by Ubique following on footsteps of the Company on page 1, showing total reserves as if probable equals proven. Well no it doesn’t equal and that’s why JORC makes the distinction.
And that’s why the DFS needs more infill drilling. But really it doesn’t work due to the ore variability. You won’t know until you start up the plant. Look to WA for all the issues to be faced here. And to farmer Donohue (KDR) skipping all that headache smartly
for example, more work needs to be done on moisture control. (Spoiler: it’s not trivial)
SC6 powder will entail managing moisture content in ways that slow down the logistical chain.
Some think that will be easy, but on an industrial scale an acceptable range for SC is between 4-9%. Too dry is problematic and anything over is too heavy and may result in penalties. Or, like some in WA, hide that by not disclosing you’re selling on a WMT basis but on the usual DMT basis. Reason why that may happen is if your customer faces uncertainty with the moisture level, that it is too high, then it costs time on the converter end to prepare it for its facilities. And for shipping there are also requirements depending on containerisation.
so while recovery appears to improve, there is a lot of strip ratio (down dipping pegmatite), and then there is the Comminution and froth flotation cycle including extra time to prepare for shipping by drying out. I’d like to see how they will do the drying out. Manually or mechanically?
And I disagree with this : “resulting in a final concentrate cake with 12-15% surface moisture, ideal for stacking and transport purposes.” 12-15% is way over what converters expect. SC6 ideally needs to be at 5%. That’s Greenbushes benchmark. I understand well enough why moisture is higher, it’s the molecular mechanical characteristics interacting Over more surface area. Hence retention is higher and removing is harder!
the company already accepts 12-15% is not ideal when it later says in the DFS: “Further reduction of moisture content in the final product to reduce transport costs.”
And why does it leave out customer specifications but only mentions transport? Because it doesn’t know a customer yet accommodating such SC6 powder with high moisture. If it did it would substantiate its claim of a ready and willing customer base. A few names would not hurt, would it? It would keep me from posting on it.
This is why I say, lithium sulphate, and Mr Chris Evans was excited about it, was the answer to overcoming issues with ore characteristics here resulting in a determination to click in 0% cutoff, (who can believe that?) and comminution entailing a tailings-like product to make a ‘fines’ SC; 100-150micron grind size. How much wear and tear on the milling circuit? Are some maintenance costs yet to emerge as unknowns, (the rock is really hard)? There are potentially hidden costs in attempting a higher recovery by milling to dust. That’s plain to see but not discerned in the DFS?. The issue in conclusion, seems to be, the time it takes to deal with all these new operational issues that can’t be lab tested or a clear comparison justifying.
i also note the company had to craft reagents particular to the ore but then later, in the DFS, claims it’s commonly available. Why did the company not cross reference its change in methodology, from “specifically tailored” to “commonly used” with reagents?
October 2020 “The selected reagents are commercially available and commonly used in the flotation of spodumene.“
Nov 2019: “Selection of flotation reagents specifically tailored to maximise recovery of Lithium from the Goulamina Ore, based on experience of the metallurgical team and the Nagrom Laboratory.”
Expand
