As I have said before, I am starting to sound like one of those...

As I have said before, I am starting to sound like one of those clowns riding the horse in the circus merry-go-round IMO.  Anyway since I am bored, can't sleep and just opened up a stubby of my favourite poison I thought I would write a long winded post to bore you all senseless.  Just want to provide a viewpoint on the discussion above.

In doing this post I will refer to the following posts:

1. 7/12/2015 Ann - found here https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-**anintha-drilling-update-and-new-tenement-acquisition.4420439/page-60?post_id=35633846 - and summarised in this post of mine (Post #: 35633846)

The key comment - page 1 - in this Ann in the oxidised section of the deposit is:

"Totally oxidised samples yield a high quality iron - vanadium - titanium concentrate when using high intensity magnetic separation (mass recovery ranges between 30% and 85%, vanadium recovery 30 to 90% )."

2. Ann dated 20/02/2018 at Post #: 31179307

The key data in this Ann is below - from page 1:

"Magnetic separation testwork successfully delivers  High -yield into primary concentrates including:

o    Fresh high - grade material achieving exceptional concentrate recovery of 92.3% of vanadium in a 1.42% V2O5 concentrate with very low silica content, before optimization.

 

o    Transitional high-grade material achieving combined concentrate recovery of 89.2% of vanadium in a 1.40%V2O5concentrate, before optimization,”

3.  Ann dated 26 September 2018, been the base case outlined in the initial Scoping Study at  Post #: 35843537

A key comment in this Ann (page 18):

"To facilitate a preliminary design of the concentrator  flowsheet, beneficiation  testwork was performed to quantify sample separation characteristics.Grinding to P80106 microns and magnetically separating the 24 test samples showed average metallurgical vanadium recoveries of 92.3%, 87.8% and 45.3% for fresh, transitional and oxide samples respectively."

The other key piece in this Ann is Table 9 (page 19).  In terms of 92.3% they refer to the V205 concentrate of 1.42% (i.e. it comes from the 20 Feb Ann above for the fresh layer).  In terms of the 87.8% recovery, it talks about a 1.45% V205 concentrate (indicating further testing has been done from the 20 Feb Ann for the transitional layer but the result is relatively similar).  In terms of the 45.3% recovery in the oxidised section it talks about 1.38% V205 concentrate, meaning further work was done after the 7/12/2015 Ann (or could be an average of the data in that Ann given the wide range in recoveries in that Ann itself).

Now this data above is about the first process flow sheet on page 21 of the 26 Sept Ann 2018 (figure 6).  What it is essentially about is using grinding and magnetic separation to deliver high yield (i.e in terms of recovery rates)  V205 concentrate.  Before I forget, low silica is what makes this a good deposit by the way, a very good and likely low cost deposit. 

Going back to the 26 September 2018 Ann, this is not to be confused with producing 98% Min grade V205 (or 99.5% electrolyte - albeit electrolyte would be produced by either a bolt on facility to the process flow sheet at mine site on page 22 of the 26 September 2018 Ann or at a separate facility somewhere else, meaning not a bolt on).  The process flow sheet on page 22 is essentially about producing 98% grade vanadium.   98% grade is produced when  the concentrate product (referred to in the process flow sheet as Magnetic Concentrate Stockpiles that come from the process flow sheet on page 21, is fed into a traditional salt roasting process, obviously going through various other stages to get to your 98% Min grade.

Now in terms of the Met works that give an indication around costs - one you can bed down in the PFS at + or - 25% is actually producing the concentrate fed into the roasting process (Figure 6, page 21).  What we haven't seen is the MET tests/work for transforming that concentrate to 98% Min grade vanadium (Figure 7 page 22).

Anyway, as i said in the past, throw enough money at an issue you will achieve 98% Min grade, or even 99.5%, but the key test is achieving 98% grade  at the required cost (which is plus or minus 25% in a PFS so hoping they have done the MET tests, whether released or not,  or are very confident in the cost structures around the Figure 7 requirements, especially around removing any impurities in the roasting process and the subsequent processes within Figure 7 of that Ann).  Without Met tests  they certainly will need to  substantiate their claims in the upcoming PFS, to support what I suspect will be a cost curve around the US$4.13 per pound mark etc etc etc).  Having low silica does help in proving a point too.

Obviously for myself, because of the high recovery rates in the fresh and transitional concentrates these might be more easily estimatable in figure 7.  The challenge is probably more around the oxidised areas where the recovery rate in the concentrate itself is 45%, so I was hoping they would have done additional MET tests at the concentrator level to improve that recovery,  before been fed into a roasting process.

All IMO and the beer now drunk.