focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Personally, I’ve been very clear on my views on SandRock Gate but It’s not about the content of the queries from some posters, if indeed those people emailed the company (absolutely no reason to doubt them) it should have been replied to within 48 hrs.
That’s not up for debate IMO.
I always receive replies to my emails with EEE & have never been left waiting so no personal issues on my side however, we can only take those who said they emailed at face value & having no response to a query that has been misinterpreted via an RNS due to how it was worded deserves a reply.
The fact that some investors don’t know about the mineral makeup of sands & rocks isn’t to be sneered at either, as we all have our knowledge bases across multiple industries & some may not be in mining as is the case here.
It would be great if we could now move on & get back to the real issues at hand, we’ll not issues, the results of thousands of metres of drilling into high grade titanium from top to bottom.
Results ever closer and an abundance of news to come as we head into Summer.
Thank you as always Ageos for taking the time to post your thoughts. As you can see from the recommend’s it’s greatly appreciated by all here. Looking forward to your next contribution on the analysis of the drilling campaign.
ML
I love the dig but are you that cretinous that you can’t use google and read Wikipedia? I did it purely to calm someone else’s fears, if you can read… reread my posts and you will see I’m quite clearly saying it’s rock and not sand.
Mr 6ft4 and I train, you of course never train that brain do you?
Thanks AGEOS,
It was starting to get very tiresome all the speculation.
I hope it was genuine worries and not something more sinister.
Hallelujah, see how nice it is when someone turns up not giving you definitions of sand from Wikipedia 🤣🤣. It was getting so confusing, I had to leave the beach in fear I didn't have a right to build a sand castle at one point.
Muchas gracias, ageos
Thank you AGEOS, always great to see a post from you. The BB is always left all the better for your posts.
Unfortunately this 'debate' relating to two 'issues' supposedly arising from the 06.04,2022 RNS announcing the JV with Century Minerals for Pitfield, Walton and Stavely, is as 4kandles posted, a classic example of “a little knowledge being a dangerous thing”. In claiming that, I mean no disrespect to anyone, as knowing the extent of one's own ignorance is always a prelude to understanding.
Century, in reserving the rights to any Mineral Sands resource “on one or more of the Projects” [ie Pitfield, Walton and Stavely], were, where Pitfield was concerned, fully aware of the adjacent heavy-mineral sand deposits of Yandanooka [10km W of Mt Scratch] and Durack [16km W of the TOM Ti-target area, acquired by Image Resources from Sheffield Resources in 2021. These are Eocene-age [c30-50M years] relict coastal dune deposits. [see my 11.02.2024 post for further details]. It is possible that the Eocene coastline could have extended further eastwards into part of the Pitfield Licence area and formed similar Mineral Sand deposits, hence the Century reservation of rights.
With regard to the assertion that the TiO2 resource at Pitfield might be considered to be a Mineral Sand, that claim is fundamentally baseless. Definitions of what constitutes a mineral sand, silica sand, garnet sand etc, all of which are classed as “minerals” if on private land [but excluding “sand”], are specified within Government of Western Australia mining legislation. The definitions are based on a range of geological criteria, not just those of mineralogy, with some relating to mode of deposition and relationship to underlying strata ie unconformability or discontinuity. Age is also a factor. There are no Mineral Sands older than Eocene in western Australia, whereas the Pitfield TiO2 resource rocks are between 1100M and 541M years old and have no Mineral Sand characteristics whatever.
The other query raised by some is the reference in the RNS to the three projects being described as “copper-gold projects”, from which it is surmised that the rights might apply to these two minerals only. Again this is a baseless suggestion arising from a lack of understanding of Mining Legislation and in particular that of Licencing and of special provisions required for prospective gold terrain and for differing rights on Crown Land, Reserves & Commonwealth Land, and Private Land. It is impossible to provide links to all the relevant legislation and regulations without posting reams of information. The RNS refers to Exploration Licencing only and will include all “minerals” as defined in Legislation, ie excluding “limestones, rock, gravel, shale, sand [other than mineral sands etc] and clay [other than kaolin etc]”. Only when an economic “Resource” is defined does licencing progress to the mining phase.
AGEOS
There are certain posters who like to spread FUD, to get people to sell their shares cheaply.
Fear
Uncertainty
Downright lies.
No matter how many times they are told the facts, they will try and twist it for their own or their employers end.
The sp is being held back at times for no reason, all to allow someone to accumulate. If you believe in the story, then hold your shares tightly. The Diamond drilling should have been completed by now and we are a few weeks from results.
Thanks Grampyan.
Please keep at it, and let us know if you get a sign of life.
I'll do the same on my side.
GL, GTA.
I see there are a lot of opinions on what mineral sands are, but they are all only opinions. If one looks at the RNS mineral has a capitalised M which should mean that it is a defined word/term in the contract. Which is why I stated that I await a response from someone in authority at Empire. Still waiting after 3 unanswered requests.
Agreed IFOXXX
I hope for all our sakes that I’m right and you’re wrong. I believe you’re worrying over nothing but like you said I would imagine it should be easy enough to answer the reason as to why.
In the meantime take solace in that it would be really quite peculiar Bunn getting this excited about finding something huge for someone else’s benefit.
Hi IFOXXX, thanks, I don't profess to have the legal definition clear, and the lawyers I have available are contract law lawyers, not mining specific. Their concern is about the interpretation of what's excluded specifically (and why) and wether there is room for interpretation of what constitutes the excluded minerals and the form of that material.
Your example about glass is excellent as its a highly refined product with very clear and strong bonding of materials.
It gets harder to argue if you use a sand-castle as the example. (Closer to our reality one might argue)
This is not something that can be left open for interpretation or up to the courts, it should be straight forward for the company to answer with a simple statement of "mutual agreement that EEE and CM are in agreement to share the Ti find rights 70-30".
Hi FUZZY1014, Only the RNS wording has been released (06 04 22), hence my request for clarification.
GL, GTA.
Quite specifically,
"Sandstone, a sedimentary rock, is formed when grains of sand are compacted and cemented together over thousands or millions of years"
“A sedimentary rock”
It’s no longer mineral sand, likewise and forgive the example you’ve never held a bottle of coke up and said “behold as I drink from a vessel of sand” it’s no longer sand, it’s glass. We don’t recycle or mineral sand vessels we recycle glass.
I know you said you’ve consulted solicitors on this and they got nervous but I have two solicitor friends. One is a human rights solicitor and the other an ambulance chaser. I asked the definition yesterday as to what’s the difference between perjury and perverting the course of justice, he confessed to not knowing 100% but said they’re one of the same really he thinks one is before court and one whilst sat in court but most definitely wasn’t 100%.
If you tell me you’ve specifically asked solicitors who are within the mining realms/industry I’d be worried and if so please forward me their contacts as I’ll pay them to firm up my understanding.
Hi kongolasse,
Can you post a link to the contract wording rather than just the rns.
What makes you think this applies to pitfield and not Walton or Staveley?
Think this is one for Judge Judy, kongo contact those suits!
4Kandles, I'll try to be equally polite;
The processing methodology is not what will be defining EEE's rights to the minerals within as per the Pitfileld acquisition terms. It does not matter if its scooped, hosed, blasted or drilled.
The wording of the RNS specifies mineral sands. Sandstone and Mineral Sands are very closely related, and there is not legal boundary between the two.
Here is a definition of sandstone;
"Sandstone, a sedimentary rock, is formed when grains of sand are compacted and cemented together over thousands or millions of years"
Century minerals clearly believe that they have mineral sands in Pitfield as it's included in the acquisition terms.
It should be very simple to get a quick response from EEE, but I haven't (apparently others haven't either) so I'll keep at it until I get one.
It's kinda critical to to the idea of this project being of value to EEE shareholders.
GL, GTA.
Mineral sands do not need a crushing phase in their process flow sheets. Here's an example of such a thing...
https://z4y6y3m2.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Recovery-Heavy-Mineral-Sequence-for-Processing.jpg
Contrast this with Empire's proposed proces which includes both a crushing stage and an ore-sorting stage...
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EEE/favourable-metallurgical-characteristics-confirmed-xeowdwwc3agy7fb.html
This is because Pitfield's mineralisation is hosted in sedimentary rock and needs to be crushed. Mineral sands are ancient beaches which can literally be scooped out with a bucket. Pitfield has a rock ore, not mineral sand.
Here's a photo of the Cobun mineral sands area...
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/coburn-mineral-sands-project/
...like a giant sand pit. Read how they intend to mine it with bulldozers...
https://www.mining-technology.com/projects/coburn-mineral-sands-project/?cf-view
Some of us will recall that Pitfield Ti is not only hosted in sandstone but also in siltstone. Are the scaremongers here going to suggest that Empire is also somehow barred from mining some sort of 'mineral silt'? FFS. The mineral sands argument is flimsy at best. I'm making an effort to be polite about this.
I have concluded that reading and digesting RNS's is an activity for a minority of PI's.
Thanks IFOXXX,
"I disagree with your comment “if you crush sandstone you get sand”, if you crush anything up enough you would have what looks like a “sand” crush a gold bar enough the result is not gold “sand” if it ends up being grain like."
The problem is that the origin of the mineral in the sand is not what worries me, but the fact that Century believes it has "mineral sands" in Pitfield and specifically excluded EEE the rights to it.
The problem is that the origin of sandstone is that it's sand that has been compacted. So does that mean that Is it "mineral sands"? well, if you go by the definition of what "mineral sands" are then YES. If you ask a lawyer for a hard yes/no he gets very nervous.
The composition of our "sandstone with Ti" is compacted sand granules with a binding agent (silica etc). In its rock form it's still compacted granules of sand that (thankfully, from a processing perspective) can be easily reverted back to its sand form for processing.
I don't want to try to sound alarmist about it, but the two (contract) lawyers I've consulted about this clause have not been very positive in their answers, hence my insistence on a clear answer from the company.
GL, GTA.
Hello KONGOLASSE
I apologise if I get this wrong but I wanted a clear definition myself, so google and Wikipedia it was…..
“The source of heavy mineral sands is in a hardrock source within the erosional areas of a river which carries its load of sediment into the ocean, where the sediments are caught up in littoral drift or longshore drift. Rocks are occasionally eroded directly by wave action shed detritus, which is caught up in longshore drift and washed up onto beaches where the lighter minerals are winnowed.
The source rocks which provide the heavy mineral sands determine the composition of the economic minerals. The source of zircon, monazite, rutile, sometimes tungsten, and some ilmenite is usually granite. The source of ilmenite, garnet, sapphire and diamond is ultramafic and mafic rocks, such as kimberlite or basalt. Garnet is also sourced commonly from metamorphic rocks, such as amphibolite schists. Precious metals are sourced from ore deposits hosted within metamorphic rocks.”
‘Transport’
“The accumulation of a heavy mineral deposit requires a source of sediment containing heavy minerals onto a beach system in a volume which exceeds the rate of removal from the trap site. For this reason not all beaches which are supplied by sands containing heavy minerals will form economic concentrations of the minerals. This factor can be qualitatively or quantitatively measured through the ZTR index.”
It’s quite specific in that it’s not just simply sand from a sandstone it can be the “sands” made up from a variety of heavy rocks which are eroded to make a fine “sand”.
I disagree with your comment “if you crush sandstone you get sand”, if you crush anything up enough you would have what looks like a “sand” crush a gold bar enough the result is not gold “sand” if it ends up being grain like.
I’m not trying to rubbish your question and you know what from a drill core result of the every metre containing titanium how much of that may be sand? There will be some, no doubt, but I wouldn’t worry yourself about the crush of the sandstone.
There are two “mineral sand deposits” in Australia; coburn and Tormin, they’re huge both on the coast. You only need to look at where this find it to see that we’re not on the coast.
I don’t profess to be an expert but all of the info can be found here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_mineral_sands_ore_deposits
I will have to look and view it a little deeper, I had read it and there is a pre contractual agreement but I'll have to scan over it again.
I know century's partnership was based on them acquiring the permits among other things, but I'd be hard pressed to see them having the lions share of the finding materials. I would not see the point in empire agreeing to such, and century's role is more of provided assistance.
Dusty, at this stage I have very few concerns about drilling results. They've drilled enough to prove a gigantic resource. It's beyond question in my mind, and the grades look very good assuming Titanite is handled well. I don't think drilling results are going to vary significantly, or drive the SP up or down in any meaningful way. It's all down to the feasibility of the project now...
The outstanding questions for me are:
1. Need to prove extractability at scale of the Ti out of the Titanite, TiFeO and ilmenite/rutile. (Demo plant needed)
2. Commercially attractive process options that (combine?) mechanical crushing, grinding/flotation(?) and acid leaching, heat. etc... (Lab results in the next few months?)
3. Any contractual practical questions (Century JV / Sands), Environmental (Nature reserves/National Parks around Pitfield) and Mining permits etc. (More info soon hopefully)
As I've mentioned many times before, it's looking very promising and I've been in for many years now, but to pretend there are no question marks is disingenuous. This very company (well; the shareholders) were badly burned by very poor decisions and legal situation with their JV partner in the past. Asking the "stupid question" if both companies are in full agreement about Pitfields TiO find is not out of place this time around, no matter how obvious it sounds.
GL, GTA.
As I see it konga, it's not been a concern to this company or its sp, its not been a concern to its larger investors or its Saudi investors! Its not been a concern to bunny, or anyone else involved! It's just become a concern of a few minor investors like yourself, who now need clarity all of a sudden!!
The only thing that will hold it back is this neccesant need for it, if it happens to be the case it certainly hasn't hurt empire yet so I can't see it doing so moving forward.
Only your question and whining will
So if you buy now, at this sp, the results of drilling provide a bench if 15p say, and by years end higher and then next couple of years it's close to ,£1 are you.going to be figging concerned with this question?
Rupple, Ghengis and others; IF Century did not believe they had mineral sands in Pitfield, why would they have a clause specifically excluding it in the acquisition terms? (Sandstone is compacted (mineral) sand with silica or quartz as the binding agent. Good luck finding a universally accepted legal definition on the difference...)
Either way, the answer should be very simple from EEE (or better yet; Through EEE from Century Minerals) yet I haven't got any answer, hence my insistence on this.
GL, GTA.