We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
OK, gloves off now, I can't believe that this idiotic debate has gone on so long. Sadly a handful of under-informed have steered this messageboard down their own avenue of ignorance.
Let's start with common understanding. Wheat flour comes from wheat. It's just ground-up-wheat.
But mineral sands DO NOT EVEN COME FROM SANDSTONE. Mineral sands are NOT ground-up sandstone. They come from the ancient erosion of igneous rocks such as granite and basalt and less commonly from metamorphic rocks. The sandstone and siltstone at Pitfield are sedimentary rocks.
SEDIMENTARY DEAR WATSON
If I thought mineral sands were in any way the same as sandstone I would sell-up. This is so obviously not the case as they are different in at least 3 crucial ways:
- geological origin (igneous vs sedimentary)
- in chemical composition (where is the zircon, rare earth elements, etc in Pitfield's sanstone?)
- physical form (sand versus rock - powder versus solid form (FFS))
How could Century possibly claim that they own all the sandstone/silstone rights at Pitfield? And why have they remained silent and not mentioned it almost a year since the discovery?
I hope perpetrators of this nonsense will kindly sell-up (I question whether they actually hold any stock), move-on and stop polluting this place with their scaremongerous garbage. xxx
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That certainly is the case here.
GLA
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.
There is copper at Pitfield. Empire already found some. From RNS 06 Feb 2023
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EEE/giant-copper-province-potential-confirmed-by-dd-ip-zecksx256vl0but.html
"Recent soils results in this area also show an association of elevated copper values with the magnetite-altered stratigraphy, and rock samples from surface float (originally shallow prospector workings which have subsequently been backfilled) recorded copper values up to 17.9% Cu and 125 g/t Ag, a very encouraging indicator that copper-silver sulphides are present in the area."
When Empire realised though drilling that the giant geophys anomoly was a giant Ti alteration (not the expected Cu) then Cu was understandably put on the backburner.
Right now it's looking like EEE has 70% of the world's biggest Ti reserve which can be leached using low temperature, low-cost acid chemistry. Looking for copper in the near future would be a crazy strategy.
The source would be TW's website share prophets. I wrote...
"I hear that TW at share prophets"
Sorry thought I didn't imagine needing to explain that bit. It's not helpful that lse does not allow me to send a link
I hear that TW at share prophets has been made an insider at BMV ahead of yesterday's vague RNS.
Of course it would be illegal for TW to recommend buying or selling on the basis of insider info and I am sure he is experienced enough to abide by the rules.
But, imagine the possible conversations between BMV and TW. Was it something like...
"Hey Tom, I am making you an insider and need to tell you we're doing a really $h1t deal in Korea which may bankrupt us"
...or...
"Hey Tom, I am making you an insider and need to tell you we're doing a really exciting deal in Korea"
If it was along the lines of the former, would BMV be taking time to contact TW to make him an insider? You decide.
GLA
From the 29 Sept RNS...
· Key milestone objectives through to the end of Q1 2024 include:
o Feasibility Study update - End 2023
...etc
Like many, I've been here for years and my patience is now wearing thin
GLA and happy easter
This morning I have read "...it would be helpful if EEE put to bed the ambiguity from that old RNS re rights to minerals other than Cu/Au."
Where is the ambiguity? Do some of you not read RNS's? Empire and Century went looking for Cu/Au and in doing so found an upside-down mountain of Ti. (btw, previous Cu mine workings at Pitfield suggest there is still Cu to be found)
If mineral sands had been found (they were not) then we would be having a different conversation. Mineral sands are unambiguously the property of Century only. This is stated in the 06 April 2022 RNS.
Where is it written that Empire has no rights to minerals other than Cu/Au? Empire's RNS's are impressively detailed but it seems that this work is wasted on some of you.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EEE/acquisition-of-highly-prospective-cu-au-projects-c4gpxmzm6bikj63.html
Ask yourselves some questions. Maybe start with...
- Would respected and highly skilled professionals be leaving high paid jobs elsewhere to join Empire if the licence was ambiguous? These people are not dummies.
- Would Empire be mothballing and abandoning other Aussie projects if they didn't have Ti rights at Pitfield?
- If copper explorers find cobalt, does that invalidate their licences?
- Ditto if gold explorers find silver?
Not only do many AIM investors not read but seemingly they don't think either.
Here's the correct answer from the RNS you failed to read...
"Century retains the rights to any Mineral Sands resources discovered within the Projects and that these do not form part of the separate Project joint ventures between Empire and Century."
Since Pitfield Ti is sandstone and siltstone hosted the mineral sands clause is void. Pretty simple but you still failed
Ask your supervisor if we can we have some smarter boileroom trash?
Answer the question Glennhalfwit
Do you not have this question on your boileroom script?
Explain what is the basis for Empire losing the exploration rights at Pitfield. Go on...
Do you know the difference between sand and sandstone?
From today's RNS:
"From Empire's preliminary metallurgical studies, it is anticipated that Pitfield ore will be amenable to conventional leaching under atmospheric conditions to liberate the titanium. There is a considerable amount of metallurgical research work that demonstrates the successful leaching of titanite, using low temperature sulphuric acid or hydrochloric acid to dissolve the titanite and liberate the Ti into a liquid phase."
This is a big deal. H2SO4 is cheap at just around $60/mt. HCl is still cheap but just aroud $110/mt last time I looked. This compares to hydrobromic acid at >$2000/mt.
Empire seem confident that a low temperature, low cost acid leaching process is applicable to Pitfield's titanite. I have seen no evidence to the contrary.
The recent flood of boiler room half-wits need a new script. Fast.