Member Info for AGEOS

Good to see that the July 3rd RNS reference to “ first petrographic/mineralogical and TiO2 specific geochemical studies results expected shortly” has been fulfilled so promptly. Always reassuring when a company meets its stated targets.

Those who have read and understood my previous posts re the Pitfield TiO2/Cu prospect will hopefully be well placed to appreciate the significance of this latest, July 11th RNS, which provides further evidential support for the potential of a major TiO2 resource, of “globally significant economic value” to quote SB. Some aspects, especially the relationship between the 3D Magnetic Model, the structural geology and the inferred TiO2 mineralization, are complex and difficult for non-specialists to understand, but for those interested I will try to provide an interpretation by next weekend. In the meantime, note that Figure 3, the Magnetics A-A1 Long Section is aligned incorrectly; it should be A1-A as A is north of Mt Scratch.

Whatever interpretation one places on this latest RNS it can however only be positive and highly encouraging.

AGEOS

For information:

Sheffield Resources Ltd, Thunderbird HM Sand Project is in the Canning Basin, Kimberley Region of NW Australia and is of no relevance to Pitfield.

Sheffield Res Ltd, Yandanooka HM Sands Project, a few km west of Pitfield, is cited in today's RNS for the reasons stated ie likely Eocene age erosion deposit from the Pitfield area and with >55% TiO2 content of the ilmenite. After the 2011 Resource Report, Yandanooka appears to have been shelved in favour of Thunderbird for which a Maiden Resource was completed late 2012.

AGEOS

News; if my 16.03 post yesterday appears to be critical, my apologies as it was not meant to be. Just adding to your earlier contribution but with my assessment of what I believe to be most relevant.

In a post on June 11th I tried to emphasise the need for caution in making comparisons with other TiO2 deposits, as in certain critical aspects Pitfield may prove to be unique. All other existing and potential resources in W Australia at least, are either heavy mineral-sand and placer [ie alluvial] deposits or what are loosely termed 'hard-rock' deposits [ie of magmatic origin and either intruded at depth as plutonic igneous layered rocks or emitted at surface to form volcanic rocks]. The Mt Peake and Speewah deposits are of 'hard-rock' type whilst Pitfield is sedimentary ie largely siltstones and sandstones, and consequently not comparable in terms of mining and processing costs.

With regard to comparison of grades, Mt Peake deposit grades are as you correctly reported 160Mt @ 5.3% TiO2 & 0.28% V2O5 to which I added the additional Tivan Ltd project of Speewah with 4.7 billion tonnes @ 3.3% TiO2 and 0.30% V2O5 principally because Speewah is assessed as economically superior to the former despite the discrepancy in grades. Therein lies an example of the danger of comparing grades alone. Speewah will be prioritised in part because the concentrate grades [not the deposit grades] of both TiO2 & V2O5 are anticipated to be much higher than those of Mt Peake, which, plus greater operational efficiencies and greater accretion in Vanadium value during life of mine, indicate a more profitable enterprise. The average 5.12% TiO2 deposit grade reported from Pitfield to date does of course compare well with the grades from Mt Peake and Speewah but as with any other grade comparison considered in isolation, is only one factor of importance in assessing the viability of a project.

AGEOS.

News; re your recent postings:

Tivan Ltd [https://tivan.com.au Code TVN Aus Stock Exch] with resources at Speewah [4.7 billion tonnes @ 3.3% TiO2 and 0.30% V2O5 vanadium oxide] and Mt Peake [160Mt @ 5.3% TiO2 & 0.28% V2O5], was referred to in paragraph four of my June 6th post, but with particular regard to the Tivan+ Process developed in association with CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific & Induastrial Research Organisation] This Process has been developed to produce TiO2 for Ti pigment, vanadium and iron, from titanomagnetite ore but, as I emphasised, the plant to be constructed at Darwin is designed to process different ores from other projects in the region. It is only in that respect that Tivan's projects and resources may be relevant to EEE's Pitfield Ti prospect, although other processes such as Kroll, Hunter or TiRO could be more appropriate.

AGEOS

Correction, last paragraph line 3; should read "rutile" not zircon.

Continuation

It is also possible that the TiO2 mineralization extends beyond the limits of the magnetics anomaly area shown on the various Pitfield maps. Whilst it has been established that the TiO2, mainly in the form of ilmenite with lesser zircon, is associated with magnetite, and all were injected into the host rocks during an Fe/Ti hydrothermal mineralization episode, there is evidence as reported in the May 30th RNS of “significant hematite alteration of magnetite, possibly due to a later injection of hydrothermal fluids.” If such alteration [martitization] is extensive, the areas affected would not have been included within the 'magnetics anomaly area' as hematite is only weakly magnetic. The possibility therefore exists that the TiO2 resource, in association with hematite, extends eastwards at least in part up to the Darling Fault, which forms the eastern boundary of the Yandanooka host rocks. Significantly, the Darling Fault is more than a 'fault', it is a major crustal suture where two palaeo-continents meet, a zone of dislocation tens of kilometres deep and an ideal conduit for mineral rich hydrothermal fluids. It would be an ideal source for development of a regional scale mineral rich province.

This supplements posts on June 6th and 11th for those interested in the wider geological context.

AGEOS.

The July 3rd RNS and associated proactiveinvestors.co.uk interview have signalled a strategic shift in favour of the TiO2 potential of Pitfield, at least for the immediate future. Results of TiO2 specific geochemical and petrographic/mineralogical studies are “expected shortly to define the nature of the mineralization” and “Future drill programmes...will be carried out along the entire length of the magnetics anomaly to confirm the scale of this giant, titanium enriched mineral system...”

The prioritization of this over the previously favoured copper prospect is evidenced primarily by the combined CRA [Conzinc Riotinto Australia] geochem and EEE data, presented in the RNS as indicating two c50sq km TiO2 high-grade areas, one in the vicinity of Mt Scratch and the other 20km to the south, and due east of the historical Baxter Mine. Both areas are described as “completely open to other parts of the 40km by 8km magnetics anomaly.”

This latter claim is supported by the CRA Elevated TiO2 Stream Sampling data incorporated into the Fig 3 map which shows a fairly even distribution of 1%+ TiO2 from stream sediment samples throughout most of the area exhibiting the magnetics anomaly, and from the CRA soil sample anomalies [shaded in pink] in the Fig 5 map of the Mt Scratch and NE area. If these 'open areas' prove to include extensions of the 4%+ TiO2 resource indicated at Mt Scratch, the RNS claim that “Pitfield has the potential to be one of the largest primary titanium mineral sources discovered globally” may well become a reality.

Further indications of the potential extent of the resource are indicated by the reference to much of the eastern side of the magnetics anomaly being overlain by “transported surface sediment”, which would most probably obscure or reduce geochemical signals from the underlying bedrock. Hence the lower TiO2 values recorded in such areas are not necessarily representative of the underlying mineralogy, and the stated intention to implement “additional IP surveying and drilling....to determine the extent of the TiO2 mineralization along this eastern corridor.”

To be continued

Continuation:

Given the lithological and structural complexities of the area it will be interesting to see which targets are given priority in the next drill program. The Arrino historic mining region will probably feature significantly especially as the CRA Cu survey produced a high concentration of surface samples in the 0.015- 0.03% and 0.03%+ range from the area well beyond the confines of the workings. If a 20 x 200m RC exploratory drill program is planned, I would anticipate that most if not all of the stratigraphic units detailed above are included.

AGEOS

The May 30th RNS reference to “Further Work” at Pitfield concludes with a clear indication that the next drill program will target potential copper mineralization “within the western and southern parts,,,where there are indications of widespread Cu anomalism including historical Cu prospects”.

The earliest record of historical workings in that region refers to a prospecting shaft sunk in the Arrino area in 1868 and the latest record is of ore production in 1953 probably from the Baxter workings 4.5km south of Arrino. Reference in the May Prospectus to “Multiple historic Cu mines in the area including Baxters, with mined grades between 20-30% Cu” is confirmed by production records There were at least 6 named mines in the vicinity of Arrino, several with subsidiary surface workings and shallow shafts, but production was intermittent and often of limited duration. As the workings occupied an area of approximately 25sq km and the deepest shaft recorded was only 24m there is considerable scope for further discoveries.

Most of the workings appear to have exploited Cu-rich zones within the Arrowsmith Sandstone where it lies unconformably on Mullingara gneiss, some of the shafts having 'bottomed-out' on these basement rocks which form the western boundary of the Pitsfield prospect. As the orientation of at least some of the workings appears to coincide with the dip and strike of the host sandstones [ie 58 degrees to the E] this supports the contention of this being a Sediment-Hosted Stratabound Copper deposit [SSC]. Cross-cut mineral veining appears to be related to a prominent joint-set with a 45 degree southward dip. The potential for finding additional deposits within the Arrowsmith Sandstone formation rests in part on the fact that it infills the irregular palaeotopography of the Mullingara gneiss ancient landscape and to a thickness of 335m 6km SSE of Arrino.

The potential also extends higher in the stratigraphic sequence, through the overlying Arrino Siltstone into the Beaconsfield Conglomerate which is specifically mentioned as a target in the May 30th RNS. The Arrino Siltstone varies from 60m to 500m+ in thickness, outcropping mainly in the SW where it includes dark carbonaceous layers which might act as redox barriers for rising hydrothermal fluids. Overlying this and with varying thickness up to 40m is the Beaconsfield Conglomerate, extensively exposed as thrust-faulted blocks in the SW and W. Many of the constituent pebbles and cobbles are described in petrographic studies as “highly carbonated” which would be conducive to the formation of copper carbonates.

To be continued.

4kandles & flashheart, your thanks are much appreciated. If anything requires clarification feel free to query.

Continuation:

That latter conclusion is, I see, pre-empted by a statement alongside the above mentioned map, that “Higher grade Cu associated with late structures, acting as pathways for the Cu rich mineralizing fluids that may post-date the extensive regional alteration event [ie the Fe/Ti event].” The “late structures” referred to include most if not all of the “Thrust” faults; which are low angled planar crush-zones where overlying rocks have been displaced horizontally relative to the underlying rocks, and some “late faults” shown on the map as high-angled with predominant vertical displacement, either cross-cutting the Thrusts or displacing laterally, sections of the stratigraphy.

The May 30th RNS refers to “Further Work” as “mapping, geophysics and geochemical sampling to focus on defining the key internal thrust faults, and other important structures within the Yandanooka Basin, which have the potential to focus a later stage copper mineralization event, possibly within the western and southern parts of the Pitfield property where there are indications of widespread copper anomalism including historical copper prospects.” The June 6th interview expands on that to include a time scale of “3 to 4, maybe 5 months, up to and including an initial drill program] and emphatic statements including “this is not a minnow, it already has an enormous quantity of copper; a huge indicator of the potential for concentrations where contact with graphite or carbonates cause the copper to drop out.”

From this I assume that late July should see agreement on the next Pitfield drill plan with implementation and results within the following two months. As always it will be the drill results which speak loudest.

AGEOS

Those who have been following events at EEE during the past few months will be well aware that SP volatility has been almost entirely driven by expectations relating to the prospect of a “Giant” Copper Province being identified at Pitfield, as postulated by the 'Expert Review' RNS of Oct 25th 2022. It was understandably anticipated by most investors that the maiden drill program which targetted a significant D-D IP anomaly thought likely to indicate a sulphide enriched zone would produce the necessary Cu% assays. That they failed to do so, and despite the compensatory results of high TiO2 and of Cu well above the background %, the market response has been predictable ie based on “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

Admittedly, recognising the 'value' in those drill results and their significance within the wider geological context is difficult as it requires specialist knowledge and entails 'probabilistic' assessments unavailable to most. Shaun Bunn made a valiant attempt at defining the 'value' in his June 6th Crux Investor interview, emphasising that 0.02 – 0.06% Cu on a scale of 40 x 10km and 150m minimum depth as indicated by the drill assays, is a huge amount of metal, with a high probability of local high % concentrations. The historic workings around Arrino, including the Baxter Mines mentioned in the May Prospectus as having produced at 20-30% Cu, show that such concentrations exist. But assuring investors of a high probability of locating other high-grade and high-tonnage Cu prospects is inevitably a challenge.

Further evidence of the probability of localized high grade Cu accumulation derives from the mineralogy, which indicates that there were at least two distinct and separate hydrothermal events; an earlier Fe/Ti event and a later Cu sulphide event which over-printed the former and may also have extended beyond it. Shaun B has emphasised the over-printing as evidenced by the ubiquity of Cu throughout the assays of all the drill-holes to date and suggests that the Cu mineralization must have followed the same access routes as those followed by the Fe/Ti event. Andrew Faragher, Exploration Manager and a highly experienced and knowledgeable new appointee, is quoted in the May 30th RNS as saying “ These zones [the D-D IP zones] have now been shown to be coincident with high concentrations of Ti-rich minerals and significant haematite alteration of early magnetite, possibly due to martitization caused by a later injection of Cu-bearing hydrothermal fluids.” To warrant this conclusion, I assume Andrew F has observed haematite pseudomorphs of magnetite in rock thin-section, From this I infer, without detailing why, that the Cu-bearing event could have extended well beyond the Mt Scratch Magnetic portion of the Mt Scratch Siltstone [see Geology Map on page 17 of the May 2023 Presentation].into other components of the 5000m thick Yandanooka sequence [thickness is 90 degrees to stratification]

To

Continuation:

The May 30th RNS mentioned that “additional mineralogical analysis from a larger sample suite from all drill holes is required to better understand the nature, identity and abundance of the various titanium bearing minerals.” That plus further exploratory drilling, resource estimations and metallurgical tests will hopefully follow in time.

AGEOS

The recent confirmation of a large-scale hydrothermal mineral system at Pitfield. enriched in titanium. has inevitably led to the posting of details of 'comparable' prospects, especially elsewhere in western Australia, but without any analysis of the possible significance of such comparisons. Details of % TiO2 grades, resource tonnage etc may seem to be of value but alone are of limited significance in assessing the possible potential of the Pitfield discovery.

In a post on 6th June, I mentioned that I was aware of 11 proposed and exploration phase 'hard-rock' titanium prospects in W Australia, to which can now be added a further 17, including those in layered intrusions of metamorphic origin, and a few in carbonatites and volcanoclastic rocks. There are also 22 inland placer deposits and 90+ coastal heavy mineral sand deposits in various stages of development. The numbers serve to emphasise the danger of drawing misleading conclusions from selective comparisons with Pitfield. Valid conclusions can however be drawn from more generalised comparisons.

Firstly, almost all of the W Australia production of Ti and TiO2 is derived from its heavy mineral sand and placer deposits. The W Australian Government intends to at least maintain if not increase total production whilst simultaneously reducing coastal heavy mineral mining, for environmental reasons. Hence a move to inland 'hard-rock' and alternative sources and in consequence a regulatory framework which will presumably be favourable towards Pitfield. None of the 'hard-rock' projects are in production yet but several are sufficiently advanced to indicate anticipated viability and will have laid the procedural foundations for Pitfield if it meets all feasibility criteria.

Secondly, in accordance with national policies of reducing exports of critical minerals especially to China and of maximising the processing and utilization of such materials in-country, industry is developing enhanced metallurgical extraction processes for Titanium including two developed by, or in association with, CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization] in Australia. The TiRO Process produces Ti powder of high purity and the Tivan+ Process, Vanadium, feedstock for Ti pigment, and Fe. A plant to be constructed at Darwin will apply the Tivan+ Process to ore from the Speewah Project [NW Aus] which has a JORC-compliant resource of 4.7 billion tonnes @ 3.3% TiO2 in titanomagnetite. It is intended that the plant will take different ores from other prospects. Metallurgical tests of the potential mineral ores from Pitfield will determine which, if either, of these processes is appropriate, or if a different process such as Kroll or Hunter, or indeed of the many others under development is preferable. This is a complex and fast moving field which reflects the many new applications to which Ti [metal], TiO2 [dioxide] and other derivatives can and may be applied.

To be continued

The Pitfield titanium prospect, as based on the recent drill results, equates to the 800m x 2000m area near Mt Scratch, which produced a consistent TiO2 % grade of between 4.25 and 5.57 [cut-off 4.17%] from 18 drill holes into siltstones of the Mt Scratch Formation. This was supplemented by the May Prospectus which refers to a range of 4-10% TiO2 from the assays. Ilmenite [(Fe,Ti)2O3 + other oxides; TiO2 content of 40-65%] and lesser rutile [TiO2] were identified from chip samples so are assumed to be the main source of the TiO2 grades.

RC drilling was employed presumably for the advantages of cost-efficiency but also implies that the substrate is of low resistance ie readily disaggregates into its mineral components. In that respect its physical properties, at least to a depth of 154m in 10 of the holes and up to 196m in the remainder, are probably those of a semi-consolidated mudstone and not remotely comparable with those of a 'hard rock'. The Resource Strategy Division of the W Australia Geol Survey has data on 11 proposed and exploration-phase 'hard-rock' titanium prospects in the region but all are in highly resistant mafic and ultramafic igneous rocks, the extraction and processing of which are in a very different economic category to that of the 'soft-rock' siltstones of Pitfield. The JORC-based grades for those 11 'hard-rock' prospects range from 3.3% to 13.7% TiO2 % with only two above 10%.

From the RNS data it is a simple 'back of an envelope' calculation to estimate the ore resource within the area drilled at Mt Scratch and to a depth of 150m, as 6.48M tonnes based on 2.7 sp gr. The potential extent of the prospect is indicated by the fact that the Mt Scratch Formation extends over an area of 40km [ NNW-SSE] x >10km [5km within the zone of magnetite alteration], all within the Pitfield concession. However, within that, evidence suggests the TiO2 mineralization may be concentrated in three areas, an 8km x 900m zone in the NE, a 15km x 900m central zone including Mt Scratch and a 12km x 900m zone in the SW. As the rocks appear to form the western limb of a northerly plunging syncline they will mostly be inclined steeply eastwards. The drill holes will therefore have been approximately down-dip, so the continuation of mineralization to 'bottom-hole' in many of the Mt Scratch holes suggests possible extensions of resource also, at depth..

Whilst the most recent Presentation describes the titanium prospect as being “on a scale that has global significance”, an indication of which I have outlined above, the next phase at Pitfield will be identification of drill targets for potential copper prospects. Those will probably include targets in or above the Beaconsfield Conglomerate.

AGEOS.

The recent volatile share price response to the 30.05.2023 RNS regarding Pitfield, suggests a lack of understanding by many of the resource potential inherent in that RNS. Investors will have been seduced into copycat buying as the price rose and panicked into selling when the inevitable day traders exited at the peak. Without an appreciation of the significance of the geotechnical data associated with the RNS, suggestions by some that the drill program had drawn a blank regarding copper and that the titanium potential is an unknown, probably accentuated the uncertainty in the market. Hence the current share price and a market capitalization of £11.5m @ 2.35.

Having followed the input to this share-chat BB for several months it is evident there are no contributors with geotechnical knowledge, so in the hope that such contributions might be of interest to LTH's I will add my “two pennyw'th” from time to time, beginning this weekend if I have the time. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am the former CEO of a geo-exploration company and have a substantial interest in EEE.

In the meantime I endorse the prompt by 'Troajan' to listen to Shaun Bunn's May 30th Proactive presentation, via the hyperlink provided. SB is not exaggerating in his emphasis of the potential “Giant” Copper and Titanium system scenario at Pitfield, on which I will enlarge in due course. Also note his stated reassurance of no further capital raise required to fund the next phase of drilling at Pitfield.

AGEOS

Breaktwister, you are of course entitled to disagree. However I'm sure that the fundamental tenets of company law have not changed since the days when, as a geologist and CEO, I drafted such Contracts.

Mining Company Constituent Documents are by definition, all those documents appertaining to the framework within which a company or any equivalent legal entity, is to operate. They incorporate the equivalent of, what in UK Company law, is the 'Memorandum of Association' and are part of the process prior to mining company formation in many but not all jurisdictions. That company or equivalent entity only comes into existence as a legal entity when it is registered as such.

The “within 90 days” stipulation in the 2018 Agreement clearly relates to the timescale within which “the Parties shall enter into the Mining Company Constituent Documents for a joint venture or partnership or other contractual arrangement, or legally establish a limited liability company, joint stock company, or other type of legal entity, as may be acceptable to Newmont [MMA] and Minera Anza, each acting reasonably.” No where does it state [implication or inference is not permissible in a legally valid contract] that the mining company or equivalent shall be formed ie registered “within 90 days”. There are additional legal reasons why no contract would contain such a stipulation since it would create a “hostage to fortune” situation in which the Parties to the Contract would be at the mercy of whatever jurisdiction was responsible for administrating the company registration.

In view of the inevitably complex and potentially lengthy extent of this discussion I suggest we just agree to disagree and wait until the May 15th webinar when hopefully more important developments will take precedent.

AGEOS

Breaktwister, your 14.16 posted conclusions regarding the Sept 2018 Agreement appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the Contract.

You state that “The new company.....was to be formed within 90 days of this earn-in which has not happened” . This is incorrect. If you had read paragraph 4 of my April 24th post you would have seen the relevant quote which I repeat as follows “Subject to Section 9(b), within 90 days following delivery of such Phase 1 Earn-in Notice, the Parties shall enter into the Mining Company Constituent Documents........” This is from Section 9(a) [lines 10-11] on page 17, part of a lengthy definition of the process of forming a JV Mining Company, or an equivalent. “Entering into the Mining Company Constituent Documents” does not mean “forming the company” within 90 days, as you have assumed. What it does mean is that the Parties shall begin the process within 90 days following the delivery of the Phase 1 Earn-in Notice [confirmed by RNS as 09.09.2022]. That process began sometime before 29.11.2022 and is ongoing.

In consequence of the above there is no breach of contract by MMA as you suggest.

AGEOS

Legalwolf, I assume from your name, and from reading your contributions here, that you would benefit from reference to the original Contract Agreement of Sept 2018. Although a complex legal document of 45 pages it answers most of the questions arising from the recent RNS, and counters much of the misinformation posted here. Unfortunately it is never referenced so presumably no-one bothers to read it.

It can be accessed via SEDAR, www.sedar.com using the procedure I detailed in a post here on 24.04.2023. Click on my name and scroll back to the post of that date. The procedure is described in the second paragraph. I also reference some of the most relevant sections of the Contract.

I can confirm that there are no SEDAR filings of any subsequent amendments to the Contract, which should be read on the assumption that 'MMA' can be substituted for 'Newmont' throughout.

AGEOS

Third Quarter Results for period ended Feb 28th 2023 cannot, by legal definition include any previously undisclosed information not related to that period, other than current cash position which is here confirmed as US$3.857k.

As cash balance was $4.151k on Feb 28th that confirms a cash outflow of $142,000 a month which is consistent with the $140,000 a month attributable to “corporate and administrative expenditure” calculated from SEDAR filed accounts, and which I included in my 03.03.2023 post.

When the more comprehensive version of these latest accounts is filed on SEDAR it should be possible to identify what portion of expenditure can be allotted to the Phase 1 Earn-in requirements of both the Argentine and Brazil interests.

Updates on the Phase 1 field operation results at both El Pantano Argentina and Ariquemes Brazil should be released by RNS soon.
AGEOS