Member Info for AGEOS

Ctd

The simplest answer to that question would be “It will take that long and be a continuously expanding process because of the diversity and complexity of markets which also have the potential to spawn many new technologies” and so to be sure of exploiting as many of those markets as possible, the Process Flowsheet must ensure that TiO2 end products meet the specifications of those markets. To illustrate this point the following are a few examples of the TiO2 end-product requirements for some specific industry applications which I have no doubt will be under consideration by EEE and their technical advisors. Some of these examples are included as “Emergent TiO2 technologies” in my 22.06.2025 post of that title, and to which one should refer if unfamiliar with the technology in question.

Firstly however, since the TiO2 pigment industry accounts for at least 80% of global demand for TiO2, [an Oregon Group report of May 2025 rates this as high as 91%] for use as a colouring agent in paints, coatings and plastics, what are the optimum characteristics of end-products for these applications. Requirements vary due to the multitude of methodologies and consequent specifications, but generally both high concentration [>96% TiO2 + additives at lowest end;

Those who have read my previous posts and more importantly understood them, will be awaiting the impending MRE with the confidence of knowing what this will confirm in respect of the TiO2 mineral resource at the Thomas Prospect in terms of its structural, lithological and mineralogical characteristics, ore tonnages, grades and prospects for economic extraction. There is sufficient data available to support the highly favourable outcomes anticipated for all these aspects of the report. What is less certain are the proportions of the resource which will be given Measured and Indicated status and whether the MRE will extend beyond Thomas to include the known but Inferred resources elsewhere at Pitfield, including the titanite enriched sub-saprolite base-rocks.

If as anticipated, the MRE includes a significant portion in the Measured category, that will automatically be converted to a Proved Ore Reserve whilst the Indicated category converts to a Probable Ore Reserve. This permits under JORC Code, progression to mine planning and underpins continuation of all the other programs and processes which run in parallel as part of the overall project planning and development. Of those parallel programs one of the most important and comprehensive, and which will have been underway for some time, is that of product planning and evaluation, since it is that which will determine the direction and scope of the refining processes.

The 25.08.2025 Crux interview with MD Shaun Bunn was especially informative for the many references to how priority was being given to understanding present and potential future market requirements across the titanium industry, before committing to the refining component of the ore processing flowsheet [see 28.08.2025 RNS fig 1 for Conceptual Process Flowsheet] which determines the Pitfield titanium products. He summarised this at around 29mins into the interview as “understanding the product end of the Titanium Process first was a great strategic decision”, and added at 30.30mins consequently “the process development phase [ie refining, post mineral separation phase] ...will take the next four to six months”....to determine. The purpose of this post is to provide some understanding of those aspects of the present and potential future markets which dictate that time frame for completion of the final Process Flowsheet as many will rightly question why it should take so long.

TBC

Kongolasse, always impressed by your thoughtful contributions, so thanks for that.

What follows from me will be an 8-10 part challenging read for which it will take 10mins to upload so hope it appears as an unbroken thread.

AGEOS

Chid, if you had checked the LSE members data base you would have seen that “RightOn” has been active since 2018 and is currently posting on the PXL chat board and elsewhere. Also his/her posts are invariably chatty, personal and mostly expressions of opinion, not fact.

Your comparison unfortunately implies duplicity on my part which I sincerely hope was not your intention.

AGEOS

Continuation:

The only other possible by-product as far as I can ascertain would be a derivative of the smectite group minerals which are present in some of the bedrock samples and which may have survived unaltered into the weathered saprolite ore. The derivative known as bentonite is used in drilling muds and civil engineering works and currently imports to Australia at around $400 per tonne.

At around 30mins into the 25.08.2025 Crux interview, SB with reference to potential by-products did say “there are elements....metals...which are coming through with the titanium concentrate which we are going to look at for their commercial value”. It has been established that the first phase of the hydrothermal mineralisation process at Pitfield involved strong enrichment in Ca, Ti. Mg, Al & Fe plus elevated Co, Cr, Cu, Ni & Zn, followed by a second probable Fe rich phase. However of those elements only the Ti, Mg, Al & Fe are evident in the mineral components of the sandstones and siltstones from which the saprolite ore is derived. There are no copper or zinc minerals present in the bedrock samples from Thomas for which data has been released in RNS although these are known to occur from historical mining within the Pitfield Yandanooka Basin, as detailed in numerous earlier posts. It is however possible that the extended drilling at Thomas has encountered areas of saprolite derived from bedrock which does include copper and/or zinc mineralisation.

AGEOS

Restingpilgrim re your post of Friday regarding by-products from the Pitfield saprolite ore, the most likely candidate appears to be “kaolinite”, which SB has mentioned several times in recent months as “kaolin” a term more usually applied to the in situ deposit otherwise known as “china clay”. Anyone familiar with Cornwall and especially the St Austell area, will have seen the glistening white kaolin spoil-tips of the adjacent china clay quarries, part of the historically pre-eminent source for much of the 'white porcelain' ceramic industry. That kaolin was derived from deep chemical weathering of granites, a process comparable to the saprolite formation at Pitfield. In this weathering process the kaolin is derived largely from the breakdown of feldspar minerals. The mineral kaolinite does not exist as such in the unweathered granites.

Similarly at Pitfield. Kaolinite does not exist in the unweathered bedrock [sandstones and siltstones] but presumably does occur in the saprolite as a result of the chemical weathering process. Alternatively the process flow-sheet could be structured to include a component designed to produce kaolinite by modification of clay-minerals within the fine-fraction portion of the concentrate. Analysis of the sandstone and siltstone bedrock has shown the presence of the feldspar mineral albite, of a chemical composition which with the natural removal of sodium, could have been a precursor to kaolinite [ albite NaAlSi3O8 kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 ]. Also present are chlorite group minerals which by the natural removal of magnesium and iron could likewise contribute the aluminium silicate components of kaolinite. Similarly for a number of other unspecified clay minerals.

What proportion of the saprolite, or of the fine-fraction of the concentrate, is likely to be kaolinite is impossible to estimate at this stage. Value per tonne depends on quality and degree of processing. Andromeda Metals Great White kaolin project on the Eyre Peninsula in S Australia has a halloysite-kaolin resource with an offtake agreement of 5000 tonnes at $700 per tonne with Japanese porcelain manufacturer Plantan Yamada. A kaolin by-product from Pitfield would be unlikely to command a comparable premium price.

TBC

My thanks to all for the appreciative responses and especially to SuffolkJim for initiating that ChatGPT summary, posted here by Wigster77 at 08.54, which 'translated' my effort into 'bite-sized' chunks without distorting the meaning.

Time constraints necessitate a delay, perhaps until the weekend, for attempting to answer some of the many questions outstanding. In the meantime, since it appears that some are confused due to misinterpretation of the scale of fig2, the map of the Thomas Prospect included in the RNS; the scale-bar in the bottom left hand corner is 1km divided into 5 units each of 200m length. Thus, the 'Central Core' is the 6.4sq km area within the two solid black N-S boundary lines, and the 13.52sq km of the Thomas Prospect, as currently defined, is the area which includes all of the drillhole collar locations.

AGEOS

Continuation:

I have in previous posts outlined some of the criteria unique to saprolitic-type ore deposits which a QP would take into account in apportioning measured or indicated status and suggested that the drill spacing would be sufficient for the former, providing there was clear evidence of grade continuity and stratification conformity throughout the drill grid area. The 'central core' and, more certainly the 0.3sq km closely drilled area within it, may still satisfy the criteria for measured status, although much depends on comparative continuity in core-log characteristics throughout the central zone. Variographic analysis will determine that, not subjective human assessment. The areas to east and west of the core will most likely be of indicated status. There is also, as hinted earlier, the possibility of including a substantial inferred element within the MRE on the basis of a northerly extension of the high-grade core corresponding to the 'structural strike' of the Enokurra Sandstone. This appears to extend northwards into the Cosgrove Prospect for which a subsequent MRE is planned but which could also be included in the current MRE within the inferred category if Thomas is defined within a wider Pitfield context.

How does this translate into ore tonnage. With “over 90% [of drillholes] exceeding a 2% TiO2 cut-off”an approximate total ore tonnage can be calculated on the basis of assuming potential resource from the whole 13.52sq km drill-grid area to an average depth of 50m, which at a specific gravity of 2.23g/m3 = 1.507billion tonnes [13,520,000sq m x 50m depth x 2.23 sp gr]. The 10% shortfall in 2%+ drillholes is compensated for by the 2.1sq km x 50m tonnage [105M tonnes] intercepted by the RC holes at 50-100m downhole in the central high-grade zone, previously described. The 2.23 sp gr is based on analysis of 16 samples from four boreholes [ref 12.06.2024 RNS page 9]. Of that 1.507billion tonnes, the 6.4sq km high-grade central zone accounts for an estimated 713.6M tonnes plus the 105M tonnes from the deeper RC intercepts, thus totalling 818.6M tonnes which assayed at 6%+ TiO2. Significant as this is, remember that the stated JORC Exploration Target is 26-32billion tonnes based on an appraisal of the 320sq km gravity/magnetics anomaly and associated titanium enrichment within the Pitfield mineral province.

AGEOS

The results from the most recent Thomas Prospect drill program broadly conform with expectations in confirming extension of the initial 0.3sq km TiO2-enriched saprolitic deposit to a 13.52sq km area with a substantial high-grade core. As detailed in previous posts, the compositional and depositional features of saprolites are largely determined by the mineralogical and structural characteristics of the subsurface rocks from which they are derived. Hence the N-S linear form and orientation of a high-grade zone corresponding to the 'structural strike' of the bedrock sandstones, presumed to be the Enokurra Sandstone if the WA Geological Survey interpretation is correct. This might appear to be of academic interest only, but in fact has significant implications relating to the possible 'inferred' element of the MRE as will be explained later.

East of the 'Central Core' as shown in fig 2 of the RNS, the TiO2 grade declines fairly abruptly corresponding to presumed derivation of the saprolite from the lower strata of the Mount Scratch Siltstone. Although the colour-coding of the boreholes is insufficiently distinct to be sure, it appears there are no holes east of the central core shown as “core not assayed” which confirms there are no tributary palaeo-channels of the Oligocene-Pliocene Yarra Yarra river extending into the saprolite cover. As explained in my 04.07.2025 post such channel tributaries would have removed the saprolite. To the west there appears to be no discernible continuity to what are very variable grades and in the south-west there is a group of holes which do appear to be colour-coded as “not assayed” suggesting absence of saprolite. This western limit may correspond to the Beaconsfield Conglomerate sequence.

With regard to the 'Central Core', the preponderance of AC [Air Core] holes assayed at 5-6% and 6%+ TiO2 is especially striking. However, what is not so apparent but is a significant bonus, is the cluster of RC [Reverse Circulation] holes, which assayed at 6.1% to 7.05% from at or near surface to up to 100m depth, which occupy the area from N6724551 in the south to N6726301 in the north, a N-S distance of 1.4km. The core is 1.1 – 1.5km wide over this distance so assuming all the other RC holes in this area also intercepted high-grades beyond 50m depth, there is up to 2sq km of inferred if not indicated resource below 50m depth within this area.

TBC

ML thanks for the response. I may be wrong but I suspect Louisa Stokes left Empire for a post doctoral research appointment at Curtin University where she is listed as Louisa Hebditch, Research Associate in the School of Earth and Planetary Sciences and is assistant to Prof Katy Evans for the purposes of the RTCM initiative.

The RTCM [Resources, Technology & Critical Minerals] Trailblazer initiative is an Australian Government backed scheme with over $100m in funding to support cutting edge advancement in critical minerals exploration, production and processing. It links the Earth Science and related research specialisations of six Australian Universities, including that of the Curtin University Perth which is the lead academic institute for the scheme, with industry partners deemed to be at the forefront of strategically important future advancement. Of the 32 industry partners currently listed most specialise in the technological and processing aspects of the mineral industry and only a third are active or potential critical mineral miners including most of the major players eg Newmont, GoldFields, Glencore and AngloGold Ashanti. Importantly, Empire is listed as an industry partner, active from November 2024.

The Empire listing names the lead researcher as Professor Katy Evans of Curtin University, Perth, a geochemist with wide-ranging experience in metallogenesis, and the aim of the research is to “determine the source, mobilisation and deposition of titanium at Pitfield and to study the distribution and morphology of titanium-bearing mineral phases and the relationship between Ti-grades and host-rock lithology”. This will contribute to an “improved predictive exploration model to enhance ore targeting and to mitigate exploration risk”. As this has been ongoing since Nov 2024 it will provide a significant input to the impending MRE.

Since the RTCM program is defined as being of “national significance to Australia's future security and economic growth”, the inclusion of Empire as one of the industry partners and the funding of this research initiative, provides clear evidence of the potential significance of the Pitfield titanium prospect.

AGEOS.

ML no need for me to add to your excellent summary or to Suffolk.Jim's conclusion from my 04.07.2025 post, both of which are 'spot-on' in your understanding of the anticipated MRE assessment.

Thanks ML and for extending my efforts beyond this forum. Your contributions greatly appreciated.

The 2024-25 Australian Budget includes recently enacted legislation, the Critical Minerals Production Tax Incentive [CMPTI], which will have a significant bearing on the strategic planning of the Pitfield Titanium Project. The CMPTI provides the potential for EEE of a 10% refundable tax offset of the eligible costs of processing for a maximum 10 years between the dates of July 1st 2027 and June 30th 2040.

The CMPTI eligibility criteria require that the company must be an Australian tax resident, or a foreign resident carrying on the processing activity via a permanent establishment in Australia, and the processing activities must be at one or more facilities in Australia that involve substantially transforming a feedstock that contains a critical mineral into a purer or more refined form of the critical mineral that is chemically distinct from the feedstock, and a substantial purpose for carrying on the activity is to achieve this transformation, or are specified in the regulations as producing an outcome in relation to one or more critical minerals. Titanium is listed as such a critical mineral for the purposes of this legislation.

Note the important caveat that the process must ”involve substantially transforming a feedstock that contains a critical mineral into a purer or more refined form of the critical mineral that is chemically distinct from the feedstock”. That part of the ore processing which leads through to production of a low grade TiO2 [Titanium dioxide] feedstock will,most likely not apply, whereas any further processing and refining most certainly will. That is a huge incentive for EEE to advance its processing to as high a level in the value-added chain as possible.

For those wishing to research this aspect further, the Australian Taxation Office via www.ato.gov.au is a useful starting point.

AGEOS.

Darbinator, you summarise the situation exactly as I understand it to be also.

Restingpilgrim, the critical component in the stated purpose of this latest drilling program is that

it is designed “to provide the necessary drill assay data density” for an MRE. Anything superfluous to that objective, including continuation of mineralised saprolite to depths below a defined TiO2% cut-off, will be excluded at this stage. The “average forecast depth of 45.4m” for the 140 AC holes probably reflects the average depth of that cut-off, although other factors, such as the variable depth of weathering especially in those areas where bedrock may reach or approach the surface [as detailed in yesterdays reply to Blanka] will affect that average.

Also, note that the lines of AC and RC holes alternate and are aligned E-W. AC holes are shallower and confined to the weathered zone as that is safely within the operational limitations of that technology whereas RC technology is more appropriate for deeper drilling into the transition from weathered zone to bedrock hence the 94.4m average depth of those 40 RC holes..Those 40 RC holes will test for possible deeper localised extensions of high grade weathered and semi-weathered resource which could then be included as inferred resource, in addition to the majority measured MRE.

My tendency to favour a majority measured MRE is based on the geological concept of “facies analysis” a methodology which I have not introduced before due to the difficulty of explaining it to non-specialists and which I'm not going to attempt to enlarge upon now. It is I hope sufficient to say that such analysis leads to the conclusion that the “unique facies characteristics” of the saprolite would justify a “Measured MRE” classification based on the drill assay data density which will be provided from the current and previous drill programs.

Hope that answers your questions, in part at least. All I can offer in limited time.

AGEOS.

ML thanks for that very comprehensive analysis, with which I concur in every respect. Not very often I find myself in agreement with theoretical project valuations so will be interesting to see how the 'market' reacts as this one progresses.

AGEOS

Blanka, I've not yet had time to download and process the revised drill-plan data but having previously superimposed the June 2nd Fig 1 plan onto topographic and geology base-maps, I suspect that there are locations where relatively unweathered bedrock comes near or to the surface, probably in areas of woodland and scrub which understandably the farmers left unploughed. The drill locations conspicuously avoid these areas. Inevitably that implies variations in the subsurface bedrock topography and hence also in the depth of weathered saprolite.

The extension westwards may simply reflect confirmation of continuity of the saprolite in that direction and of sufficient depth to justify further drilling. A westward extension also conforms to the geological succession down-sequence onto the Enokurra Sandstone and Arrino Siltstone, both inclusive of sandstones conducive to the original titanite mineralisation and subsequent weathering to anatase/rutile saprolite.

AGEOS.

Manlord, in response to your question just a reminder of what I posted on June 5th, part of which is re-posted below:

The 02.06.2025 RNS states that the 'MRE Drilling Programme' was designed with input from consultants Snowden-Optiro [who by inference will undertake the MRE assessment] to “provide the necessary drill assay data density to allow the preparation of an MRE.” It is, in my view, inconceivable that the AC/RC drillhole spacing of 200m would have been agreed without assurance from the consultants that this would satisfy the Measured MRE criteria. It is however the sole responsibility and prerogative of the QP to make the judgement of whether the data meets the criteria, hence no specific reference from SB regarding 'Measured' or any other categorisation.

I highlight this issue as attainment of 'Measured Mineral Resource' status is a pre-requisite for designation of a 'Proved Ore Reserve', itself a precursor to a Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility level evaluation of the whole project. The alternative 'Indicated Mineral Resource' – Probable Ore Reserve route implies less confidence in the data. There are also no circumstances in which an Indicated Mineral Resource can be converted directly to a Proved Ore Reserve. I do not anticipate Scoping Studies being appropriate for this project as all indicators point to direct progression to a full Feasibility Study sufficient to serve as the basis for a final decision to proceed with development of the project.

Elsewhere I have posted that this does not exclude the possibility of the MRE also including portions of the Prospect, other than or marginal too, the Thomas target, as “Indicated” or even “Inferred” resource.

AGEOS.

Manlord, I see that my post at 14.54 yesterday refers to your previous days contribution as a “revue” instead of a “review” for which I will blame predictive text, although a mental aberration on my part is just as likely. Apologies for thus implying that your contribution was a theatrical entertainment. A salutary lesson in the pitfalls of language.