Member Info for AGEOS

Manlord, thanks for your response. Yes, you appear to understand me correctly on all points. There are none I need to clarify at this stage but no doubt there will be opportunities to enlarge when and wherever necessary. Apologies for the brevity but short on time.

Doc83, the ChatGPT response will be based on AI analysis of data derived from many thousands of historical mine development projects, world-wide.

The bullet-points listed under “Typical Progression of MRE's” are just that “typical of MRE's in general” but are not typical of what is an extremely rare and in many respects unique, prospect at Pitfield.

The conclusion under “Drill Program Scope” that “This suggests they're working toward an indicated classification” is likewise based on what would be typical for many mine prospects but in my assessment is not what is appropriate for the Thomas Prospect. The unique geological and mineralogical criteria, in my view, accord with the drill program sufficient to justify a Measured Mineral Resource assessment.

The comment under “Language and Milestones” that the company has not used the term “Measured” is, as previously indicated because it would contravene JORC Code guidelines to imply such a classification prior to a QP's decision.

This is a hurried and brief response to what is a very complex issue. The final outcome is of course in the hands of the QP who, yes may ere on the side of caution and opt for an Indicated M R classification, but would have to justify that conclusion.

On 06.04.2025, I posted regarding the then impending Pitfield MRE, which at that time could have included either or both of the Cosgrove and Thomas Prospects, and anticipated that this was likely to be primarily a Measured MRE, the most data-intensive of the three MRE categories. This was based on my assessment, that the quantity and quality of known data plus that which could be derived from drill spacings of 100m would be sufficient for the QP [Qualified Person] to conclude that it satisfied the JORC Code criteria necessary for that designation.

On 07.04.2025, I added a brief post-script, referencing a Crux Investor interview during which SB referred to the criteria for an MRE which supported my anticipation of a Measured category MRE. I also stressed the importance of achieving such a categorisation as a Measured MRE is the only category which can, subject to 'Modifying Factors' [as defined in JORC Code] be converted to a 'Proved Ore Reserve', that being by definition “ the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource.”

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.

AGEOS.

Continued:

Superimposing the intended drill program map onto a 'solid geology map' [ie showing inferred subsurface structure] reveals that the weathered mineralised cap extends E, N and S over the lower strata of the Mount Scratch Siltstone sequence, and to a lesser extent westwards over the Enokurra Sandstone/Arrino Siltstone succession. Consequently I anticipate that the continuity and mineralogical consistency of the weathered cap may vary along the E-W axis but far less so N-S. However, assuming that the mineralogical characteristics identified and proven in the area already drilled and assayed, is replicated on average throughout the whole area targeted, the impending MRE would total 1.662 billion tonnes [ 11.4 sq km is 38 x the 0.3 sq km previously drilled]. ML's “ballpark” total of 1.1b tonnes of ore is therefore rightly described as a “conservative estimate”.

Extrapolation from an ore tonnage to the quantities theoretically obtainable at the various stages of processing through to final product are, as outlined in my 16.03.2025 and related posts, complex, but quite justifiable, as all of the critical elements have been demonstrated as achievable and most are already in place as established industry practise. The awaited results of production scale testing and of large-scale product development trials will provide the data on which to base such metrics but in the meantime the 'ballpark' estimations provided by ML are both justified and indicative of the numbers we can expect.

AGEOS.

In view of the comprehensive posts by Manlord in response to the recent [02 June] RNS regarding the forthcoming “Major Drilling Campaign targeting Maiden MRE” , there is little I need add except to endorse the general tenor of ML's assessment as this being a significant, although anticipated stage, in the progress towards commercial exploitation of this globally important mineral resource. ML rightly emphasises the variable bases of some of the estimated tonnages and consequent product volumes he calculates, but this should not detract in any way from the 'ballpark' magnitude of those figures. I am in contact with many colleagues in the mining geoscience community, world wide, who view the Pitfield Prospect similarly.

With regard to the Thomas Prospect, the 28.04.2025 RNS reported an 300m x 1000m area drilled and subsequently assayed at an average of 6.20% TiO2 to an average depth of 54m. The proven continuity and uniformity of mineralisation throughout the weathered cap deposit allows calculation of a 43,740,000 tonne ore resource within that area and to that depth, with confidence [300 x 1000 x 54 x 2.7sp g].

The area now targeted for drilling is 5.2 x 2.2km, ie 11.4 sq km, much more extensive than that I had anticipated but no doubt based on near-surface sampling to supplement the limited assay date from previous exploratory, mainly RC drilling, on the E, N and S borders of the expanded area. Note that the 5 most southerly E-W lines of alternating AC and RC drill holes are within the previously unexplored E70/5876 licence area, thus satisfying an important “minimum exploration” requirement necessary for long term retention of that licence. E70/5876 extends over the eastern two-thirds of Pitfield, whereas all exploratory work to date has been confined to the less extensive western E70/5465 licence area.

TBC

4kandles, thanks for the response.

As detailed in my 16.03.2025 post, titanite has a standardised formula of CaSiTiO5 of which at least 30% by volume, and potentially much more, can be isolated as TiO2, hence my reference to “titanite TiO2”.

The Pitfield titanite remains as a potential TiO2 resource but admittedly, if the anatase/rutile weathered cap resource proves to be as extensive as indicated, not for decades. If the anatase/rutile is correlated with the Mount Scratch Magnetic Member it extends from the Thomas property in the south for 34km to NE of Mount Scratch in the N, including properties within the E70/5876 licence area.

The proposed Thomas Prospect maiden MRE, even if extended to three times the area AC drilled to date, would be only 10% at most of that potential area. Hardly surprising that SB considers the titanite as irrelevant during his tenure.

AGEOS

The 28.04 2025 RNS is significant in confirming both continuity and comparative uniformity of TiO2 grade throughout the areas drilled at both the Cosgrove and Thomas Prospects. These are important factors in ensuring highly favourable economics of both mining and initial processing of the weathered cap deposits. Furthermore, that every AC hole drilled intercepted up to 50m of high grade deposit, indicates potential continuity beyond the 60 hectares drilled. This is reflected in the decision to prioritise the Thomas Prospect, not only due to the stated “better consistency of geology and grade with thicker zones of weathering” but also with the aim of “generating a MRE [in Q3 2025]....with the drilling focused on a significantly expanded target area”.

In previous posts I have correlated the mineralised weathered cap with the subsurface Enokurra Sandstone as defined in a 25.10.2023 RNS [Fig 3]. However, drilling at both Cosgrove and Thomas appears to indicate that the mineralised weathered cap extends significantly further eastwards to overlie the Mount Scratch Magnetic member of the Moora Group succession. It will therefore be of interest as to how far this “significantly expanded target area” extends. The “enlarged programme of works” [RC and AC drilling] planned for the Thomas Prospect during the next two months will reveal the extent of that expansion and the metrics of the resulting MRE. A similar programme for Cosgrove will follow later this year. As the Moora Group rocks also extend way beyond the confines of both target areas, the potential therefore exists for a very substantial cumulative MRE from the weathered cap resource alone. Such is the potential that the titanite TiO2 subsurface bedrock resource may remain as a secondary reserve well into the future.

AGEOS.

Blanka, the drilling program at the Cosgrove and Thomas Prospects announced in mid-February was mostly completed by the end of March, including the 84 AC [Air Core] holes and 4 'twin-holes, presumed to have been RC holes. A few infill holes may also have been drilled to supplement the 2m interval sampling and geochemical analysis required for data input to the JORC Measured MRE which by now should be at an advanced stage.

Also during early March, the 80 tonnes of bulk samples for metallurgical testing will have been delivered to labs for production scale testing of gravity and flotation circuits, which I anticipate will have now been largely completed. and may be the subject of an update RNS. A large-scale product development trial, aimed at producing titanium product samples for potential customers will follow and may now be near commencement.

AGEOS

Further to my post of yesterday and to justify anticipation of a maiden MRE as being in progress, please refer to the Crux Investor interview of April 1st during which SB outlines at c4.00-5.00mins the criteria for an MRE. This formed the basis for my anticipation of a Measured MRE incorporating only a limited portion of the total potential resource and completion within the next few months, a time scale which he repeats at c23 mins.

The emphasis on achieving a Measured MRE is important as it is the only MRE category which can, subject to 'Modifying Factors' [as defined in JORC Code] be converted to a 'Proved Ore Reserve', that being by definition “the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource.”

AGEOS

With regard to the impending Mineral Resource Estimate [MRE] for Pitfield TiO2, I anticipate this will consist primarily of a Measured MRE, for which the recent 84 Air Core [AC] drillhole program over 50 hectares will provide the data additional to that from previous exploration, necessary for this category of MRE. As such the Measured MRE will be confined to either, or both, of the Cosgrove and Thomas prospects, and extend over the areas encompassed by the 100m spaced AC holes and the associated diamond and RC drillholes. Depth cut-off will presumably be 50m and grade cut-off c5%.

A ‘Measured Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or

quality), densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to

allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation

of the economic viability of the deposit. [ref JORC Code 2012 para 23]

Whilst a 'Measured Mineral Resource' will be the prime focus, it is possible that either, or both 'Indicated' and 'Inferred Mineral Resource' estimates could also be included, especially for the N-S stratigraphic continuity of the host Enokurra Sandstones, assuming there is sufficient evidence of weathered mineralised-cap anatase/rutile continuity between the Cosgrove and Thomas properties. I do not anticipate that the titanite enriched sub-50m resource, evidenced throughout the Yandanooka Basin, will be included in the MRE at this stage.

AGEOS.

As is evident, LSE has mangled the first part of this post by removing capital letters and disallowing the word co*rse, but hopefully will still be of value.

Continuation:

From the above it should be evident that because of the differential rates of recovery of the various titanium minerals and the different and variable proportions of TiO2 content of each of the minerals it is not possible at this stage to quantify the product obtainable per tonne of ore. It is however reasonable to assume, based on a minimum titanium mineral recovery rate of 60% and a predominance of anatase and rutile, that the Thomas/Cosgrove prospect should produce around 3500- 4000 tonnes of c95% TiO2 finished product for every 100,000 tonnes of ore processed from the estimated 4.0-4.9 billion tonnes of weathered cap deposit. What proportion of that deposit meets the specifications of an MRE [Mineral Resource Estimate] awaits the assay results of the current Air Core drill survey and may, as I detailed in a 28.08.2024 post [paragraph 5], be in the region of 2.0-2.5 billion tonnes if the anatase rich zone is limited on average to the uppermost 28m as indicated in RC24COS018. To put that into global demand/supply context, 2.0 billion tonnes of ore equates to 7 million tonnes of c95% TiO2 product whilst 2030 predicted demand is for 10 million tonnes. So if EEE can capture 10% of the market, a stated objective, the Thomas/Cosgrove weathered cap resource alone, based on very conservative metrics, would satisfy a 10 year rising demand curve. Further potential resource extends far beyond that.

The Thomas/Cosgrove Prospect encompasses less than 20% of the TiO2 enriched area within the Pitfield mineral province, and the weathered cap is only part of the JORC Exploration Target of between 26.4 and 32.2 billion tonnes graded at 4.5 to 5.5% TiO2 extending to greater depth within the Thomas/Cosgrove properties. Hence the potential ore reserves within the Pitfield Mineral Province, including possible extensions of the anatase rich weathered cap and the unweathered titanite rich sandstone bedrock, have the capacity to supply global demand on a multi-generational time scale. The impending MRE will be an initial resource estimate, being only part of a far greater potential resource.

AGEOS

the march 10th rns confirming the successful completion of the four month long “product development testwork programme” for the anatase-rutile resource at the thomas/cosgrove prospects, completes a crucial stage in the commercialisation of this ti02 project. demonstration that a product suitable for high quality sponge metal or pigment production can be obtained, elevates the economic potential to the highest level in the industry.

understandably this has prompted some speculative estimations of the possible production potential both from the thomas/cosgrove and wider pitfield resource but apparently without a proper understanding of the relevant constraints. the following may assist in that understanding.

regarding the thomas/cosgrove prospect the immediate target resource is the anatase/rutile enriched, 40-60m thick, weathered cap estimated to contain between 4.0 to 4.9 billion tonnes at 4.8 to 5.9% tio2. the processing testwork has established that the ore is sufficiently friable to require only low energy [ie low cost] crushing/grinding, for screening to produce co**** and fine fractions suitable for gravity and flotation processing respectively. gravity separation recovers 60-80% of the titanium minerals from the co**** fraction into a heavy mineral concentrate and the froth flotation recovers over 60% of the titanium minerals from the fine fraction into a fine flotation concentrate. importantly, note that these recovery rates of 60-80% and over 60% relate to the total volume and range of titanium minerals, so not just the anatase and rutile [both c95% tio2] important as these are, but also leucoxenes [a spectrum of titano-iron-oxides with 65-95% tio2]], ilmenite [c65% tio2] and titanite [casitio5; 30%+ tio2]. also the recovery rates are not proportionately applicable to the 4.8 to 5.9% tio2 assay grade of the ore as tio2 content is not the same as the % titanium mineral content. the latter will always exceed the former.

finally, the heavy mineral and fine flotation concentrates, after treatment by acid bake/water leach processing, filtration and hydrolysis, was calcined to produce a product containing 91.6% tio2 with extremely low element impurities. further refinement at all stages of processing will increase this assay percentage to the 95%+ necessary for premium markets and hence high quality sponge metal or high grade titanium dioxide pigment production.

to be continued

Manlord, this is just to acknowledge your request of Feb 14th inviting a response to your NPV calculations, to which I am unable to respond due to priorities elsewhere. I will however renew contributions when circumstances allow.

In the meantime keep up your valuable contributions, which I fully endorse in all respects. As I first detailed in June 2023, the Pitfield Titanium prospect is a unique geological and mineralogical discovery of global economic significance, as is being progressively revealed by EEE initiatives.

AGEOS

Legalwolf re your reference to discussion on the CEO.CA website, I would advise taking note of the final paragraph of my 28.01.2025 post. I was referring to the imports to this LSE chatboard from the CA site, which superficially may appear to have geo-technical merit but are in fact wholly misconceived. No doubt the originators have good intent and should perhaps be congratulated for at least making the attempt, but the technicalities and concepts relating to mineralisation and mineral deposits are way beyond the understanding of those without the specialist knowledge and relevant experience.

To give just one simple example, the term “strike” has a precise definition when used in the context of structural geology and a conceptual connotation when used in mining circles, a distinction only comprehensible to a professional geologist. I have never seen a correct usage or interpretation of the term by anyone posting on this or any other chatboard, and the misinterpretation of what it means in the context of an RNS often leads to baseless conclusions regarding the extent of Au mineralisation. Hopefully this example alone will suffice as a warning.

AGEOS

Legalwolf, re PEPAS 2, the “105m of surface exposure averaging 1.15g/t, in places exceeding 5g/t, “ located 200m north of the current drilling” could correspond to a possible northerly extension of the PEPAS 1 fault-enclosed block ,as a geological map does show such a mylonite [fault breccia] enclosed extension in that region. PEP09 appears to have passed beneath it and PEP03 skimmed the northern limit. Only further drilling will reveal if of significance. The remainder and greater part of PEPAS 2 appears to be of tuff breccia, as yet untested for mineralisation. Au in soils can indicate subsurface mineralisation but it can have been transported naturally from elsewhere or be the remnant of a former deposit long since eroded.

PortfolioPower

This is in response to your much appreciated request of Feb 4 for my “take on how the additional high grade results add to the block model.” Unfortunately, as the subsequent 1000+ posts indicate, your interest is unlikely to be shared by anyone else as the 'discussion' here has now evolved in favour of the “mystic meg” type influencer, an environment in which I have no wish to participate. Geo-spacial modelling and associated resource quantification doesn't fit well with misty-eyed forecasts of many millions of Au oz based on unverifiable criteria.

However, for what it may be worth, PEP021 & 22, the two high grade holes, which triggered the recent SP interest, were drilled in the same vertical plane as the previously reported PEP014 which intersected 75m @ 5.57 g/t. The 107m @ 6.22 g/t from PEP021 and the 76m @ 7.24 g/t from PEP022 were therefore consistent with the prior assay and add nothing to the previously calculated ore tonnage and simply reinforce the average grade value of 6g/t used to calculate the Au resource for the two high grade 50m3 blocks which are the core of the 7-blocks enclosing the whole of the PEPAS 1 mineralised prospect. The calculations summarised in my 05.01.25 post, of “the 7 blocks incorporate a maximum potential resource [at PEPAS 1] of 1,925,000 tonnes at 2.2sp.g, which with 5 blocks averaging c3g/t Au and 2 blocks at c6g/t gives a total indicated resource of 262,914oz Au.” therefore remains unchanged.

The 021 & 022 core logs also reinforce my 05.01.25 posted conclusion based on holes 013, 014 & 015, that there are two, locally three, parallel zones of high grade Au, highly siliceous [SiO2 quartz] mineralisation within a lower grade envelope. These zones trend NNW-SSE and are probably at a near vertical to high angle inclination.

In anticipation of any accusation that this is an attempt to impact the SP negatively, I emphasise that I have no views on what the current market capitalisation should be. I have posted extensively on the APTA resource based on 3D modelling and also on the potential at El Pantano, Argentina, from which it should be clear that I view the mid to long term prospects of OMI favourably.

AGEOS.

Breaktwister, high grade mineralisation in most if not all of the easterly inclined holes ends abruptly at the eastern boundary fault which is interpreted as not having been a conduit for mineralising fluids and to having been post mineralisation in age. The continuation of high grade mineralisation has therefore been displaced but in what direction and for what distance, is unknown. I speculated in a previous post that the displacement may have a northerly component but any fault with a crush zone of mylonite many metres thick, as this has, could have a displacement of 100's or 1000's m both laterally and/or vertically. It is possible to determine fault displacement metrics by extrapolation from the intersections of rock strata outcrops with topography but that requires detailed and precise mapping of the surface geology, very difficult in highly vegetated terrain, so location of the displaced high grade Au east of the eastern boundary fault may remain for ever unknown.

Remington, minor mineralisation may well appear in cores extending beyond the fault but that will be due to post-faulting secondary mobilisation of Au in circulating groundwater.

In the absence of any further drill data since the Jan 13th RNS reporting on holes 16-18, it seems reasonable to conclude that hole 19, which was 30m further south, c70m in depth and parallel to hole 18, did not replicate the same high-grades as hole 18. This conclusion appears to be supported by the X-posted video 3D model which includes what appears to be hole 19 showing three short high-grade [5g/t+] intercepts in the middle third of the core-log. The log also indicates that hole 19 intercepted the eastern boundary fault at c70m and may be further constrained by a south-easterly lateral dislocation from the western boundary fault. The boundary faults are redesignated Tesorito N & S in this video, which also refers to “two holes being drilled in opposite direction to better define Tesorito S.

I conclude from this that the spacial limitations of the PEPAS prospect and the consequent Au resource are now approximately as defined in my Jan 15 post and that further drilling at this location will be mainly infill to define criteria relating to industry standard resource definition and potential opencast exploitation. That will of course require further funding.

In the meantime it is possible that the “potential new targets north of PEPAS” indicated by recent fieldwork, may induce further shallow exploratory drilling within the existing budget, but perhaps 'sooner rather than later' a strategic decision will have to be made on whether to continue with ANZA-wide exploration or to prioritise exploitation of PEPAS or APTA within or without a JV.

For those who wisely rely on the geological data when evaluating their mining company investments I would advise extreme caution when considering the views of those who claim to be representing or interpreting the geoscience or geoscientists, but who themselves have no such specialisation or experience. Such caution would be especially timely and appropriate on this site.

AGEOS

Those who understand and are able to envisage the 3D structure of PEPAS as outlined in my 05.01.2025 and previous posts will have had no difficulty in assessing the significance of results from holes 16-18 recently released. Consequently I intend to add little to this and the anticipated stream of RNS updates regarding drill results other than to highlight any indicators of potentially significant increases in indicated resource.

Those in tune with the 3D structure will have realised that holes 16 and 17 [&17B] intercepted from surface to c60m downhole the mylonite thrust-fault zone which was also recorded in hole 15, thus confirming a western faulted boundary to mineralisation, inclined eastwards. An intercept in hole 16 of 43.7m @ 3.13 g/t Au from 61.8m downhole, including an interval of 14.65m @ 8.09 g/t Au does however add to the previously calculated resource in the form of an extension in part high-grade [8 g/t +] of c30m W. This is replicated in hole 17 [17B] with 4.25m @8.3 g/t Au immediately beneath the western fault thus indicating an 100m continuity of that high-grade zone between holes 16 and 17. In addition to this western extension of Au resource, hole 18 which intercepted 54.1m @ 6.01 g/t from surface to the eastern [“basement”] fault, confirmed the continuity of c6 g/t Au resource in the SE 50m3 block as defined in my 3D structural model.

These results add support [as in hole 18] to the 261,914oz Au indicated resource as defined in my 05.01.2025 post, with some indication [in holes 16 & 17B] of additional resource along the western margin still to be calculated. If hole 19 and any further drilling in the SE quadrant proves continuity of high-grade mineralisation in that direction this will add significantly to the prospect resource. The RNS description of the “mineralisation sitting within the keel of two roughly parallel faults that converge at depth with a southerly plunge” conforms with the structure as modelled in my 3D programme and as described, in the form of E & W low angle converging thrust faults, in my last post. At that time there was no evidence available of the possible displacement in continuity of mineralisation beyond the faults, so the RNS disclosure of recent field-work having revealed “substantial potential northward of the current body....with a view to developing new targets” is very encouraging in that respect.

AGEOS.