Member Info for AGEOS

Chuck1995

Re: your enquiry about a possible alternative link to yourself and others in Australia, regrettably I have insufficient time to do justice to a worthwhile exchange of information on such a basis. My interest in Empire is very much a spare-time activity as I have full-tome commitments elsewhere which must take priority. However, if you and your colleagues have any specific enquiries with which you think I might be able to help please feel free to voice them here on LSE. Best wishes.

AGEOS

The complete “Pitfield Exploration Target tonnage” thread has just been restored and is accessible if the page is refreshed; thanks to LSE control.

My thanks also to all who responded. Those requesting specific information will be answered as and when I have the time, probably over the weekend.

I note that my two-part post entitled “Pitfield Exploration Target tonnage” dated 06.05,2024 and timed at 13.36 & 13.39 has been removed, together with all subsequent posts which I recall continued the same thread, through to 09.05.2024 at 09.17 when a new thread was introduced. The post has also been removed from my post history.

Before I initiate enquiries as to why this has happened does anyone have any information of possible relevance. No conspiracy theories thank you.

AGEOS

Continuation:

Assuming that the host sandstones predominate throughout the stratigraphic sequence and maintain an approximate 60 degree easterly dip, then the minimum 1000m surface outcrop equates to 870m true thickness [ie the dimension at 90 degrees to the sandstone bedding-planes] and the depth as proven by the 150m drill holes, is 130m measured vertically from ground level. The minimum ore resource at Cosgrove is therefore 870m x 130m x 5000m = 565M [million] cu m which at 2.7sp g [approximate specific gravity of a mineralised sandstone] = 1525M tonnes. Obviously I have not accounted for overburden of which we know there is little, and have based the calculation on only 130m depth of opencast mining as indicated by the drilling.

Applying the same criteria to the Thomas property map the target area again varies between 1000m and a possible maximum of 1500m E-W, although several of the 2023 drill holes along the eastern margin such as 06.08, 09 & 010 fall below the 5.00% cut-off and therefore limit the E-W axis to the lower figure. The northern limit will probably be around the RC24TOM028 mark [assay pending] as the nearby 2023, 03 & 05 holes were both high grade, and the southerly extent will be at least 5400m as RC24TOM015 has assayed at 5.30%. RC24TOM014 for which assays are pending could add a further 1000m to that. Since the stratigraphy and structure appears to be similar to that of Cosgrove the minimum ore resource at Thomas can therefore be calculated as 870m x 130m x 5400 m = 610M cu m, which x 2.7 sp g = 1647M tonnes.

The official Exploration Target tonnage will be quantified using 3D Block Modelling into which all available data will have been input, thus eliminating overburden and low-grade or lithologically unsuitable rock-types such as conglomerates and siltstones. As the latter appears however to be a minor constituent of the c1000m, mainly sandstone sequence, I anticipate that the minimum ore tonnages will be as calculated, 1525M tonnes for Cosgrove and 1647M tonnes for Thomas +/- 15%.

AGEOS.

Towards the end of the recent 30.04.2024 Proactive Investors interview SB mentions that they will wait until the remaining assays [22 RC's and presumably the 4 DD holes] are received before releasing the next RNS update. He also intimates that since this will allow progress to the definition of an “Exploration Target” [presumably as defined on page 5 of the 25.04,2024 RNS] this too will be released as part of that RNS or as soon as possible subsequently. To conform to the JORC code an “Exploration Target” must be “a statement or estimate of the exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a defined geological setting where the statement or estimate, [is] quoted in a range of tonnes and a range of grades (or quality)....” It is a developmental stage prior to a JORC-based Mineral Resource Estimate [MRE] from which assessments of potential economic value can be made.

Since the geological structure of the two target areas of Cosgrove and Thomas are known [and I hope understood at least by those who have followed my posts on the subject], as is the extent of the drill-hole coverage, it is a relatively simple task to estimate in advance what the minimum ore-tonnage will be for both targets. I provided in posts on 03 & 20.12.2023, examples of ore-tonnage from some portions of both target areas but it is now possible to combine the data into regional estimates based on the drill collar location maps [Fig 3 for Cosgrove and Fig 4 for Thomas] included in RNS 26.04.2024.

Taking the Cosgrove map first and having superimposed onto that all the drill hole locations from the earlier drill programs it appears that using a TiO2 cut-off of c5.00% there is a target area varying between 1000m and 1500m E-W and extending from RC24COS015 in the N, for 5km southward to RC24COS026, 027 & 028 [all three assays pending]. South of this, assays from 7 holes on the KAD property in the 3.28% to 4.62% range, exclude this area.

To be continued

As emphasised in today's Proactive Investors interview, the current drill program is aimed at proving and evaluating the Pitfield TiO2 resource. There are however aspects of the program which will inevitably produce geological data of relevance to the potential for exploitation beyond that of the two Titanium targets. Of particular interest is a drill-hole well to the east of all others, on a property not previously drilled and for which assay results are pending

RC24HYN001, situated c3km east of the Cosgrove Target area and on the eastern edge of the 6km wide gravity anomaly, as shown in Fig 3 of the 25.04.2024 RNS [and fig 2 for regional context], is in a location well distanced from all other drill locations. The nearest Phase 1 hole, RC23COS014, 1.5km to the NW, although assaying 146m @ 3.32% TiO2 from 2.0m, is 2km east of the main target area and intercepted rocks at least 500m higher in the stratigraphic sequence than the sandstone host rocks of the main target. The HYN001 hole will be even higher in the Yandanooka stratigraphic sequence, well into the Mount Scratch Siltstones, and is the only drill-hole within the current Phase 2 drill program targeting such a speculative level. Why this drill location has been chosen is unclear so the assay results may prove to be of particular interest.

AGEOS.

Dustyslay re your enquiry of April 11th regarding my “thoughts on copper and other minerals coming into play” sorry for the belated reply; I don't follow this chat-board daily. There is a great deal I could add in response but it is perhaps best left until drill results justify discussion of the prospect of resources other than the current Titanium targets. What I would add as an indication of the potential for copper, and in addition to what I have previously posted on the subject, is the following:

During the 1960's, 2025ft of diamond drill-core from 6 holes, the precise locations of which are not recorded but which were in the vicinity of the South Arrino/Baxter mines, was obtained from an area which I estimate to be within 2km maximum, NW of the COS TiO2 target area currently being drilled. No assay results were disclosed at the time but subsequent visual inspection of the cores led to the conclusion that 46m thickness of Cu mineralisation occurred along a strike length of 800m within a c100m thick sandstone, probably unconformable on the Mulingarra Gneiss or above a discontinuous conglomerate or thin siltstone horizon. This stratigraphic relationship, and consequent potential mineralisation, probably extends along the 30km+ Mulingarra Gneiss/Yandanooka sequence contact zone on the western margin of the Pitfield licence area and may be a target for future exploratory drilling.

This is however just one of the many Cu anomalies within the Pitfield region.

AGEOS.

FUZZY1014 regarding performance-based payment (ii), the JORC Code 2012 specifications do not allow for Ti, or any other element to be used in equivalence calculations in defining a Mineral Resource, if that element constitutes more than 50% of the stated Mineral Resource as will be the case with the Pitfield TiO2 resource. Thus in the RNS (ii) example, “250Kt Cu metal equivalent” this must include at least 50% Cu with the balance obviously comprised of other metal elements quantified in terms of 'equivalence'. See JORC Code 2012 Clause 50 Reporting of Metal Equivalents relates to polymetallic deposits. Hope that makes sense.

Genghis15 is correct in highlighting those aspects of the JV Agreement with Century, as detailed in the 06.04.2022 RNS, which detail performance-based payments [ as posted by FUZZY1014 as I type] based specifically on Cu and Au prospects at any of the three Projects [ie Pitfield, Walton & Stavely].

I have, successfully I hope, explained that Exploration Licences based on Western Australian Mining legislation allow prospecting for all “minerals” other than the few exceptions I referred to in my 09.04.2024 post [ie limestones, rock, gravel etc], so the JV specific reference to “Copper-Gold Projects” does not imply restrictions on prospecting and exploitation to those elements alone.

The JV performance-based payments [as detailed on page 3 of the 06.04.2022 RNS] are however specific to those two elements [Cu & Au] alone and will remain in force for five years from the date of tenement acquisition. If the JV Agreement does extend such provisions to “other elements and/or minerals” this would have had to be disclosed to the market as being “market sensitive information”. As it has not been so disclosed we can assume that the TiO2 resource discovery is not subject to a similar performance-based payment or an equivalent. I'm sure that Ed Baltis and Steve Hart [Century Minerals Ltd] will not lose any sleep over that.

This opportunity also prompts me to highlight the fact that nine months after the JV Agreement with Century was signed, the Empire-Century JV legal entity [it is important to differentiate this from the two constituent companies] applied for and was granted two Exploration Licences of 426.7 sq km, additional to the two original Licences of 615 sq km at Pitfield. [ref RNS 13.12.2022]. The two additional Licences are, E70/6620 which includes a 20km northward extension of the Darling Fault zone and a portion of the Yilgarn Craton which is adjacent to an area recently surveyed by SR Resources as their Three Springs Nickel-Copper-PGE [Platinum Group Elements] project, and E70/6323 including a 20km southern extension of the Darling Fault zone and part of the Yilgarn Craton bordering Chalice Mining's Barrabarra Nickel-Copper-PGE Exploration Project. Both Licences therefore extend into part of the newly recognised West Yilgarn Ni-Cu-PGE Mineral Province to which Empire will no doubt extend its exploratory interest in time. Perhaps the Empire-Century JV should now be renamed, with regard to Pitfield, the prospective Ti-Cu-Ni-PGE-base-metal Project.

AGEOS..

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

Continuation:

In contrast, the maiden drill programme of early 2023 was targeting a prospective sediment-hosted strata-bound copper deposit [SSC] as strongly indicated by all the then available evidence. Significantly, although it was titanium enrichment which proved to be the predominant find, the prospect for SSC type mineralisation higher in the stratigraphic succession, ie east of the high-grade titanium targets, still remains, as does the prospect of associated silver or cobalt [the two do not occur together]. The extent of the regional copper mineralisation is indicated by the 21 hole maiden drill programme which confirmed an average of 131 ppm copper in 60% of the samples assayed. This equates to a 0.0131% content, which for 60% of the 320sq km minimum area of the Mt Scratch Siltstones east to the Darling Fault, approximates to 2.25M metric tonnes of copper for every 10m of depth. That is a lot of copper from which one or more SSC type deposits could have formed by aqueous leaching and redox-deposition within the 9000m thick Mt Scratch sequence.

Although drill programmes for the immediate future will concentrate on proving up the TiO2 resource of the TOM and COS targets, they will include some further exploratory drilling, so there is the possibility of chance discovery of other potential deposits, most probably either of SSC type or of the more localised structural/metamorphic event type setting.

AGEOS.

The report entitled 'Petrography and Mineralogy Results' which accompanied the March 5th RNS, contained information relating to the hydrothermal and subsequent events which it is thought have determined the mineralogical characteristics of the Yandanooka Basin. With the understandable focus of interest on the TiO2 component of that mineralisation many will be unaware of the wider context of the Yandanooka Basin being a potential 'mineral province' hosting other mineral deposits.

The report confirms two hydrothermal events on a regional scale. The first introducing significant enrichment of the elements Ca [calcium], Ti [titanium], Mg [magnesium], Al [aluminium] and Fe [iron], and secondary 'elevated' amounts of Co [cobalt], Cr [chromium], Cu [copper], Ni [nickel] and Zn [zinc], to which I would add Ag [silver] from evidence of extensive Cu/Ag anomalies reported by CRA in 1993 from near Mt Scratch in the north and over a 7km N-S trend in the south.. Fe-enrichment is stated as the main input from the second hydrothermal event, resulting in conversion of magnetite to hematite and intergrowth with ilmenite to form the hemo-ilmenite end of the hemo-ilmenite/titano-ilmenite sequence. This was a basin-scale event during which hot oxidising fluids were likely to have leached the 'elevated' elements from the Yandanooka sediments and underlying Mullingarra gneiss [proven to be significantly depleted of Cu and other metals by BHP in 1984 from 4 deep diamond drill-cores] and deposited them within the higher sandstone/siltstone sequence upon contact with reductants such as graphite.

What is of particular significance with respect to the elements with 'elevated' values is the recognition of a third and much later phase, not of hydrothermal nature, but designated as a structural-metamorphic event which included carbonate veining. This refers to a time when the rocks were subjected to considerable lateral compression, and probable heating due to friction and much deeper crustal burial, such that, as the geology maps indicate, large sections were displaced horizontally along thrust-faults. Under such conditions pore-fluids in rocks are mobilised, constituent minerals may be destabilised and elements taken into solution. If local conditions are favourable those elements may be redeposited and accumulate to form economic mineral deposits. Suitable local conditions include fault-zones, the axial-planes of folds, soluble rocks such as limestones, and any highly porous/permeable rock-type or sequence. Most if not all of the historical copper mining in the Yandanooka Basin [ie Baxter and Arrino Mines in the west and historical prospecting shafts near Mt Scratch] appear to have been located in such structural/lithological settings and to be the product of this third event.

To be continued

Solstace

Although you quote correctly and this statement appears to contradict the interpretation I have provided, the two are in fact compatible because titanite has a variable and often quite low proportion of TiO2 as a constituent. Thus a sample can contain 20% by weight of titanite but still only constitute 4.08% by weight of TiO2. I could explain this in far greater detail but it would take some time to compile all the technical data, so I hope this will suffice for now.

Oldslow65

The 67% you quote is “67% of the total contained TiO2” not 67% of the ore. So for example, it is 67% of the 6.10% TiO2 assayed from DD23TOM001 from the southern target zone ie the Thomas property. Hence titanite constitutes 4.08% of the total TiO2 and the combined Ti-Fe oxides, ilmenites and rutiles, which constitute the remaining 33% of the total TiO2 constitute 2.02% of that total. At least, that is how I interpret the data in the most recent RNS and technical report.

Continuation:

Relevant examples from Russia include the selective mining of titanite ore from the Khibiny massif Koashva complex apatite-nepheline-titanite deposit which occurs as lens-shaped units up to 50m thick and 5km in length. The ore, which contains 2.4-2.9% titanite CaSiTiO5, is processed without preliminary concentration, in flotation cells, and then dissolved in sulfuric acid to produce titanyl-sulfate for titanosilicate synthesis. This has numerous industrial applications. Other examples, from the Murmansk region, involve hydrochloric acid leaching and calcination, as envisaged in the Pitfield flowsheet, of a titanite-nepheline-fluorapatite-titanomagnetite-fluorspar ore to produce a feedstock for waterproof paint pigment [Patent RU-2177016 registered 2004 from which a vinylacetate paint is produced] and a filler for high-tech glues and sealants used in the aerospace industry. Whilst this constitutes only a tiny portion of the total titanium industry in Russia, titanite being rarely present in commercial quantity anywhere, it illustrates that processes exist for its exploitation and there is no reason why analogous processes cannot be developed for the Pitfield ore.

All reference sources for the above are in Russian and from contact with the Kola Science Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, but some may recall a link posted months ago [for which, thanks to whoever it was] to a 2016 research paper entitled 'Titanite processing by hydrobromic acid leaching and carbochlorination', which although referring to deposits in China, was authored by five Russian metallurgists from the Russian Academy of Sciences at Krasnoyarsk in central Siberia. In this paper they refer to the pre-2009 experimental-industrial scale, 1500t/year, production of titanite concentrate from the Khibiny ore, by the Apatit company and to the processing limitations presented by the calcium content in the concentrate. As I've detailed above, those limitations have not prevented processing of the titanite and its industrial exploitation. For the Chinese ilmenite-titanite ore they propose hydrobromic acid leaching to remove the calcium and carbochlorination to produce titanium tetrachloride [TiCl4] which is an intermediate used in the production of TiO2 [as synthetic rutile], of pigments and titanium sponge, and is of crucial importance as a catalyst in the synthesis and polymerization of polyolefins in the petrochemical industry, To date, ilmenite and rutile ores are the most important source for titanium tetrachloride production.

Whilst at only the initial stage of development of a processing and production plan for the Pitfield titanium resource I have no doubt that a solution will be formulated this year, as per the project development plan [ref March 2024 Presentation, page 13].

AGEOS.

The March 5th RNS and associated technical report relating to Pitfield TiO2 mineralogy and metallurgical studies, whilst being extremely positive in every respect, has it appears been interpreted somewhat negatively by the 'market'. From a market capitalisation of £57m on that day we hit a low of £45m two days ago, way below the Jan 9th peak of £76m. From chat-board comment and the most recent Shard Capital analysts note it appears that the decline in value can be largely attributed to the mistaken belief that there is significant uncertainty in the development of a metallurgical process suitable for conversion of the titanite mineral component of the ore into a synthetic rutile grade [>90% TiO2] product. This uncertainty is based on the correct assertion that the Pitfield mineralogy is unique and consequently there are no comparable commercially operating titanite mines elsewhere in the world. From that it is concluded that the development of such a metallurgical process will be problematic and may prove impossible..

Such a conclusion is fundamentally misguided. Not only are there well tested and functional titanite production and processing operations in the Kola region of Russia, but there is also a huge data-base of analogous titanium metallurgical processes both experimental and operational to draw upon. The latter is evidenced by the fact that there are currently over 460 patent 'families' describing the production of TiO2 from ilmenite-predominant ores alone [ref World Intellectual Property Organization 2022]. These patents cover all the stages in the Preliminary Metallurgical Process Flowsheet detailed on page 5 of the RNS including the 'wet gravity', 'flotation', 'acid leach' and 'calcination' processes, with variations in process related to the mineralogical characteristics of the specific ores. The Pitfield ore, comprised of titanite [67% of total TiO2] and Ti-Fe oxides + titano-hemo-ilmenite + rutile-leucoxene [33% of total TiO2], will likewise require variations in the process stages analogous to those for ilmenite-predominant ores.

To be continued

I see that the LSE 'AI' decided to replace all capital letters with lower case in the second of these posts so hope readers can still make sense of it. You will have to rely on the punctuation to differentiate sentence beginning and ends.

Continuation:

This is not a “highly altered sandstone” as posted by some, and its mineralogy strongly indicates an origin from erosion of the regional Mullingarra Gneiss. Its mineralogy also has affinities with the adjacent HM Sand deposits of Yandanooka and Durack.

The Yandanooka HM Sand deposit is located approximately 10km west of Mount Scratch whilst that of Durack is approx 16m west of the TOM target area. Both are relict coastal dune deposits accumulated during the Eocene c30-50m years ago along a former shoreline and are derived from erosion of the Yandanooka Basin sedimentary rocks of Pitfield and the Mullingarra Gneiss. Although described as “sand deposits” they are weakly cemented sandstones, easily disaggregated by natural weathering or machine processing. Yandanooka has a heavy mineral [HM] content of 2.6% totalling 1.84 million tonnes, comprised of 62% ilmenite, 10% leucoxene, 7% rutile and 11.5% zircon [zirconium silicate]. Importantly, according to a study by Iluka Resources, the ilmenite has a very high TiO2 content of 64.7%, sufficient to indicate suitability as feed for chloride process pigment production or synthetic rutile production. Both deposits were acquired by Image Resources from Sheffield Resources in late 2021.

As the ilmenite [and other HM's] at Yandanooka must in part [at least], or whole, be derived from the Pitfield-Yandanooka Basin deposits it is reasonable to anticipate that the Pitfield high-grade TiO2 targets will be comprised of a similar HM assemblage and most importantly of a high TiO2-ilmenite. Leucoxene [TiO2 65-90%] has also been confirmed in Pitfield samples and interestingly, the Enokkura Sandstone petrographic analysis described above refers to the quartz component of the constituent rock-fragment inclusions as containing “abundant unidentified monominerallic needles” which are most likely to be of rutile [TiO2 c95%] as the rock fragments appear to be of granitoid gneiss derived from the local Mullingarra Gneiss. The impending mineralogical analysis of the DD cores should confirm these and other characteristics.

Anyone with access to professional level stock-market trading data will know that there is evidence of possible orchestrated trading in EEE shares for several months. Inevitably that will have been exacerbated by retail traders following the trading trends and some will have posted with consequential bias. Throughout such times more ethically principled investors need to concentrate on the verifiable factual basis of their investment. Hopefully the above will contribute to that basis. Finally a special thanks to those who, on a different board, expressed appreciation of these efforts. Without that I would probably not have provided this contribution.

AGEOS.

continuation:

on 11.06.23, and several times subsequently, i emphasised the unique nature of the pitfield regional-scale mineralogical province, as the context for what is now accepted by the geoscience community as being “a newly recognised type of strata-based sedimentary rock-hosted titanium deposit”. again, as previously stated, there are no comparable deposits anywhere in the world, and unless and until those who claim there are, can provide published data proving otherwise, that remains the case. an online search for “ titanium in sandstone” will, as posted on a***n tue/wed last week, produce references to the yaregskoye/pizhemskoye ti 'sandstone' of russia, claimed to be the world's largest ti 'resource' [80% of russian reserves], known for 60 years but never exploited and unlikely to be so, due to the complex mineralogy. the ensuing 'debate' has no doubt raised investor scepticism regarding the viability of pitfield, so before the misinformation infects this chat-board these are the most relevant facts.

the pizhemskoye deposit, described as a zircon-ilmenite-leucoxene sandstone [4.27% tio2] is itself unique in that it is a quartzite [a recrystallized sandstone] containing ti in the form of pseudorutile-leucoxene, a complex polymineralic aggregate introduced by hydrothermal-metamorphogenetic processes [ie alteration by mineral bearing high temperature aqueous solutions]. the temperature/pressure was sufficient to melt and recrystallize the quartz [sio2] such that the pseudorutile and leucoxene incorporates up to 40% sio2 and has imposed phased substitution of ti atoms with fe [iron] and v [vanadium] atoms, thereby imposing severe constraints on effective processing of the ore. an associated deposit, the yarega oil-titanium sandstone[10.44% tio2] is a metamorphosed leocoxene 'sandstone' [quartzite] with similar limitations on potential processing. in short neither deposit has any relevance whatever to the potential processing of the pitfield deposit. any suggestion that the pitfield tio2 sandstones present processing challenges similar to those of the russian deposits is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

returning to pitfield, the high-grade tio2 sandstones of the cos and tom target areas, are feldspathic quartz sandstones which have been subjected to hydrothermal mineralization. analysis of a co**** grained sample from the enokurra sandstone, which is the stratigraphic unit most likely to equate to the “high-grade tio2 sandstones” shows a mineral composition of quartz 67%, microcline & oligoclase feldspar 15% [varies from 10-43%], rock fragments [mainly of quartz + microcline + mica] 14% [varies from 5-15%], and minor accessory minerals, clay and oxides including limonite 4% total [the latter two providing the cement]. significantly, the sample contained 3% by weight of 'heavy minerals' including ilmenite [62% of total hm], garnet [30%], apatite [6%] and zircon [1%].

to be continued

Those who have read and understood my previous posts regarding Pitfield will have anticipated and appreciated the significance of much of what has been disclosed by the RNS releases of recent months, which is why I have not commented since my last contribution, on Dec 20th. That post was primarily concerned with the resource implications of the Dec 19th RNS regarding initial drill assay results, with calculations of the ore tonnage for parts of the TOM and COS target areas. I also commented on the structural and stratigraphic implications of those core-logs in respect of the possible dimensions of the high-grade TiO2 resource. In particular I mentioned that the sandstones within the Beaconsfield Formation of the COS target appeared to have a strike of 9km and that RC hole COS004, 1km to the west, indicated an additional high-grade sandstone which stratigraphically might be within the Enokurra Formation, with implications for a very substantial resource extending up to 18km southwards including the western edge of the TOM target..

The Jan 22nd RNS, providing assay results for the majority of the 40 RC drillhole programme, appears to confirm those conclusions, further evidenced by the Feb 5th RNS announcing an extension of the next drill programme southwards for 7km in both the COS and TOM target areas [Fig 2 of RNS] thus including the Enokurra Sandstone Formation as mapped historically. I have refrained from offering a detailed analysis of the Jan 22nd RNS results in favour of a combined analysis which will be possible after completion of the next drill programme. Results from the latter should allow improvements to my structural model of the targets and enable a JORC compliant ore resource to be estimated. Those who have understood previous resource estimations will at least be aware of most of the relevant criteria, from which the potential resource from both TOM and COS will already be apparent.

Aside from the resource data, the other important development arising from recent RNS releases has been that relating to ore mineralogy and processing, including the appointment of a specialist team to manage the metallurgical test work and formulate the processes through to product development. Although I have made frequent reference to aspects of the mineralogy [eg 16.07.23], including the possible metallogenesis [see detailed 01.10.23 post], and various options relating to processing [ 11.06.23 ], these have largely been ignored by contributors here. Understandably, now that investor scepticism regarding the magnitude and grade of the TiO2 resource has effectively been nullified, attention has turned to the ore mineralogy, metallurgy and processing.

to be continued