Member Info for Kongolasse

Agreed IFOXXX

Hi IFOXXX, thanks, I don't profess to have the legal definition clear, and the lawyers I have available are contract law lawyers, not mining specific. Their concern is about the interpretation of what's excluded specifically (and why) and wether there is room for interpretation of what constitutes the excluded minerals and the form of that material.

Your example about glass is excellent as its a highly refined product with very clear and strong bonding of materials.

It gets harder to argue if you use a sand-castle as the example. (Closer to our reality one might argue)

This is not something that can be left open for interpretation or up to the courts, it should be straight forward for the company to answer with a simple statement of "mutual agreement that EEE and CM are in agreement to share the Ti find rights 70-30".

Hi FUZZY1014, Only the RNS wording has been released (06 04 22), hence my request for clarification.

GL, GTA.

4Kandles, I'll try to be equally polite;

The processing methodology is not what will be defining EEE's rights to the minerals within as per the Pitfileld acquisition terms. It does not matter if its scooped, hosed, blasted or drilled.

The wording of the RNS specifies mineral sands. Sandstone and Mineral Sands are very closely related, and there is not legal boundary between the two.

Here is a definition of sandstone;

"Sandstone, a sedimentary rock, is formed when grains of sand are compacted and cemented together over thousands or millions of years"

Century minerals clearly believe that they have mineral sands in Pitfield as it's included in the acquisition terms.

It should be very simple to get a quick response from EEE, but I haven't (apparently others haven't either) so I'll keep at it until I get one.

It's kinda critical to to the idea of this project being of value to EEE shareholders.

GL, GTA.

Thanks IFOXXX,

"I disagree with your comment “if you crush sandstone you get sand”, if you crush anything up enough you would have what looks like a “sand” crush a gold bar enough the result is not gold “sand” if it ends up being grain like."

The problem is that the origin of the mineral in the sand is not what worries me, but the fact that Century believes it has "mineral sands" in Pitfield and specifically excluded EEE the rights to it.

The problem is that the origin of sandstone is that it's sand that has been compacted. So does that mean that Is it "mineral sands"? well, if you go by the definition of what "mineral sands" are then YES. If you ask a lawyer for a hard yes/no he gets very nervous.

The composition of our "sandstone with Ti" is compacted sand granules with a binding agent (silica etc). In its rock form it's still compacted granules of sand that (thankfully, from a processing perspective) can be easily reverted back to its sand form for processing.

I don't want to try to sound alarmist about it, but the two (contract) lawyers I've consulted about this clause have not been very positive in their answers, hence my insistence on a clear answer from the company.

GL, GTA.

Dusty, at this stage I have very few concerns about drilling results. They've drilled enough to prove a gigantic resource. It's beyond question in my mind, and the grades look very good assuming Titanite is handled well. I don't think drilling results are going to vary significantly, or drive the SP up or down in any meaningful way. It's all down to the feasibility of the project now...

The outstanding questions for me are:

1. Need to prove extractability at scale of the Ti out of the Titanite, TiFeO and ilmenite/rutile. (Demo plant needed)

2. Commercially attractive process options that (combine?) mechanical crushing, grinding/flotation(?) and acid leaching, heat. etc... (Lab results in the next few months?)

3. Any contractual practical questions (Century JV / Sands), Environmental (Nature reserves/National Parks around Pitfield) and Mining permits etc. (More info soon hopefully)

As I've mentioned many times before, it's looking very promising and I've been in for many years now, but to pretend there are no question marks is disingenuous. This very company (well; the shareholders) were badly burned by very poor decisions and legal situation with their JV partner in the past. Asking the "stupid question" if both companies are in full agreement about Pitfields TiO find is not out of place this time around, no matter how obvious it sounds.

GL, GTA.

Rupple, Ghengis and others; IF Century did not believe they had mineral sands in Pitfield, why would they have a clause specifically excluding it in the acquisition terms? (Sandstone is compacted (mineral) sand with silica or quartz as the binding agent. Good luck finding a universally accepted legal definition on the difference...)

Either way, the answer should be very simple from EEE (or better yet; Through EEE from Century Minerals) yet I haven't got any answer, hence my insistence on this.

GL, GTA.

Crushed sandstone is sand, in our case mineral sand.

Clearly Century felt it was important enough to have a separate clause about.

I've sent the question twice and still waiting for a response from EEE.

Has anyone else managed to get one about this?

So, I have been away for a while....

I only have one simple question remaining:

Has ANYONE managed to get any clarification from EEE on the Pitfield acquisition terms regarding the mineral sands clause with Century Minerals?

Cheers and GL, GTA.

FWIW I think this will do exactly like conventional mines on that curve.

The studies, JORC and lab tests alone are not enough to give this the $BN valuation we all want, especially in a product where its processing and refining is 90%+ of its cost and sale value.

(It's all good and well having a product that can sell at 5K/tonne, but not much point if it costs 6K to produce.)

Same goes for permitting, the clarification on that very dodgy JV clause and others.... no, I think they'll make us wait and work for that SP to reach the stars...

Hopeful as ever. GTA.

And the oceans are full of free hydrogen.

I wonder so many of us insist on putting expensive refined gasoline in our tanks instead of going to the beach and scooping limitless hydrogen up in buckets?

Any ideas?

As For EEE, It will be worth what it is until there is credible indications that Titanite is extractable at scale and on commercially attractive terms.

I've placed my bets.

GL, GTA.

Oldslow65, yes, agreed. Now to be clear; my figures are probably wrong (maybe/probably by a factor of 10 or more!)

We have no idea or way to work out the costs (benfication/energy/acid etc) beyond the basic guessing around scooping ut up with the big yellow earthmovers...(10USD/ton?)

But, the proof will be in the pudding.

I've stumbled across some new grant info from Australia, that might (or might not) have something to do with SB's recent talk about not just a POC, or Pilot, but the whole way to a "Demonstration Plant"... Also no idea what that would cost, but I'd assume 10's of millions AUD.

Coincidence?;

Https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/king/media-releases/grants-strengthen-international-critical-minerals-partnerships

(Grant available from $2-20M co-funded at 50%. Https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/international-partnerships-in-critical-minerals )

____________________________________________________________________________

Grants to strengthen international critical minerals partnerships

14 February 2024

The Albanese Government is securing international supply chains for the critical minerals needed to build renewable energy networks and to support the defence industry.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Madeleine King has opened applications for a $40 million international partnerships program to build end-to-end critical minerals supply chains.

Applications for the grants can include:

Pilot and demonstration plants, capacity expansions, and research and development activities;

Development or commercialisation of technology and intellectual property;

Critical minerals processing technologies; and

Development of downstream processing capability.

The minimum grant amount will be $2 million and the maximum grant amount will be $20 million.

Minister King said the four-year grant program would strengthen Australia’s international engagement on critical minerals and support cooperation with global partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, India, the Republic of Korea, the European Union and its member states.

“Secure supply chains for our critical minerals are essential if we want to build the windfarms, solar panels and batteries we need to reach net zero,” Minister King said.

“These supply chains will also be essential in working with our allies and friends in developing technology needed by defence industry.

“These grants support our Critical Minerals Strategy, which will build Australia’s sovereign capability in critical minerals processing, diversify global supply chains and help Australia become a clean energy superpower.”

Critical minerals are crucial to low-emissions technologies such as electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines, and are also important for modern defence and medical technologies.

More information on the grant guidelines and how to apply are available on the Department of Industry, Science and Resources gr

I had missed it too! thanks bankrupty!

Also, another article out; (nothing new perhaps, but it all adds up)

https://www.ig.com/uk/news-and-trade-ideas/empire-metals-was-one-of-the-best-aim-stocks-of-2023--more-to-co0-240307

GL, GTA.

I like yours (and Andii's) better than mine Metis! :)

Thanks Andii. Not fair to complain and then not do better... let me try;

(I think Titanite is 18.16% Ti, and Ti is about 60% of Ti02 )

Findings in Pitfield seem to be reported as 5-7% TiO2 (67% of this Titanite, 18.16% of the Titanite that is Ti) sooo...

18.16 is pure Ti in Titanite, (to get Ti02 would Ti +40%.)

So if we had a ton (1000Kg) of paydirt: 70Kg would be TiO2 (7%), out of which titanite would be about 47Kg (67% of TiO2), out of which 8.5Kg (16.18%) would be pure Ti, (or about 12Kg would be TiO2.)

(I.e. 1.2% of the TiO2 in the paydirt would come from Titanite)

If we then assume the other Ti minerals can be processed in the same sequence (same grinding, crushing, acids etc)

Then we got Ti-Fe oxides (14~22%) and Ilmenite (7~16%) and "rutile group oxides" (3~4%)

So; out of the 70Kg we'd expect:

Ti-Fe oxides: max 15.4Kg (at about 35% Ti)= 5.4Kg Ti = 7.55Kg TiO2

Ilmenite; max 11.2Kg (at about 32% Ti) = 3.6Kg Ti = 5Kg TiO2

rutile group oxides; max 2.8Kg (at about 60% Ti) = 1.68 Ti = 2.35Kg TiO2

So, If I add;

12Kg +7.55Kg +5Kg+2.35Kg I get.....27Kg...

So, unless my old maths teacher is turning in her grave now, I think that's 2.7% TiO2......

(so quite far from the 7% we'd expect, per tonne processed. What did I miss?

to get 1 tonne of pure TiO2 I need to process 37 Tonnes if the above is correct?

GL, GTA.

Amica1, I don't think there's been any change in value, just perceived risk on the way.

The value *might* even be better that first thought, if the process is more straight forward than others, the problem is that this is unchartered territory, and markets price that accordingly.

Here is the composition from the latest presentation:

• Titanite, a calcium titanium silicate mineral, accounts for ~67% of the total contained TiO2 and makes up around 20% of the ore by mass.

• Ti bearing Fe oxides (14-22%), ilmenite (7- 16%) and rutile group minerals (Ti-Oxides) (3-4%) account for the rest.

GL, GTA.

Thx ML, I should have been clearer; I don't think the value has changed at all, and at the end of the rainbow the pot of gold is just as big as it was at 14p, but the markets' risk perception of it has probably changed quite a lot.

Large investors will be shyer, and the majors will now have to "trust but verify" to a much greater level than a "traditional" rutile or ilmenite deposit would have meant.

But, on the other hand, the sheer scale is probably still enough to lift eyebrows and real interest from far and wide.

Also the WA Gov should be all over this as it has the scale to be quite important beyond just a mining company...

Ho hum, no jam today.

Pleased to have picked up a few more none the less.

GL, GTA.

Manlord, we often agree, but IMO there is a fundamental shift here.

We knew that Pitfield was unique in terms of scale, and the fact that it did not match with either beach sand deposits or hard rock mines elsewhere meant some uncertainty, but the cat among the pigeons is when it's neither Rutile, or Ilmenite or a mix as most expected it to be, but rather... tadaaaa; 67% Titanite...(=Unheard of, unproven, untested.)

This also means that the long list of Majors that will throw in an early bid to secure what could be the worlds largest TiO2 deposit just shrank substantially and the long and windy path to "proving it" just became reality.

Now, don't get me wrong. The iphone, uber and amazon were all unheard of too, and I don't doubt that SB knows his stuff, but our path just changed from a walk on the beach to a walk through the jungle.

Perhaps a "buying opportunity" for LTH, and "get out" for the traders.

GL, GTA.

MM's know how to shake'em for starters....

AGEOS hopefully has some thoughts on the latest news, and particularly the interview that surfaced yesterday.

I get the distinct feeling this is quite the bargain at current valuations....

GL, GTA.

....All it takes is one cheeky bid from a major to launch this SP into orbit....

;)