Member Info for LoveHandles

Now regarding the heavily weathered zone ie top 10m or otherwise termed "saprolite".

EEE's RNS recent indicates that TIMA and BSE images have identified significant rutile and anatase in the saprolite. However, this is a weathering alteration product of titanite - see here: https://tinyurl.com/5c8bwh8r

“Titanite may alter to a fine-grained aggregate of Ti-oxides such as rutile or anatase.”

It is my belief that in the case of Pitfield, it can fairly be assumed that fine-grained rutile+-anatase occurs as the alteration products of titanite. These fine grains often occur as rims on the other reaction product of titanite weathering, being quartz. Studies show titanite decomposes to relatively porous grains …which contain siliceous material in addition to fine rutile+-anatase.

My view: There is close to zero chance EEE will be able to produce any sort of marketable titanium mineral (rutile+anatase) OR (rutile ony) concentrate from the surface saprolite material, and noting that generally any anatase in the rutile will be seen as an impurity (unsaleable also). The altered composite porous grains will likely not be heavy enough to gravity concentrate, and if broken apart will go to the very fine slimes fraction and never be concentrated into a saleable direct-ship product. Remember, rutile at sub 45um - 70um is generally not saleable to pigment producers given the limitations of their chlorinator technology.

I have indicated in previous posts that EEE should provide some proof that the rutile/ anatase in the 40m top weathered zone can be separated into clean and discrete saleable minerals. I suggested that showing QEMSCAN images might be one way to do this, amongst others. AGEOS has correctly pointed out that in an old RNS (March) EEE has provided some electron microscope images of unweathered titanite ore from below the 40m weathered zone. First comment - this does not give any answers on the "new" weathered saprolite rutile/ anatase.

Secondly, I think the results EEE show in the RNS do not bode particularly well for disaggregation or beneficiation of the titanite material into something that could be acid leached.

Textural issue: The main claimed ore mineral of titanite is formed paragenetically late and fills the pore spaces. According to the RNS they show poor morphology and are therefore less likely to be able to form discrete grains able to be isolated and concentrated.

Issue with wet gravity separation of fresh rock: 90% of the TiO2 reported to 80-84% of the mass. THIS SHOWS THAT GRAVITY CONCENTRATION HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE. THE FIRST STEP OF THE METALLURGY HAS FAILED.

You are left with an essentially un-upgraded, low grade mix of Ti silicates and Fe+- Ti oxides.

Manlord - Impossible that SB dealt with this in April video interview.

They only announced the discovery of the weathered surface material on 5th June.

It would only cost a few thousand pounds to demonstrate they can produce marketable rutile from the 10m of weathered material.

Based on my geological knowledge, I believe it is only a hypothetical question as to whether EEE can prove they have marketable or commercially valuable titanium minerals. I am being polite in my posts. I can't see geologically how it is scientifically possible for them to have a saleable natural rutile product.

If this were an typical exploration company where they were drilling and the question was whether or not their drilling would intercept gold/ copper or nickel mineralisation, then yes, I would be able to answer the question about what the correct entry price might be - risk adjusted for my particular geological and financial risk appetite. BUT this is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a company claiming that they have discovered valuable titanium minerals without them providing enough evidence of their value. And the fact that they have already published the % rutile/ anatase in the surface material, indicates to me that EEE probably already have the answers (or at least a very strong indication) regarding the question about the deportment of the rutile. It is something that a few thousand pounds of testwork can quickly and definitively answer. So why are investors and the market left waiting for this all important detail? Their approach to market disclosure doesn't sit well with me as an investor - full stop.

i will outline yet again the likely potential issues with processing the top 10m material and where eee need to provide absolute clarity:

- the anatase/ rutile product eee report is derived from weathered titanite. therefore it is very likely not possible to separate clean grains of rutile from the anatase/ titanite and calcite since they will be chemically joined. very likely to be present as weathering rims of rutile / anatase around grains of titanite. these wont be separable by simple physical beneficiation processes.

- anatase derived directly from mining a deposit does not result in a saleable product. these is no such commercial product sold in the market today. the anatase product that a poster refers to, from tronox, is a product derived from the chemical purification of ilmenite/ rutile/ synthetic rutile/ titania **** by the complex chloride process. it is not a "mined" anatase. these products are not substitutable. so pointing to tronox's anatase product is a falsehood.

- there is no product commercially sold today that is a mixed rutile/ anatase product derived directly from mining. the anatase is essentially a waste and worthless material in that form. rutile with anatase in it will generally not be saleable.

therefore eee need to publish to market undeniable evidence that the weathered titanite can yield a saleable rutile product using standard mineral sands processing flowsheets (ie not chemical or pyromet processes).

- the rutile, if they can separate it, will only be valuable if it has a particle size greater than 45 to 75 micron (depending on end user requirements). given it is derived from weathered titanite in this deposit, it is more likely the grain size distribution will skew to the lower size fractions.

so as you can see, eee declaring that they have percentages of a mixed rutile/ anatase titanium dioxide in the top 10 meters doesnt even go close to confirming that they have commercially valuable and saleable titanium minerals from the saprolite deposit.

Manlord - forget promoting to the Australian market. For you its a bad idea.

EEE should avoid promoting this hard in Australia because the Australian market participants, being generally wiser when it comes to geology, mining and metallurgy, will drive a bus right through the narrative. Just like I have.

Show is the Qemscan SB!!

Show us the clean, separated grains of rutile. It is not difficult. This type of analysis, or a polished section, should cost a couple thousand quid and be able to be turned around in a matter of weeks. Show us the particle size distribution and an analysis of the quality of the intended “marketable product”. And if EEE says again- “why would we bother selling rutile…we will just go direct to pigment and sell that”…then you all have an even bigger problem on your hands.

Good luck pushing any EEE narrative in the Australian market without these basic and fundamental pieces of information.

I thought it my civic duty to remind this forum of what I wrote in March. My view hasn't changed. If I was the board of EEE I would triple check with my corporate lawyers. In fact, I would consider reporting any Pitfield resource estimate or exploration target under a less demanding code than JORC, maybe the Pan European PERC Code.

eee's plan for an mre is very much flawed, and would be interesting to see what the jorc committee's view is.

as the rns states: a mineral resource estimate ("mre") is a measure of a body of mineralisation that in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

can anyone tell me how eee can demonstrate "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" if they haven't completed the processing test work? some people forget that a jorc mre is not just an inventory of the amount of titanium in the ground, in conjunctuion the competent person signing off needs to be able to demonstrate that there are "reasonable prospects of economic extraction". particularly tough when there are no credible titanite operations of any scale in the world to point to as examples. (oh - i forgot - there are some russian examples - reminds me of a joke: "what's big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a ****load of smoke and noise and cuts an apple into three pieces? a russian machine made to cut apples into four pieces").

The best asset EEE have is UK retail investors who dont have a clue about the mining industry. I have no gripe with that. Good luck to all. Dont say you weren’t warned.

Dont waste your energy arguing with me. If I was you, I’d focus my efforts on asking SB to publish to market undeniable evidence that the weathered titanite can yield a saleable rutile product using standard mineral sands processing flowsheets (ie not chemical or pyromet processes). Then we’ll either get the answer you all want…or another “fudge and pivot”. I don’t care how many ex-BHP metallurgists EEE have. I doubt they can change the fundamental natural laws of geology and chemistry.

Looks like a "pivot" to me.

Titanite doesnt work commercially, so try to make some noise about something that could work.

The weathered material wont be verifiably commercial until they publish a Qemscan image of weathered ore to show that pure rutile can be separated from the anatase, titanite, calcite without deleterious elements. Qemscan image please EEE management. Probably more likely gonna raise more cash and keep looking for copper in the hope they find some!

eee's plan for an mre is very much flawed, and would be interesting to see what the jorc committee's view is.

as the rns states: a mineral resource estimate ("mre") is a measure of a body of mineralisation that in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.

can anyone tell me how eee can demonstrate "reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" if they haven't completed the processing test work? some people forget that a jorc mre is not just an inventory of the amount of titanium in the ground, in conunctuion the competent person signing off on it needs to be able to demonstrate that the "reasonable prospects of economic extraction". particularly tough when there are no credible titanite operations of any scale in the world to point to as examples. (oh - i forgot - there are some russian examples - reminds me of a joke: "what's big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a ****load of smoke and noise and cuts an apple into three pieces? a russian machine made to cut apples into four pieces").

that will be one brave cp if they try too rush through the mre to help stop the sp from tanking, while the proof of extractability hasn't been demonstrated.

An education it will be…an expensive one. But look at the bright side - at least Sir Kneeler won’t sting you with 20pc VAT on a capital loss.

Wake up and smell the roses - and at the same time earn your pHD in “Titanite”. If you all cant see that this forum is crowded by a bunch of rabid EEE rampers…best of luck. Just go back at look at Manlord and Bankrupty posts over the months…

I hear that you get a free labotomy and a free “Titanite is Kryptonite” tatoo if you buy 150k EEE shares or more.

GTLA

I am making perfect sense.

Let's take another example.

Fortescue produce around 220mt per annum of iron ore from the Pilbarra.

That is the largest "economies" of scale type of mining operation possible.

It is highly unlikely that EEE could ever have lower unit mining costs than Fortescue.

Also, note that for Pilbarra iron ore mines there is no processing requirement.

Fortescue indicate that their "C1 CASH COST" for FY23 are USD17.54/t (note - that is not the AISC, albeit it likely includes some transport costs).

So there is no way PityDaFool is going to have a "mining cost" of $5/t based on any notion of "economies of scale".

And you guys need to start wondering how "soft" is the PityDaFool sandstone really?

Sandstones can be so hard that buildings are made from them.

The material will still require drilling, blasting, crushing and possibly grinding.

And that is before it goes into any type of gravity separation process.

Show me some alternative references or benchmarks before you tell me I dont know what I am talking about.

And for Oldslow - not, I have not changed my mind based on EEE's latest metallurgy disclosure.

In fact, it is even worse.

Think about it.

SB raised the GBP3m from the Saudi's after weeks earlier having said during an interview that EEE didnt need to raise more cash.

I suspect that the EEE board knew they were dealing with Titanite long before they told the market.

And therefore, as I prediucted, they did a "cheeky raise" in order to pay for metallurgical R&D from a mineral that has never been commercialised.

And some on here are saying "titanite has never been commercialised before because no one has ever found a deposit as unique as PityDaFool". What CodsWollop! No one has ever explored for titanite because it is deemed by the industry as of "no commercial interest".

And for all of you who are convinced that the acid leach of titanite is so simple...just look up a couple of nickel laterite developments - like Ambatovy Nickel. It is a different leach process, but the technical risks of trying to commercialise processing of a new mineral are far greater than you punters understand.

I sincerely hope that Greg Kuenzel & co have been dumping the shares that are held "out wide" on the market to take some money off the table while they still can. He was CFO of BlueJay by the way. Oh wait a second - I think I have seen this movie before!!!

DYOR

Andii

Wake up! You say: "Mining costs I estimate $5/t due to very favourable soft rock and from surface deposit ".

Can you back this up with a reference?

As "soft" as EEE say PityDaFool ore is, it is still a sandstone that will require drilling and blasting before it can be dug. Then it requires crushing and grinding. If it costs Rio Tinto around$20/t to mine iron ore in Western Australia...why would it cost PityDaFool only 25% of this amount?

What is your justification or qualifaction for coming up with such numbers - how do you drive them?

Shall we assume the rest of your figures are similarly derived?

Page 15

Funny, it reminds me of when Sirius minerals claimed polyhalite was the answer to the fertiliser industry. I see Anglo American wrote down that investment a further $1.7bn. Like Sirius, many will farewell their hard-earned to “money heaven” on this one.

Also interesting that broker Liberum seem now to be writing on EEE - and they were one of Sirius’ loudest cheerleaders.

Thanks.

https://shorturl.at/klu58

https://www.deutsche-rohstof***entur.de/de/gemeinsames/produkte/downloads/dera_rohstoffinformationen/rohstoffinformationen-47-en.pdf?__blob=publicationfile&v=2

try this link:

https://www.deutsche-rohstof***entur.de/de/gemeinsames/produkte/downloads/dera_rohstoffinformationen/rohstoffinformationen-47-en.pdf?__blob=publicationfile&v=2