ASX query exposes gaps behind Hawk’s Olympus scandium data

Historical Scandium Readings Lose Their Weight

Hawk Resources Limited (ASX:HWK) has conceded that the historical portable XRF results used to support its Olympus Scandium Project disclosures are not reliable indicators of scandium grades, after laboratory assays produced sharply lower results from the same sample locations.

Seven comparative samples included in Hawk’s response to an ASX query produced historical pXRF readings ranging from 16 ppm to 742 ppm scandium. Hawk’s laboratory assays for those samples ranged from 3.73 ppm to 10.55 ppm. The company had previously reported a broader maximum of 742 ppm from the historical data, against a maximum of 11.2 ppm in its own laboratory-tested soil samples.

The discrepancy was central to the ASX’s questioning, which followed a 70.37% fall in Hawk’s share price from $0.027 on 22 October to $0.008 on 23 October 2026 after the company disclosed its preliminary Olympus assay results. Those results were reported in the company’s October 2026 announcement, which said more than 90% of soil assays were still outstanding at the time.

Missing Calibration and Quality Controls

Hawk said it compiled the historical results from a 2009 Redstone Resources report lodged in Western Australia’s WAMEX open-file system. No historical samples, RAB drill chips, pXRF calibration records or quality-control records were available, meaning the company could not independently verify the data before releasing it.

The company said its Competent Person regarded the readings as sufficient to identify areas of anomalous scandium that warranted verification sampling, but not to confirm reported grades. Hawk also acknowledged that its Competent Person had not undertaken formal pXRF training and had not performed the rigorous validation, detection-limit checks or QA/QC analysis described in Australian Institute of Geoscientists guidance.

Hawk said it became aware after the original disclosure of a potential calcium/scandium spectral overlap. Its preliminary interpretation is that high calcium levels in the new laboratory assays may have positively affected the historical scandium readings, although the company said the issue could only be properly managed through calibration of the original instrument, for which no records exist.

Hawk Defends Original ASX Disclosure

Despite those admissions, Hawk maintains that the original disclosure complied with ASX Listing Rules and the JORC Code. Its stated basis is that the historical data came from a publicly available government report, was reviewed and compiled by a Competent Person, and was accompanied by JORC disclosures and warnings that pXRF readings were indicative only and not a substitute for laboratory assays.

The company also points to its earlier plan to verify the results once it obtained access to the project. That verification programme was the next stage after Hawk secured its Olympus option exercise, which covered an 80% interest in the project and was followed by plans for initial soil sampling.

Hawk nevertheless accepts that the historical data’s limitations could have been given greater prominence. It now says it will not refer to the historical pXRF results in future announcements and will report Olympus scandium results on the basis of laboratory assays.

The Project Must Now Stand on New Assays

That change removes the historical high-grade readings from the company’s future evidentiary base, at least unless they can be supported by independently verified work. Hawk’s response does not provide a revised resource estimate, a new economic assessment or a completed interpretation of the Olympus mineralisation; it says only that laboratory assays will be the reporting standard going forward.

The immediate unresolved issues are the remaining assay results, the company’s revised technical interpretation and whether the ASX considers Hawk’s explanation sufficient. The filing records Hawk’s assertion that it remains compliant with Listing Rule 3.1, but it does not resolve the regulatory question raised by the scale of the discrepancy and the acknowledged absence of key pXRF controls.