Ann: Metallurgical tests show pathway to reduced processing costs, page-20

Some fairly false statements here.

"True" ionic? what's the definition...
Not really such a thing. Why?

Because many projects have a portion of ionic REO material in clays. Some very low, some very high. Those that have actual decent recoveries with PH4 are considered ionic. But just being ionic doesn't instantly make the project viable.

Strip, acid consumption, head grade, recovery, process flow sheet, REO composition, will factor into whether the project is viable. I hold MEI and IXR and i'll go on record saying IXR is not viable at today's REO prices - that's not widely debated either. If it didn't have downstream projects and magnet recycling it would be way lower. There isn't any facet of AR3's operation that gives it an economic advantage to either of those projects. Being in Aus doesn't make a project profitable.

FWIW ITM, DEV, ABX are 3 other projects in aus which have also proven ionic material is present. So you're statement about true ionic is inaccurate. IMO

ABX looks like it actually has the most ionic material of the 3. It's just unfortunately quite small.

MEI has flown because it's got 500mT @ 3500-4000ppm. It's 5-6 times higher in grade and vastly more ionic than AR3 needing only PH4 to economic leach the REO. These are not similarities with AR3 they are distinct differences.

AR3 may produce material - but it wont be done at a profit. Running before one can walk, not dissimilar to VML which i cautioned 2years ago as a key risk of trying to mine before the feasibility studies were done. Fast forward and have shut up shop.

If the REO doubles/triples from here AR3 is probably relevant. I'm not advocating any of the others as great value for buying either - just pointing out the distinct differences in the market cap - and IMO it's not because the market has assessed them wrongly.

SF2TH