Like your 94% imaginary recocery, page-64

gafia still confused on this line, we have had nro claiming 94% recovery which is not possible, all am trying to get him to do is admit to that. I understand your way of getting to 73% recovery although of course will have a much higher recovery of the lights
as for do I believe the recovery overall excuse me for being sceptical, that goes back to the poorly representative sample, and the exclusion of certain ions by rain. and yes I would like to see the break up of losses which is standard practise when assessing such projects.