Ann: EIA Path to Finalisation, page-72

@GBB - a little bit more meaningless waffle...

"as for dysprosium it tends to be more common in the zirconium silicate minerals such as eudialyte and townendite which are not phosphates and are not retrieved in GGG preposed process"

The dysprosium in GGG mineralisation occurs primarily in steenstrupine so in the context of GGG, eudialyte and townendite are irrelevant. Don't you dare bring up again that bullshit about Shenghe wanting GGG to pursue eudialyte!

If we go back to the Feasibility Study update of 2016 (ASX 6/4/16):
- float recovery was 79%, acid leach extraction of dysprosium in the refinery was 90% and the overall refinery recovery was 87%

So in 2016 overall recovery of dysprosium was about 69%

- in 2019 float recovery is +80% and overall refinery recovery is 94%.

So in 2019 dysprosium recovery was in the order of 75%.

Now your original assertion was:

2) ggg on the results we are seeing has a poor recovery of Dy (based on sampling done by this group)

I ask again:
- which results indicating poor recovery are you seeing?
- sampling by which group?
- sampling of what?
- when was sampling done?