Ann: Phase 4 Resources Drilling to Commence at Makuutu, page-33

I generally agree with your analysis here, but I have substantive doubts that the recoveries reported by Biolantanidos are better; the data from their presentations I found somewhat confusing and I too needed help to interpret.

Generally, when a company reports metallurgical recovery to product, it is relative to the amount of the element in the resource or reserve. This makes economic analysis relatively simple and straight forward.

The recovery I have seen Biolantanidos report is named a "DD Recovery" or "double desorption" recovery. To my understanding, this reports the recovery of rare earths from those that are in ionic or soluble forms within the mineralisation, not the recovery of rare earths from ALL rare earths that is within the mineralisation. Confusing, I know, but here is an example to explain:

Example of regular recovery calculation:
REE in a parcel of mineralisation = 100 kg
Metallurgical recovery = 50%
Overall Metallurgical recovery = 50%
Mass of REE product = 50kg

Example of incorporating a double desorption recovery calculation:
REE in a parcel of mineralisation = 100 kg
Amount of contained REE in mineralisation that is in soluble or colloidal form = 30% (determined by double desorption "DD" test)
Amount of REE in soluble or colloidal form that is recovered by single desorption test = 90% (aiming to replicate commercial reality)
Overall metallurgical recovery = 30% x 90% = 27%
Mass of REE product = 100 kg x 27% = 27 kg

The numbers here are for illustration only. The numbers seem to vary for different elements and also within the dirt. I have been unable to find detailed Biolantanidos data to make a meaningful comparison with IXR.

To summarise, I doubt that the metallurgical recoveries for Biolantanidos are better than for IXR.

All in my view, and please each DYOR.