Thing the reason you get 39.1% is because you're using the...

Thing the reason you get 39.1% is because you're using the average recovery. i.e. "Autosuming' all the recoveries which gives you an average recovery. Which is a figures other have used.

But i am using the head grade total ppm recovered over the total head grade ppm.

i.e. 1159/2793 = 41.4%



Oh and in case anyone was wondering (which clearly some are not or not interested in...) I was plugging in Aclara's throughput figures as they are in Chile and have a different processing methodology. I was also replicating the figures in their PEA using my useless tables...





Aclara is a ionic clay project formerly known as biolantanidos and now penco. Its listed on the TSX and had a huge MC when it listed and i think a huge amount of cash. Their EIA (enviromental impact assessment) was pulled and hurt the price pretty bad.

For context that have a 25mT jorc @ 2000-2400ppm depending on where you're pulling info from. LoM in that PEA was 11Y from memory. So it's a high grade but small deposits. Their recoveries are frankly pretty awful.

Long story short of what the above is indicating, is the MEI would be twice as profitable as Aclara. So even using their processing methodology and AISC it looks very solid. MEI has a number of advantages though. There's clearly areas of MEI deposit which are potential greater than 2700ppm. Secondly MEI has what looks to be probably 10times that size resource. So aclara can only run a project at 1.5-2mtpa. MEI can either select higher grade zones and keep tonnage low or go bulk scale over the whole resource. Aclara is trading around 50-60M AUD equivalent FWIW so between them and IXR probably the best stocks to calibrate against.

In either case they'll do it more profitable but have major advantage with a resource of that size and scale.
Just thought i'd share in case they preference that process circuit over a makuutu heap.

SF2TH