This has nothing to do with recoverability. WMG is inferring, by...

This has nothing to do with recoverability. WMG is inferring, by comparing a 4-acid digest with an Aqua Regia digest, that the nickel resides within the sulphides. It is fallacious to then infer, beyond the company's inference, that this means 99% of the metal will be recovered by an aqua regia metalurgy circuit.
This is not a metallurgical announcement. One would be misconstruing the data to use it as evidence that, a) the metal is recoverable from the rock, or b) 97-99% of the nickel in the rock is recoverable.

There are some reasons to be cautious about over-interpreting these results. In particular, the silicate minerals within the deposit are not olivine any more; they are serpentinites. The fact that an AR digest recovers 99% of what a 4A digest recovers should be treated with caution given the metamorphic nature of the rocks. There is still a reasonable doubt that the silicates are completely barren of nickel. A very, very strong doubt.

The argument WMG is making (and which I particularly have doubts over) is based on facts;
a) sulpides are logged in the core
b) spot readings of blebs show high nickel tenor (13% Ni in 100% sulphide or medium-tenor sulphides)
c) 4A and AR confirm grades of 0.24-0.35% along large intersections of core
and the company want to allow investors and readers to draw the inference that, therefore;
d) of the 0.2-0.3% Ni in the rock, nearly 100% is within the sulphides and near 0% is in the silicate

No evidence has been presented to show that this inference you are all making is, in fact, the case. Certainly going further to infer metallurgical aspects is a bit dangerous IMO.

Only petrology - and in a modern sense this is SEM or XRF micro-mapping - will determine what the nickel content of the silicates is. Until then, caveat speculator.