Your maths is weird what it is haha, in my mind the logic goess...

Your maths is weird what it is haha, in my mind the logic goess (Recovery% x <45 REO) / (Head REO)

Numerator is the REO recovered to <45 fraction, denominator is total REO in head sample to start with. Anyway, same answer as yours.

CBAC22-200 gives (1902 * 0.62)/1198 = 98% of REOs reporting to -45 microns.... non-sensical as you point out. I scraped the Sig Results table got an average 114% REO to <45 from avg 59% recovery (non-sensical indeed). However, did the same thing for ALL the data in tables and got a sensible Avg of 42% recovery for 74% REO into the <45 fraction... more sensible.



The answer has to lie with the 'nuggety' inaccuracy of lab results. Any one sample (fusion sample sizes are very small compared to aircore rig material) is at risk of throwing up non-representative outliers in any commodity, REO no different. Especially when higher REO grades are related to high-REO minerals instead of more evenly distributed ionic clay hosted REO... the 'nugget' effect in any one sample is amplified.

The answer is take enough samples and repeats until the geo can confidently demonstrate statistically valid averages and cut out non-sensical outliers.

The reality is still mining approx twice the ore to produce half the plant feed for ~70% REO recovery. More expense, for less REO even though REO processing is cheaper per tonne with higher REO feed grade. The tonnages required to make the project sensibly scaled probably don;t match the kaolin market sales potential imo. ie, need to mine 10Mt for 5Mt <45 plant feed but marketing can only sell 1Mt <45 kaolin product. The other 4Mt <45 kaolin not sold doesn;t make money from the REO alone is my feeling...