I touched upon this in a few posts back in Feb, where I was...

I touched upon this in a few posts back in Feb, where I was talking about the presence of deleterious elements as well as the importance of the TREO grades that we are seeing (which are even more impressive now). If you scroll through those pages I recall making 5-6 posts that may be of interest.

Post #: 72579211

Post #: 72579813

The short take is that REE's are quite similar to Niobium, so resource optimisation will be the key. The team will want to optimise the extraction process to get the maximum Niobium recovery without losing the financial benefits of the TREO and REE content that we are seeing in those higher numbers. In some cases, secondary elements may work out abit more on a per/kg basis as @Danielpaper pointed out above. That could see a case where, hypothetically speaking, a 55% Niobium recovery brings far more credits (from other minerals) into play, as opposed to a 60% Niobium recovery, where those other minerals are wasted. Clovis will be keeping a very close eye on this. All of these minerals do not exist in a vacuum. Millions of years of geological processes have led to all these other trace elements and in some cases, larger amounts materialising. It is not novel to have the headache of having to find the correct optimisation and metallurgical process for extraction, so this is why taking the correct time to hit that sweet spot will help us to realise the greatest financial gain here.

I will double down and say that the big players will enter after they feel comfortable with Met results, if they come out positive. Some others may already be accumulating under the 5% threshold (Morgan Stanley and co and whoever you're working for, I'm looking at you). But when the time does come, it'll be hard and it'll be fast.