"As for the question of "why they verified the leach recovery on...

"As for the question of "why they verified the leach recovery on a bulk sample", I would suggest that the two pieces of work were run in parallel, not sequentially - ie, they started the leaching work before they knew of the magnetic separation results"

sjl, I think youve given the most likely the answer to Tonio's query. Peak have already shown in their revised scoping study that much less sulphuric acid is needed now that they will be using the upgraded concentrate from the improved beneficiation process. The on site production of sulphuric acid is a large cost saving, with the additional benefit of power production from the steam produced, however with lesser quantities needed there is the slight downside that additional power will need to be generated. But, on the upside, it comes with the advantage of a $16m saving on the sulphuric acid plant capex. Tonio, your contribution to this thread is great, a balanced look into the processes that will define Ngualla as either economically viable or not.

sjl, I think your analyses previously breaking down the fundamentals to the three main numbers (opex, product sale price and capex) are probably the most relevant for determining the comparative economics of Ngualla and other projects. Good work there on your back of the envelope figures, the PFS will shortly be out to refine the numbers from the revised scoping study, and it will be interesting to see how the economics change with new figures, including the product sale prices. That should address LTL's concerns about the validity of the basket price that started this thread.

LTL, I admire your sense of humour actually, especially in respect of my harsh words, you took it well and answered criticism with a degree of humour that perhaps I could have used at the time. The comparison of Ngualla and a dolled up sow just got my "goat" at the time. You can see how it could be seen as denigration :) The upside is that you did stir up some lively debate, which is always good, and if anything has given me renewed insight into just how good the Ngualla economics are. We are not just a case of a large easily mined deposit, which the experts all agree dont make a viable rare earth project. PEK has in a short time produced high quality REO products using cheap and relatively simple process that I'm sure will stack up against most other non China rare earth projects.

sjl is right, in the end we are still waiting to be validated by gaining the entity that will fund Ngualla through to production and sales. We may be close to that, hard to say, but last I heard from Alastair Hunter in that interview in NY posted a short while ago, was we are near to finalising a deal with one of a number of prospective partners. I'm fine with however long it takes to secure the best possible partner, we've already come a long way in a remarkably short time. The outlook for our main value drivers, especially Nd/Pr, is over the years to at least 2020, is for increasing demand, outweighing projected supply. I'm betting we are one of the ones that make it, a dark horse if you like, as not much is being said in-depth about Ngualla from any of the experts. I will refrain from posting pictures of a sleek dark racehorse (we will see enough of that tomorrow) if you keep to your word LTL ;)

GLTA