What questions have you presented that needs answering though?
The first post you linked was " information dump from other posts" which are your words. It provided general info for new rare earth investors, nothing really specific or relevant though for anyone else.
Your second post you linked, the question was "have you ever seen an IAC deposit without a cerium anomaly", the first line of your response was "the answer is every IAC deposit I have looked at has cerium in the 'head grade'". I mean yeah obviously rare earths have cerium in their head grade, doesn't really prove anything, I think you missed the point in this response. The rest of your post again was providing general info about lixivants, didn't really pose any questions in there and again was nothing new for seasoned rare earth investors.
The third post you linked was the exact same as the first post you linked. I will assume you were actually trying to link #73737283.
"You are looking for a 'negative' cerium anomaly, not a positive cerium anomaly which is what you get at surface, but weathering processes and strength of weathering a key as to whether how these develop. The positive cerium anomaly (near surface) is found in the upper part of the weathered crust (along with other light REEs, whilst the negative cerium anomaly is found in the lower weathered parts (at depth). It is a guide only but companies do use it to determine exploration effort only, and generally after finding a resource and tracking this to understand direction of ionic as drilling continues, and it is never full-proof."
You can look for either a positive or negative cerium anomaly. I'm not sure why you said he is looking for a negative cerium anomaly. A positive cerium anomaly can be just as good an indicator of an ionic clay deposit (ph4 30min ambient). e.g DEVEX (DEV). The rest of what you said is what you see generally in a typical IAC deposit where you will see a positive anomaly at surface and a negative anomaly lower down, ABX seems to be a good example of this. Ce as you have mentioned is basically worthless, but you can't discount the positive anomaly and only look for the negative.
"the anomaly itself is not a large feature in itself, so it is actually when you drill and assay and MET you work things out."
The anomaly is a pathfinder and can provide a good indication of an IAC deposit, it is obviously true that this needs to be CONFIRMED via met testing. The entire point of the discussion around the anomaly is that it can help you get ahead of 99% of rare earth investors if you can spot the anomaly before everyone else. It to date has been a terrific indicator of an IAC deposit, which is a nice position to be in heading in to met work when you can be quietly confident it will return positive results. The rest of your post provides more general commentary.
In regards to the post I am quoting (your post):
"The key with IAC is simply put = easy liberation using pH4 (or at worst pH3) solution. So you can have a deposit with say 30% - 50% Ce in the head grade but the recovery of that is low, meaning you end up recovering the valuable REE, and most importantly with little impurities.". You will find that whether you have a positive cerium anomaly deposit (DEV), or negative, the Cerium basically never leaches out in a true IAC from what I have seen.
As I have posted on twitter (not on ENV threads as I'm not trying to flame people and be called a 'downramper' on this forum), to date the historic CODA results released by ENV do not show a positive nor a negative Ce anomaly. The ASX is about making educated guesses, so do those initial results rule out CODA from being ionic? No, they don't, we will wait for the company to drill and provide official met work from professionals, but we are not seeing the same Ce anomalies in the historic results which could be used to indicate an IAC deposit.
