critical environmental evaluation lamp, page-12

The main points of contention re this OKEO report are:

1. It was commissioned and paid for by the anti-Lynas crowd, so cannot claim to be unbiased at all. Bit like a drug research paper commissioned by a big pharma company

2. The parameters used - as already pointed out - are nowhere near the normal internationally-accepted parameters

3. The "researcher" has not even been to the LAMP, nor has he spoken to or received any information from Lynas.

Bottom line is that it is a completely worthless "report". If there ARE some good points in there, they are well buried in the pile of rubbish.

Lynas don't need to respond, either legally or directly to the researcher or to the market. However, it may be reasonable PR if they were to point out the obvious flaws, in a nice tactful way, such as the points I made above.