Reading through DRE investor hub and noticed a new question and...

Reading through DRE investor hub and noticed a new question and response from Dean yesterday about the Gifford Creek (although the question was listed under the announcement for the recent Response to ASX price query). Gives some insight into what thinking and discussions have been taking place behind the scenes, both internally and externally.

Q: Firstly, I thought your RIU conference presentation was excellent and for shareholders, it's really clear what the strategy is for the next 12 months. I do have a couple of questions on the Gifford Creek strategy in the wake of the Hastings/Wyloo tie up.From memory, you recently spoke about engaging a third party to further advance discussions on a potential partnership? Somewhere in my memory (and apologies if I'm way off in my assessments), did you mention middle eastern companies were one of the parties that the third party was engaging with?If you can, it would be good to get some comments from you about how 'potentially' DRE may monetise/advance Gifford Creek's potential in the background, what the third party/consultants brief is? To me, the HAS/Wyloo announcement was a great early sign that critical metals are starting to gain interest again. Also, are you getting any industry intelligence or do you have any comments on what are the catalysts/timings of a sustained rise in the prices of critical metals?

Dean's response: Firstly apologies for the delay in responding. I hope that the Exploration Target for the Stinger niobium discovery announcement provided a bit more context.I have spent the past few months marketing to groups in the Middle East, they are clearly a natural partner for critical metals given their location, low energy costs and desire to diversify and build new industries. The feedback from many groups is that there is a desire for all of the critical metals, but that the stage of the niobium, titanium and other metals are still quite early.We have also recently been having discussions with major Japanese and Korean groups.There is a general preference across the board to fund developments and less so exploration and resource evaluation.Regarding the 'potential' commercial pathways, all options are on the table. But these generally come down to:1. Spinning the asset out into its own entity2. Outright sale3. Project level partnershipOr a combination of the above. Spinning the asset out would give it the freedom to focus on the best paths forward, but we would want to ensure that it had the backing to survive. For our shareholders a case like this may include an in specie distribution and right to participate in the newco. This has been done well by several companies over the years. Outright sale may allow for a capital return. And a project level partnership may allow a reduced or shared risk pathway to development with a major partner which may result in capital gains and production share for our shareholders. In regards to market intelligence, I would say that there are lots of opinions and little hard facts. I think that that sort of crystal ball reading is hard enough for common commodities like gold, copper, iron and aluminum and therefore infinitely harder for critical metals which is also a broad term of unrelated commodities. It would appear that REEs are below economic prices as seen in cashflows from MP and Lynas, and therefore certainly below incentive prices so shouldn't go much lower. And Nb prices do not fluctuate much thanks to the CBMM market (near) monopoly that helps the players maintain healthy margins and profits.