as for the gooblegoop of your last comment first go look at the...

as for the gooblegoop of your last comment first go look at the claims map. then i suggest the geological map ,etm was using ussings 1913 map having not yet mapped their tenement. For south of the fiord that is publically available is Andersen S, Bohse H and Steenfelt A (1988) a 1 to 20,000 map published by the GGU (Gronlands geogiske undersogelse) . on that map the non uranium ore bodies are in blue while the dark green is the uranium rich steenstrupine bodies ,you will see there is no dark green on the tanbreez license.
But you still will not believe but all others who have bothered to come and look are easily convinced when they see the data .
again its time for you too concentrate on the etm problems rather than the bull on a non related success next door .
It is clear that is what others are doing eg shange has put money into etm clearly looking at its eudialyte potential, etm has a eudialyte expert on the board and it has extensions to the eals type of ore. The eals deposit is about 70 meters thick averages almost 2% REE, of which 36% are heavies, it also contains Zr, Hf, Ta, Nb, Sc, W, which means when compared to the steenstrupine type ore its in ground value is about 6 times greater with much less extraction costs.
eals also contains up to about 30 ppm of uranium and similar thorium it has no soluble phosphate, no soluble fluoride, no actinium or radon etc. both the capex and opew are about a quarter of that of steenstrupine