Fair point. Shares rarely re-rate to the full value of a project...

Fair point. Shares rarely re-rate to the full value of a project NPV outlined in a prefeasibility study in the early market reaction. There are countless examples out there in the market to prove that.

And, even if the Kvanefjeld project is revealed to be profitable, my feeling is that it will be a very complex project for all sorts of logistical reasons, with many pitfalls.

For the record, though, I have never read too much into the current anti-uranium stance in Greenland. This is not to say that I don't respect the stance or acknowledge how it may impact on the share price: quite the contrary as I've mentioned in posts many moons ago. Rather, I believe in realpolitik: that in time, Greenland will see economic benefits in the form of royalties and employment from a resource of this scale, and will also be "encouraged" by international interests to free up potential bottlenecks arising in the rare earths markets for wider geopolitical reasons. I could well be delusional on this point - and each to their own - but the rest to me is just "noise".

In that scenario, who can realistically put an accurate price on what the value of GGG should be when other intangibles are at play? The author says AUD2.00, somebody else could say AUD0.50 It's just a view.

G