Media, page-533

There are many comments here which are incorrect. I will show as such with cited references rather than opinions.

1) In-situ grades of 300-400ppm. Incorrect.

grading appears to be between 400ppm-1000ppm. I have shown that by combining all drill results combined the average ppm is 800-900ppm. This information/calculation can be found here. Post #:41901637 This is also reference in company announcements.

2) low in magnitude - Incorrect
The 3 highlighted mines are 3 of the top ionic clay mines in china (still operation today and for the next 5-10 year)


basket pricing comparison to other mines.
here is how the grading is ranked in terms of economical extraction. all highlighted mines are ionic clays.
There's a reason china control global rare earth supply and it's predominantly because it controls all operating ionic clay deposits which have a higher % of the HREO.
3) Very thin 4-6m's. Incorrect\
average intercept thickness 7m's



4) 130m of the 700m drilled. I'm sorry what?
If you read the posts you would realise that the target resource sits ontop a layer of harder limestone/shale rock to a depth of 30m. The RAB drilling done back in 2016 as part of Rwenzori's technical due diligence proved and inferred resource with this drilling. This information can be found here http://rwenzorimetals.com.dedi153.j...tent-Person-Technical-for-Makuutu-Project.pdf This report was compiled as technical person report. So as such need to fill certain legal requirements. You can either take their work as fact or the anonymous posted with no cited references to support opinions.
Regardless, they Subsequently they 1 diamond drill hole to a depth of 110m's to test if there was anything below. There wasn't. However magnetic surveying indicated that the sediment basin is to a depth of 700m's which would indicate potential upside on there 270-530mT target @ 400-1000ppm. This is speculation. but the resource estimate listed not speculation. As per company announcements and technical report

5) Your strip ratio makes no sense i'm afraid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripping_ratio

It's the overburden you remove to obtain the product. given this is flat lying at surface deposit. The overburden is 2-5m's and average thickness of orebody 7m's this is 1:2 or 1:1 which is very good. not sure where you got 50:1 from that would mean digging 50 tonnes of dirt to get to 1 tonne of mineralised ore body. which obviously isn't the case.

6) Applying a SG of 2. That's interesting. I've never heard anyone calculate a resource tonnage by using the host rocks specific gravity. Would be worth you reading up on that but here are 2 posts which explain how to calculate a resource estimate.
Post #:31398217 and here's the one for rare earths specifically. Post #:41738607. These are done by someone who works in the industry so don't take my word for it.
for the resource calculation that i done go to Post #:41955784

7) around tailings.
if you read the recent announcements regarding the met results you will note that the processing used does not lead to radioactive tailings. Additionally as such the deleterious elements uranium etc are noted to be of low grade. Additionally, the acid leach used was tested at low ph's so as to minimise the environmental impacts. Obviously there is still some work to be done in this space. But as BIolantanidos (bought by hothschild reputable canadian listed company has shown, is that the proposed process circuitry will not have an environmental impact and associated costings are as indicated in the opex costing in their DFS.

The only part we agree on in that entire non-factual, un-cited post of yours in around the proposed circuitry PM8 will use.

I did initially ask you to give a cited reference regarding your initial environmental concerns and substantiate your opinion and to prove factually where this has been an issue. I did give you the benefit of the doubt that you would be able to back your opinions with some credible sources.

I said i wouldn't post unless tagged so apologies again as i'm sure many will be tired of reading my post's. however if i am tagged and i see incorrect statements i will correct them - it's important to not take anyone's opinion as fact (including mine). However one with cited reference and factual calculations from announcements, dissertation papers would hold a little more credence.

From now on if people tag me i will respond to you in the threads of the stocks i hold. People will need to search if they'd like to see a response.

Apologies again to the readers who just want to read PM8 specific posts.

SF2TH