NTU v. LYC v. the rest

I thought I might start a fresh thread dedicated to comparisons between NTU, LYC, and other aussie listed RE producers/developers/wannabees to try and give us some different perspectives on the overall development of the aussie rare earths industry and to allow contributors to barrack, ramp (up & down), exaggerate, belittle ect.ect. in the great tradition of HotCopper!

Hi@ausheds , re your Post #: 52454066, do you have any details on LYC’s SEG product, such as current production rates, the total % of REO’s and assemblage? The only detail I can find is from the Lynas 2025 investor presentation (21^th May 2019) in which they claimed to be producing 50 tpa Dy and 20 tpa Tb, and the 7^th June 2019 presentation which states that have capacity to produce 1200 tpa of SEG oxide.

If they were producing the SEG at full 1200 tpa capacity that means the Dy content of the SEG was 4.17% and the Tb 1.67%. Compared to the NTU 52% carbonate spec. of 4.38% Dy2O3 and .60% Tb4O7 these are big figures, particularly as 20 tons of Tb which is valued over $US34m at current SSM pricing!

As you have said the Lynas MRE’s & HRE’sare a byproduct of Lynas’ NdPr production, so the incremental cost ofproduction should be far lower than NTU’s costs. Has LYC released any figureson their costs and margins on it’s SEG product?

From an NTU holders perspective I’m happyto sit tight at the current s/p and wait for the updated Brown’s Range JORC statementand the X concentrate DFS before making any further investment, particularly asNTU is the only company to have produced any meaningful quantities (+200 t) ofHRE carbonate in Australia, which IMHO gives them a huge lead over otherperspective aussie producers.

Let’s hope that the RE markets can deliver sufficient demand and pricing to support LYC & NTU and at least some of the potential aussie RE producers.