Vayama,I think you're getting a bit confused. Yes REE's are sub...

Vayama,

I think you're getting a bit confused. Yes REE's are sub 14%, but you are ignoring the fact that they are not oxide clays as at Mt Weld and aren't buried under 50-100m of mud like Mt Weld, and are not 450km inland near Laverton like Mt Weld. Its a completely different ball-game here. Mt Weld's REO's are in a thin blanket stuck under useless spodgy clays in the arse end of nowhere; GGG's are distributed within relatively uniform hard rock with virtually no overburden about 5km from the sea. Its completely irrelevant, in my opinion, if they have a tenth the grade; they have a tenth the strip ratio!

Regarding the uranium alone, you've answered your own problem: 5.8 million punds of uranium per annum.

If you use BMN's PFS assumptions on costs given the equivalent grade, dimensions and throughput rates of the two deposits, 5.8 million at US$50/lb equals $290M revenue. At a rate of 8Mt-10Mt per annum, cost of mining and treatment open cut, with costs of US$35/lb, $90M EBITDA before REE's and NaF.

So, essentially, you don't have to worry whether or not Kvanefjeld has less REE grade than Mt Weld. It has enough uranium to, most likely, get into production uner its own steam. It has several advantages here, too;
- no vegetation, groundwater or isolation
- valuable REE "credits" and NaF credits able to be won
- considerable scale and scope; I've mentioned before the problems with worrying about how many billion tonnes of ore GGG has. Either way, it has enough rock to keep them going for a century.
- no talk by GGG of a DIY met plant situated in sunny Malaysia; low risk.

So I think you are well off-base on this one.