Thorium removal shouldn't be a problem, if you look at ARU's...

Thorium removal shouldn't be a problem, if you look at ARU's flow sheet then they are all over it and have demonstrated the process at pilot plant level and have produced RECO3 suitable for marketing. Samples are with future end-users currently, so obviously they are happy with the end product with no Thorium or very low contamination thereof.

From memory ARU's methodology is different to Chinese status quo and have patented technology. This is the reason for ARU's historically butt kicking recovery rates when compared to other industry components. Not sure if it is suitable for GGG and there is scope for them licensing the technology from ARU. RE ores are mostly different and what works for some may not work for others depending on the subtleties of the resource.

Also sure that there will be advanced methods for Th storage in first world countries, after all mineral sand fellows have been dealing with it for a long time. Unless Greenland are super anal about it and their 'unique' environment, then this should be gotten around.

Main point of interest for me is the sheer, gifrigginormous size of GGG's front-end of their proposed plant for stated tonnage of REO product from historically very low concentration of RE-containing hard rock ore; and how much the CapEx for this will be and what the OpEx for the required tonnage of feed is.

Personally, I believe folk here are getting a wee bit ahead of themselves with timelines, and are a wee bit blinkered from the reality of the what it takes to get a RE operation happening.

Obviously, folk have forgotten about corporate governance and disclosure and are hanging on for Roderick to save the day with another four words.

Better risk-reward plays are available.

choice