Townmeetings in september., page-33

This link has been posted here before. Its 7 years old and produced by the owner of the mine. Based on sampling done by a private company.

The problem with private company sampling in the industry. Is they can basically say what they like. Cherry pick samples and publish whats best. So you never really know the true picture when compared to a publicly listed company who adheres to practice requirements. All you can do is trust trust what you have been given.

Youll find there are a few articles around supporting the company that is also produced by the same. The independent options Ive found certainly didnt sound as convincing and they have been posted here.

Separation, via crushing, is not a full separation process to any real degree. GGG could have conducted the same and claimed a "green process". But that would just be misleading Greenlanders over the true situation of what would transpire later.

A chemical separation plant is required involving considerable chemical involvement. This is where the majority of pollution will be caused and its been found to be concerning given the evidence supplied here prior when it comes to eudialyte. Plus its energy intensive requiring extremely high temp refractory processing. Where Steenstrupine isnt. The energy demand in turn requires considerable emissions. This is why ETM clearly chose Steenstrupine in preference. It is also, Id imagine, why Shenghe continues to invest in the operation (despite ML uncertainty) and seemingly no other in Greenland where funding has been needed for a while.

.Who will get lumbered with the true pollutive issues? Nobody knows. But its certainly not being discussed or mentioned in the Greenland media and for years we were lead to believe someone had arranged to take it. But then later found a media publication where the proponent admitted their wasnt anyone. There is only reference to "its not viable to do". Which clearly shows suggestion how close to profitable the mining of eudialyte may already be. Which again supports investment disinterest in the sector for decades as anyone can find.

This all clearly paints a picture as to why ETM isnt even remotely showing signs in getting caught in the eudialyte trap and they have had 20 years to show them.

What I can find, about who will take any eudialyte separating pollution causing process, seems to be well evidenced by the fact that there is no evidence published anywhere. The only documented locations were it can currently occur, are in Russia and China. Quite possibly due to less stringent pollutive policies. I cant see them taking ETMs eudialyte as much as they clearly wont take any others in Greenland. Despite the considerable efforts attempted. As posted here and in the Greenlandic press

All in all, this is why Greenlandic eudialyte plots remains empty. Also too the host rock eudialyte is difficult, demanding and challenging to separate and often simply too unviable. It is a world wide plentiful source thats most often overlooked due to its more concerning elements. This may be why concern from eudialyte operatives over Steenstrupine. Because if ETM gets up and running. Others may well go bust.

The principal focus of these discussions have always been
1) Eudialyte doesnt win over Sttenstrupine via any margin I can find. The company hasnt conducted any notable effort toward the resource and in fact, upon my consultation, they laughed at the thought.
2) Secondly, if anyone posts information upon this thread. It should be honest and better still, substantiated. Should it be neither (or continually never be so), nor unrelated to ETM via promotion or false absconding. The issue doesnt lay with anyone who offers evidence and truth to the contrary. But the one who offers misinformation despite that clear evidence. This principal is fair, reasonable and morally right.
We all know it deep down.
The issue lays further with weather we want to do something about it, or not. If not, and the ease is found in doing nothing, not even pressing ignore, (especially when theres supporting evidence for its clear ill effect). Thats up to each of us to decide if we want that goings on to continue to jeopardize our investment, or not...or, even still, via simply not wanting to care for even the truth and fact to be better known.

Always keep in mind for investment to go up you need buyers. If they are being deterred where does your investment go? So is an opposing honest truth really such a wrong doing as anything to its contrary.
I dont really need that answer. I think we all know it Despite some annoyance to scroll.