Member Info for SmartPunter

iron and aluminium are not toxic or heavy. Silicon.. right... sand
You could literally eat that.

He's doing us a favour, it's an opportunity to reiterate the massive economic and environmental advantages Phosphoric acid and Gypsum stack processing has over mining.
Its a game change for REE production

It's market value is about $100/ton and the environmental credit is worth $10/ton.
However RBW will be producing 10x South Africa's annual consumption so no assumption of revenue is used.
The benifit is to the Phosphoric Acid plant, this could reopen and the REE extracted much cheaper than Gypsum extraction. The new Gypsum stack would be benign reducing the cost of Phosphoric acid production and with a REE side product.
We are still waiting news on this flowsheet and pilot plant

>>However, at the same time, harmful and toxic impurities, such as phosphorus, fluorine, heavy metals, pass into the leaching solution

No they don't because they are not present in the gypsum stack.
The precise chemical makeup is listed in the PFS, you might want to read it rather than inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

How will what I or anyone else say make any difference to funding?
I'll make another prediction. In 12months time all of theorists statements from 12monts ago can be repeated.

Extracting NdPr from the gypsum stack is classified az an environmental clean up which will result in a $100 per ton payment for the 2millions tpa of gypsum. This money is currently locked in a clean up fund .
The processing will neutralise the acid gypsum stack making it safe and benign for use in building work.

Other gypsum stack projects can target Uranium and thorium removal to make those stacks safe (environment credits would pay for this) as well as the RE elements.
There are billiobs of tons of gypsum stacks to process world wide.
300miliion tones per annum of phosphoric acid are produced around the world. Using RBW's process it would be possible to extract REE and valuable Uranium from these sources where present. There would be no toxic waste produced.

>>Any presence of Heavy Metals would make the Phosphate residue unsuitable for agricultural use

That's a problem for the phosphoric acid producer and a problem that is RBW's to solve.
But you understand the ridiculousness of your question as the phosphoric acid production is for fertiliser and cannot be contaminated by heavy metal and therefore is not?

Something tells me you have precisely zero understanding of chemistry.

RBW are working on a total of 5 potential processing plants.

Their should be a qualification test by brokers to ensure idiots are blocked from buying shares.

None of those are independent industry sources.

Let's get back to the "another year of failure" shall we?

Please find one credible, independent industry source who thinks PRE has a viable project.

Here you go Sundrum

But industry experts are troubled by the risks attached to the project. Thomas Kruemmer, author of the Rare Earth Observer blog with 10 years of industry experience, said processing the ore in Angola would generate large volumes of thorium, a radioactive material, likely requiring the involvement of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
There’s a lot of hot air and promises,” he said, adding that miners listed in Canada or Australia would have been required to release far more information in feasibility studies.

Per Kalvig, senior researcher at the Center for Minerals and Materials, echoed those concerns and warned that processing ore and transforming it to the refined metal products used in high-tech magnets normally involves several specialist processing companies.

“The plan for full production in 2024 doesn’t sound feasible, unless Pensana very soon announce that they will team up with an experienced partner,” he said. “The required expertise on the mine-to-magnet value-chain is not developed overnight”.

Atherley, who previously raised $120mn from investors for a uranium project in Spain which was never built, will receive £275,000 a year, which can rise to £750,000 with bonuses.

https://www.ft.com/content/1ccd480b-4926-45ca-b70a-bd8ba3058d10

Where in his quoted text from a year ago does he say that?

Half the opex is for Lime.

>>Well done sir, you called it.
Fukurokuju79 is obviously a poster who know WTF he is talking about. I think it was what he said about the C1 costs that made me sell up a week before suspension.
On the other hand I would have never invested in RMM if it wasn't for CornishKnocker(?) who was impressible knowledgeable about copper mining (possibly less so about mining finance) and recommended it at the CUSN board.

Assets to be sold to pay the creditors.

Protection from Creditors means nobody can sue for payment. The new loan will be first in line for repayment before the secured lenders (who are probably providing the loan in anycase). The loan is probly for working capital to ensure the mine keeps operating before a sale.

This is administration.

It's a certainty.
This is administration to protect the debtors. Shareholders get nothing and unsecured lenders get a haircut.

Not really, the exchange doesn't provide that information so this website has a guess at it.

That explains why they haven't redeployed the money