Member Info for SmartPunter

>>well takes all sorts hope people loaded up at lower prices 👍

I did, 60% increased my holding at average 8p, a couple of weeks ago...

What about the original presentation that required 5 years third party feed to Saltend until the mine gets up to speed?

Another glaring risk that was never derisked by signing a supply contract.

O.13% NdPr content in phosphogypsum.

5.5m tpa production rate

65% extraction rate

= 4650 tpa NdPr * $75k= $348m year. Minus costs, vat, payability.. divide by 2 for joint venture.

RBW share ~ $80m/year? Profit.

There are 3 other major sites in Brazil. One has 0.39% NdPr. I.e 3x the project site.

Http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/28824

This stack has .5044% RE content. Higher than Phalaborwa

Otrhe South America sites have up to 1.6% RE content

From Berenberg

Rainbow Rare Earths has announced that it has signed a MOU with US-listed The Mosaic Company to jointly develop a process flowsheet and conduct a PEA on a phosphogypsum stack owned by Mosaic in the Uberaba area of Minas Gerais in Brazil. The Uberaba phosphogypsum stack was sourced from a hard rock carbonatite similar to the Foskor carbonatite that was the original source for Rainbow’s Phalaborwa project in South Africa. Early indications are that the grade and mineral assemblage of the stacks are similar to that of Phalaborwa. Rainbow expects that the process flowsheets for Uberaba and Phalaborwa to be similar. Berenberg view: The MOU with Mosaic is a positive announcement and offers significant upside potential for Rainbow. The size of the phosphogypsum stacks has not been made public but Mosaic is a major producer of phosphoric acid in Brazil (c1.1mtpa capacity) and we would expect the Uberaba project to at least equal the scale of Phalaborwa, and in fact we think it is likely to be larger (the plant came online in 1980 and has been expanded multiple times, and has been previously owned by Bunge and Vale). We expect more information on the Uberaba project to be made public as studies are progressed, but we think there will be a material positive reaction from the shares this morning following the release.

There are 130M tpa of phosphoric acid producing about double that in phosphogypsum.

RBW are looking at PG production of 2m in SA, 14m in Tunisia and 4.4m tones per annum in Brazil.

As I've said before the richest handful of RE in phosphoric acid plants are around 20k tpa of NdPr. Add in other RE's and the value is up to $2bn per year, near term.

There 300k tpa REE in world wide Phosphoric acid production in total. Historical stacks excluded.

Yes, low opex due to existing infrastructure and staff.

Low capex due to... the partner paying for it...

MoU is not a contract, its a agreement to work together .

In this case they will develop a process flowsheet and produce a PEA.

Then they can sign a deal.

There are two more MoU 's in the works, plus Tunisia and SA.

I assume the plan is to setup Pilot plants at all 5 sites and ship RE sulphate to the USA for refining to metal/oxide.

Although maybe the RE extraction from acid will be direct to oxide on site in SA.

12m tpa of phosphogypsum is produced in Brazil. Apparently 4.4m tpa phosphogypsum added per year to the Brazilian stack.

About 4000 tpa ($300m/year) of NdPr from new production alone, never mind the stack. Assuming the same RE concentration and mix

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Uberaba-location-within-Minas-Gerais-state-Brazil_fig4_340857366

Key takeout - tens of millions of income for little or no capex...

How is possible that PRE, with no evidence, can claim a $200m funding cost when more credible, independent ly audited projects cost $450million?

.https://www.defensemetals.com/wicheeda-property

Other RE mining projects in Australia are hitting $750m. Again these are independently verified and include a pilot plant.

The recent PRE RNS drops the cost of the sulphication plant, yet assume income from RE sulphate.

Doesn't add up.

This is one of several sites with high RE content..

Good news, maybe PRE can sell on the leases for the abandoned RE processing sites.

Us production attracts a $10/kg subsidy to over come the price fluctuations

Meaningless because it is a mining project from hard rock not a gypsum processing process, but here is another recovery rate, 65% at the 1.8% TREO of their mine. Which is the same 65% as RBW at .43% TREO.

From Defense Metals:

"The overall process recoveries: For TREO>=2.3%, recovery is 69.6%; The overall process recoveries: For TREO>=2.3%, recovery is 69.6%; between 2.3% and 1.5% TREO, recovery is 65.3%; and less than 1.5% TREO, recovery is 52.2%. These assume variable flotation recoveries and a constant 87% hydrometallurgical recovery. and less than 1.5% TREO, recovery is 52.2%. These assume variable flotation recoveries and a constant 87% hydrometallurgical recovery."

https://www.defensemetals.com/wicheeda-property

https://www.defensemetals.com/wicheeda-property

Https://fp.lhv.ee/forum/invest/130055?postId=3047536

You are comparing completely different processes, its utterly irrelevant.

Idiot.

91% is for one stage, there are up to 200 stages in traditional RE processing.

Each has a extraction rate. So for example 91%X91%x91%x91% =68%

65% is good for all sorts of sources.

But really, its irrelevant, its the total cost of production that matters and RBW are at $32/kg versus $44/kg for miners.

NdPr METAl (not oxide) is $74K currently. Remember US production is entitles to a subsidy.

https://www.metal.com/Rare-Earth-Metals/201102250182

Then there is also valuable Uranium in some production that CIC can easily extract.