Therefore to make the impartial comparative analysis of different deposits it is necessary to compare them among themselves on all these parameters, and not just on some of them, as it does Mickey. Besides that the factors that he uses in the estimations of the deposits are varied in each concrete case.

For example, he negatively estimates some deposits based on not only REE content and sometime REE reserves, and on infrastructural criterion. However positively estimating of Nechalacho deposit, he forgets about this criterion. Meanwhile it is difficult to find other REE deposit in the world which would occur in the area so uninhabited and removed from communications, besides lying under the lake bottom. Not casually the expenses for the deposit development are assumed as enormous.

Technological properties of REE ores (factors 4–6) are not discussed in the post absolutely. Meanwhile these criteria play key role in estimation of any REE deposit, smoothing even an enormous difference in REE grade and resource between various deposits. It is clear visible by the example of China, where both huge and rich LREE carbonatite (Bayan Obo: grade – 6-8 %, recourse – tens Mt) and small and poor LREE ionic clay (Heling: grade – 0.2–0.3 %, recourse – tens Kt) deposits are successfully mining now. REE content and reserves may be as low as 0.03–0.05% and 3000–5000 t, respectively for industrial HREE ion-absorbed supergenic and hydrothermal deposits. The reasons of successful mining so poor and small deposits (by the way source about 35 % worlds REE) are minimum expenses for their development. It is reached thanking near surface position of the ore, absence of expenses for the ore crushing and beneficiation, and simplicity and cheapness of REE extraction by weak acid and even by salt solutions.

That is way I think that both grades and recourse cannot be kings in case of REE deposits.

The aforesaid does not mean that I don’t agree with positive or negative Mickey’ estimations of the majority REE deposits listed in his post. Moreover REE grade is really king but only in that rare case when we compare REE deposits that are absolutely identical in relation to all other abovementioned nine parameters.

And Yes, the Steenkampskraal NI 43-101 is due sometime in November, and it is expected to change the grade and tonnage figures. It is generally expected to improve both depending on cutoff levels etc based on the fact that the current historical records are mostly based on the search for Thorium ore, not REE deposits. RARECO attempted to re-open the mine over ten years ago with the intention of seeking REE’s, and though that did not happen due to China’s monopoly position at that time of cheap supplier of REE’s to the world, I am sure they at that time and more recently during the sale of the company and site to GWMG, informal exploration and analysis was performed, with no attempt to gain NI 43-101 compliance and certification at that time. Now that GWMG has obtained 100% ownership of RARECO, such certification is very desireable and was contracted for as soon as legally possible and practical.

The point of this of course is that GWMG already knows within reasonable parameters what the results will be, believes they will be positive for the company, and will provide acceptable 3rd party expert figures for Mr. Fulp and others such as larger institutional investors to consider.

Also, Lynas continues to drill and expand the deposit sizes. So mostly the Lynas numbers vary depending on how you breakdown Mt. Weld and at what time and cut off you use to evaluate the resource. This is true of most established resources, but since Mt. Weld has had a lot of drilling and Lynas has the information on their website it is easy to make the point with them.

Much of the same reasoning applies to GWMG’ s Steen deposit. I think the 17% grade you are looking at is a “highlight” or top result drill. Here Mr. Fulp (which is a rare time someone has not called him Mickey) is using TMR’s number. But the size and cutoff at Steen is still very much to be determined.

Current drilling most likely will increase the resource size and any reduction in grade would be based on determining that additional lower grade areas at Steen are worth extracting. So in Steen’s case the grade could drop a bit in order to expand the resource size and this would clearly be a positive result. The last I heard the Steen 43-101 is due in November so that may change the grade and tonnage at that time.

Could you please address these discrepancies from published grades?