We need to be really careful whenever we use the term “proven ore body” in the context of a mineral deposit. It implies that a) enough work has been done to define a Measured Mineral Resource for a given project and that b) at least part of that Measured Mineral Resource has been demonstrated to be economically mineable. While there is apparently a significant amount of historical data associated with Kutessay II, at this time I am not aware of any data in the public domain (at least to 43-101, JORC Code or similar standards) that defines any type of Mineral Resource for Kutessay II (Inferred, Indicated or Measured), let alone an Ore Reserve (either Probable or Proved) per JORC, or a Mineral Reserve (Probable or Proven) per 43-101.

Stans Energy is in the process of finishing up a Mineral Resource estimate that will be compliant to the Australian JORC Code, but that’s not the same thing as having a “proven ore body”. It’s the first step along the way to eventually having a defined Ore Reserve (per JORC) or its equivalent.

As for having “the difficult metallurgy solved”, again, there is apparently substantial historical data and process flow sheets for the previously used set up for the minerals at Kutessay II; however, I have seen nothing in the public domain that sheds light on the economics of those historical processes. Being able to do the separations economically is at least as important as being able to do them technically. This is by no means a knock on Kutessay II; I’m simply pointing out the lack of data points, whose existence or otherwise is important in evaluating Kutessay II just as it is for any other project.

Finally, regarding the projected production date for Kutessay II; I am not aware of any official target date for production in documents either on the Stans Energy Web site, or lodged with the Canadian Securities Administrators’ SEDAR system. I am aware that Stans Energy’s CEO, Mr. Mackay has been reported as saying that production could get under way by late 2012, but in more recent private correspondence with the company I was told (and I’m paraphrasing here) that a definite date would not be forthcoming for some time. This is why we’re using “N/A” in that column.

That said – if you can point to an official public domain document that does indicate a start date, I’ll be happy to take a look and to adjust our table accordingly.

My understanding is that before you can convert the raw ore into “production”, you must solve the extremely complicated metallurgy, which can take years. And before that can happen, the ore needs to be mined. Some of these companies don’t even yet have a PEA let alone a Prefeasibility Study or a Full Feasibility Study.

Based on the research I’ve done, Stans Energy Corp is the only company with a proven ore body that actually already has the difficult metallurgy solved. In addition, most of these companies haven’t even yet built the processing plants necessary to produce, other than Stans Energy. And yet you have “N/A” in their projected production date when the company has already stated their projected date is 2012.

What am I missing?
David

http://www.barnswood.com/tmr/wp/tmr-advanced-rare-earth-projects-index/

“Naalakkersuisut hopes to bring about more knowledge about the health and safety issues regarding radioactive elements in occurrences where the actual goal is other metals than the radioactive ones. […] The addition to the rules explicitly states that a licence to complete such environmental impact assessments etc. does not give right to a licence to explore for or exploit radioactive elements.”

It seems to me that the announcement by GMEL simply starts off with a textbook example of wishful thinking (at best) or intentional misrepresentation (at worst). Here’s the first line: “GMEL is pleased to announce that it has received approval by the government of Greenland to fully evaluate the Kvanefjeld multi-element project (rare earths, uranium, zinc), inclusive of radioactive elements (uranium).”

[Disclosure: I have no positions in companies associated with any Greenland projects, nor do I intend to open any in the foreseeable future.]

Thanks for your work on the Index – it’s a great resource for generalists like myself.

I was under the impression that Medallion Resources had a proven resource estimate. Is that not the case?

Thanks again and best regards,

John