Market Data 
Markets
Replies to post #87716 on Niocorp Developments Ltd (NB)
12/16/22 10:17 AM
12/16/22 10:19 AM
It is a bit tricky to compare rare earth projects on an apples-to-apples basis, which is why we chose to limit the comparison of our Elk Creek resource to other REE projects in the U.S. There are several reasons why.
For one, there are several different legal systems that determine how a project can measure and disclose aspects of its mineral resource and/or reserve. For public companies that are SEC-reporting entities (such as NioCorp), the SK1300 standard must be followed. For public companies regulated by Canadian authorities (also such as NioCorp), there is the National Instrument 43-101 disclosure standard. In Australia, there is the JORC standard. Each of these systems differ in what they allow, or don't allow, in terms of public disclosure of mineral resources and reserves. This can lead to 'apples-to-oranges' comparisons among projects.
Another challenge in making such comparisons is the mineralization of an REE project. Some projects can show a high ore grade of rare earths, but the mineralization of the ore is something that is very difficult to process. For example, rare earth projects based on silicate-based minerals -- such as eudialyte -- are extraordinarily difficult to economically process in order to pull the REEs out and separate them. Others can contain relatively high levels of other impurities, such as naturally occurring radioactive elements, that can increase the cost of processing. A high ore grade doesn't mean a lot if the REE mineralization isn't amenable to processing that is technically or economically infeasible. This is why only a small handful of the more than 200 REE-containing minerals have ever been successfully processed economically at commercial scale. (The two primary REE-containing minerals in the Elk Creek Project, bastnasite and monazite, are among those that have been successfully processed for decades).
Rare earth resources also differ in terms of the relative distribution of individual REEs in the host mineral. Some may have a relatively high ore grade but also have high percentages of less valuable REEs, such as cerium or lanthanum or yttrium. Others have lower ore grades but their REE mineralization is skewed more favorably to higher-value REEs, such as the magnetics neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium which are used in NdFeB magnets. There are several other REEs that are also magnetic, such as samarium, but those are of lower value.
Another way that REE projects are compared to one another is through a so-called “basket price.” This is a particularly misleading way of valuing a rare earth play, in my opinion, because a project’s ‘basket price’ assigns a dollar value to the individual REEs in the ore, multiplying total tonnes of each REE by current market price for that REE, and combines them all together. This assumes that a project will produce each and every one of the REEs in the ‘basket’ (which is almost never the case). It also ignores the enormous CAPEX and OPEX required to produce 14 or so individual REEs.
There are yet other factors that help determine the viability of a potential rare earth project.
~Some projects are aimed at only producing rare earths. That means that they are relatively riskier investments than projects that are designed to produce multiple products in addition to rare earths.
~Some projects that are relatively large in size, have high ore grades, and are comprised of processable minerals -- but they are located in places that make mining and processing difficult or very expensive. I can think of a few projects that are touted as attractive deposits but are located near or above the Arctic Circle, which generally makes mining more costly.
~ Others are located in places where there local residents, such as First Nations communities in Canada or anywhere in Greenland, can readily block a project from moving to commercial operation. Still others are in countries where local governments are less stable than in the U.S., or are simply prone to corruption, which exposes the project to high country risk.
~Many REE projects are proposed by teams that have no experience in commercially processing REEs. They tend to gloss over that fact. Knowing what I know about the challenges of producing separated, high-purity REEs, this is one of the most important factors I consider when I look at REE projects. But that is just my opinion.
A more useful comparison strategy for investors is to look at rare earth projects through multiple lenses, such as those I describe above. It is not easy to do this if one doesn’t have a pretty deep understanding of the REE industry and the challenges of successfully making these strategic metals.
Having said all of that, it’s clear that our Elk Creek carbonatite is very large and similar in total contained rare earths to some of the largest known rare earth resources in the world, including the Araxa carbonatite in Brazil and the St. Honore carbonatite in Quebec.
Jim Sims
If the higher purity niobium and titanium intermediates that L3 was able to produce at bench-scale are replicated and proven at demonstration scale, this would put us in a position to more easily move to other products beyond those outlined in our 2019 Feasibility Study. Niobium oxide for use in Li-Ion batteries is one possible example, although the production of that product would require additional processing steps beyond the higher-purity niobium intermediate that we discussed in last week’s news release. The company is not yet in a position to make a determination on whether or not, and when, to possibly expand our Niobium product offering. Higher grade TiO2 could expose us to additional markets where higher margins could be obtained. But, again, we are not in a position to speak to those possibilities in any detail yet.
AI
