EDITOR: | December 3rd, 2015 | 40 Comments

Levelling the Rare Earth Playing Field

| December 03, 2015 | 40 Comments

We have come a long way from the heady days of 2010-2011 when everyone jumped on the rare earth bandwagon and raising money was simple if you had rare earths in your company name. A lot has changed since then but there is still a lot of noise and mixed messages and fund raising has become a real fight for survival in a very challenging market.

Every project is the next best one outside of China and if one reviews PEA and PFS reports all elements can be sold at projected prices with no context of supply and demand. In an attempt to level the playing field I have developed the attached table to evaluate all the main projects using the same pricing, which I feel is reasonable and defendable. In addition it assumes all La, Nd, Pr, Tb and Dy can be sold and Eu is sold at a 30% discount and Y at 25% off market given the current oversupply situation. Some private projects are not included including ionic clay projects in South America.

Until now most PFS studies look at selling everything that is produced even though this is a near impossibility. This is especially interesting when people talk that they will sell concentrate and use their best guess for market prices of separated elements in the future to build their revenues.

What is noticeable is that in all cases the BIG 4 (Nd/Pr/Dy/Tb) magnetic elements account for >90% of all revenues in every project. The same pricing assumptions were used on all projects with a base of 1,000 TPY REO output to see how composition plays into the project revenues. Some assumptions were made:

  1. Projects will sell all the La, Nd, Pr, Tb and Dy
  2. They will get 70% of the value of Eu and 75% of the Y value as most of this will be sold as a concentrate, if possible
  3. No value is given for any of the other elements: any sales of these would be a bonus.

I looked at Market Cap, Enterprise Value and cash position to see how the projects compare. The cash position, (based on Sept. 30 reports) as one can see, is a critical issue for a number of projects and their ability to raise in the next 6-12 months will determine their future unless the projects are put on care and maintenance until the market recovers, which could be a VERY long time.

Additional factors considered are CAPEX, OVERALL PROJECT. The Overall Project takes into account grade, location, access to chemicals, labour, power and utilities. In some cases there are good grades but they may as well be on the moon when it comes to access to labour, chemicals and power. CAPEX of over $500M will be challenging to raise in the current market environment. Additionally some management teams are recognizing that bigger is not necessarily better. Mt. Pass proved this. A plant likes to run at a high percentage of capacity on a sustained basis, particularly solvent extraction to succeed. Any hiccups upstream can create problems in maintaining a balanced solvent extraction operation. In additional the qualification will take time so unlike most projections one does not sell everything at day one.

At the end of the day the project will have to be within 20% of comparable Chinese costs as exported material from China still carries at 17% VAT penalty to be competitive. All customers outside China want a non-Chinese source  but when pushed will pay little or any premium and in reality support the black market by buying smuggled material out of China. Sad, but a reality. I believe there is an opportunity to provide longer term stable pricing which after 2010-2011 the market really wants. Lynas it appears is taking this approach. With the demise of Mountain Pass it will be harder for Molycorp to implement such a strategy for materials produced inside China.

This is a horse race as there is room for 2, maximum 3 projects, with the demise of Mt. Pass. This horse race may become somewhat of a marathon at today’s market pricing and investment malaise. After the next few projects begin someone will have to come with significantly different costs to find a place in the market. One can draw your own conclusions as to the horse you want to back but I hope this raises some awareness in a very complicated space.

SUMMARY OF PEERS as of Dec. 1, 2015




Competitive Comparison a

Competitive Comparison b

Competitive Comparison c

Competitive Comparison d

Competitive Comparison e



InvestorIntel is a trusted source of reliable information at the forefront of emerging markets that brings investment opportunities to discerning investors.

Copyright © 2020 InvestorIntel Corp. All rights reserved. More & Disclaimer »


  • Peter Clausi

    I don’t know this part of the RE market well enough to add anything specific to the conversation, but as a generality this kind of analysis is a fundamental necessity to any market.

    December 4, 2015 - 11:02 AM

  • asrms

    Is my reading of your chart correct in that you are giving Lynas the same sort of estimated chance of success as MCP?

    December 4, 2015 - 11:28 AM

  • Joe O

    Not liking ucore being a long shot. Potential government bond and results of super lig pilot are important factors going forward. Though book an deposit, location etc was suppose to be pretty solid?

    December 4, 2015 - 11:38 AM

  • Alastair Neill

    I left both Lynas and Molycorp as white given that they are in operation. Molycorp still has the Neomaterial assets plus Silmet so they are there more as a comparison to projects that are in the development stage. Once Molycorp restructures then it will be more able to be compared to Lynas.

    December 4, 2015 - 11:39 AM

  • Positroll

    Isn’t it strange – you just happen to leave out any revenue for the hafnium, niobium and zirconium product streams and suddenly Alkane looks really horrible revenue-wise; without even a footnote explaining that the Dubbo ZIRCONIA Project is a freaking multi-metal project, with REEs providing only 30% of the expected revenues … sheesh …

    December 4, 2015 - 11:57 AM

  • Alastair Neill

    Positroll. It is a polymetallic deposit, like some others. In the case of RE projects is 10-15% of the cost. The key costs will be in developing a concentrate and separation. The revenue stream will determine the possible CAPEX/OPEX and profitability for each product including Hf, Zr etc. Concentration is typically the biggest cost followed by separation. The object was to compare all projects using the same pricing assumptions as no two PFS or PEA studies use the same numbers.

    December 4, 2015 - 12:20 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    In the case of RE projects MINING is 10-15% of the cost.
    Hf, Zr etc will have their own revenue streams and CAPEX/OPEX which should not impact the RE portion of the project.

    December 4, 2015 - 12:38 PM

  • hackenzac

    Last I heard, Ucore has more like 5 mil in the bank from technology royalties beefing up the thread they’re apparently hanging from if you believe the chart. If the word ‘remote’ has to do with Bokan’s location as opposed to it’s chances of developing then I’d advise the author to check his geography. The rare earth playing field is far from level. Bokan is 2 miles from a 4 season deep water port and Ucore is a technology company in ways that none of the others. Add another column for royalties followed by the word ‘nope’ for every one of them but one.

    December 4, 2015 - 1:37 PM

  • Tracy Weslosky

    Alastair – Asher just added your 2nd page worksheet to the above story.

    For the record, I received at least 2 dozen emails last night, and several phone calls. I will as I sort through all of the feedback start posting the highlights as there were numerous points made about the above which I am certain will add to the dialogue and debate.

    Professor Dudley Kingsnorth called me and as he wrote in his email: “I believe that we all have something to contribute. Rare earths are complex; I do not believe that there is a silver bullet, or that one person has all the right ideas – many are common to each of us, while some have a better understanding of a given issue/consideration.” — and on Sunday night when I interview Professor Kingsnorth, I will be asking him numerous questions after reviewing more thoroughly his analysis and data. Some of which, he is allowing us to publish next week.

    I would like to recommend that if you see data that you disagree with, please submit in a post here instead of emailing me so that we can let Alastair defend and/or — agree with.

    December 4, 2015 - 2:51 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    With regard to the cash position this changes constantly. I used Sept 30th as this is a quarter end for most companies and is publicly available. Being Canadian I am familiar with the location. Part of the consideration for any mine on an island is not just a post but availability of power, chemicals and personnel. These tend to not be readily available and added costs of transport and infrastructure development compared to land based projects tend to raise the cost per kg of REO. If the Alaskan government is ready to underwrite these added costs that would level the playing field for Ucore

    December 4, 2015 - 5:46 PM

  • Steve Mackowski

    Alastair, I always admire people who have the cojones to actually publish their research and thoughts. Well done. My articles are on Success Factors which allows the user to assess weightings on each factor. This is where the differences in “opinion” come in and active discussion takes place. For mine your methodology is solid and leaves scope for peoples differences.
    For clarity, I believe the Hastings project is exactly that (an HREO project), I think they have now preferenced their Yangibana project (a LREO project). This will alter the ranking appropriately.
    Again well done.

    December 4, 2015 - 6:51 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Thanks Steve. I agree discussion is always useful and Hastings is one of my top picks. This is a picture of the industry at a point in time. Developments can change this as funds are raised, projects move forward and others may fall off or move to a different focus. There are some I did not include given my limited understanding of the specifics so maybe a later version/review will change the rankings. Different views are always healthy.

    December 4, 2015 - 7:02 PM

  • Joe O

    Re:ucore. Didn’t Alaska already vote on 145million bond?
    And does potential of super lig separation, recycling etc. included in your calculations? Supposably it has a chance to be a game changer

    December 4, 2015 - 8:35 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Joe – You may know more than me regarding the bond issue. No question that the technology could be a game changer. At the Summit in Toronto there were 8 different companies working on this. I do not know the specific cost projections for the super lig technology but it would have to be able to separate in the range of $3 per kg to be cost competitive with the Chinese. One still has to be competitive with Chinese costs as customers keep saying they want a non-Chinese source but when pushed will pay little if any premium to the Chinese, especially at current pricing. Only another 2010-2011 bubble will get end users to revisit their purchasing strategies.
    As I said this is a horse race so if Ucore can raise the necessary funds and prove they are cost competitive with Chinese sources game on

    December 4, 2015 - 9:46 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Sorry Steve. Misread. It was Northern, not Hastings, as one of my top picks. Should not reply late at night. Charles – Thank you for the comments. Having worked in R&D and technology implementation for a long time I agree commercial scalability is a challenge for new technologies. It is possible but as you say the best technology will not save the wrong project.

    December 5, 2015 - 12:56 AM

  • Jack Lifton


    I think that the readers and commenters may not realize that the “new” processing technologies are an attempt to solve the problem that destroyed the attempts to re-start the rare earth supply chain outside of China. That problem is that economies of scale do not work beyond a certain point in refining rare earths. The answer appears to be to find a separation/purification technology with either no or a very low threshold with respect to volume. Of course such a technology has to be economically efficient. You’re right that its too early to judge among accelerated SX; MRT; and CIC/CIX, but each of these technologies has a pilot plant project underway. No new traditional light rare earths targeted SX is today under construction-although the Indian Rare Earths’ facility at Kerala is very recent-due to overcapacity, but I think that now more than ever the production and refining of heavy rare earths outside of China will depend on the economic success of one of the three technologies going to pilot plant in the USA (as it happens). There is one alternative, I admit, and I will address that in an article in a couple of days.


    December 5, 2015 - 9:50 AM

  • Positroll

    “The object was to compare all projects using the same pricing assumptions as no two PFS or PEA studies use the same numbers.”
    The problem is that it doesn’t make sense to compare apple and oranges on the same pricing assumptions. Your approach is like comparing copper ores on the basis of contained copper alone and not mentioning that one of them has 10g gold / ton as a “byproduct”.
    For Alk, the big opex/capex part is getting the ore dissolved into sulfuric acid (and treatment of the waste acid at the end). Once that is done, getting the different products out of the solution is quite cheap (esp since we are sending the REEs [other than Ce,La and Y] to ShinEtsu for toll treatment). Since their plant extracts the zirconium, hafnium and niobium first (and would be cash-flow positive on that basis alone!), the economics of the further extraction of REEs are completely different from that of a pure REE project.
    Imo, at a minimum you should put a (*) at all those projects that have byproducts in the ore mix that can be produced economically on their own …

    December 5, 2015 - 1:55 PM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    In reference to the two comments above I’d pose the Q, where/how do they think profits for RE will be maximized?

    Given the 2015 IMCOA data showing all bar Nd, Pr & Erbium considerably OVERSUPPLIED, SEG/HRE ranging 150% to 400%, incl Dy 214%, highly unlikely any significant price rises will come to the rescue anytime soon, certainly just limping off effectively a CoP base ATM.

    To build a sustainable business off ANY RE resource every cost/value efficiency will need to be maximised, not sure how that works with toll treatment/third party involvement.

    December 5, 2015 - 10:54 PM

  • Positroll

    Yes, the Hf is a game changer for Alk. They got lucky and went from inquiries by potential customers to a pilot plant level of production within a mere 18 months (they announced successful pilot plant production in the last Q, roughly 2 months ago). They should produce ca. 200 t Hf / year, which makes them easily the world biggest producer. At very low capex and opex (their words, not mine) Hf should add about 20-25% to revenues (translating to roughly 100 mio AU$ additional profit / year). More importantly, they see it as the means to finally draw in strategic investors. The likes of Boeing, Airbus and GE or Siemens are extremely interested in nailing down a long term source for Hf … Time will tell who is right …

    December 6, 2015 - 7:09 AM

  • Alastair Neill

    @Positroll. Maybe Alkane should call themselves a Zr/Hf project and RE as a byproduct. Dubbo Zr/Hf?
    RE was in vogue 5 years ago. Time to move on?
    The main use is in nuclear whose qualification process at best is a decade. The same in aerospace.

    December 6, 2015 - 7:42 AM

  • Jeff Thompson

    Four of the columns (projected revenue, market cap, enterprise value, cash) have a quantitative definition for the red/yellow/green color coding. For the other two columns (overall project, chance of success) with red/yellow/green color coding, are these qualitative (opinion/gut instinct) assessments for each company, or are they quantitatively defined based on inputs from the other parameters in the table or some other source/formula?
    Thank you,
    Jeff Thompson

    December 6, 2015 - 4:53 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Correct the first four are quantitative and easy to put a measure on. The other two are my feelings based on my evaluation of the project (location access to necessary inputs, funding status at this time). Obviously this can change based on new funding, technology breakthrough but some of this is not available publicly.

    December 6, 2015 - 7:22 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Additional factors included grade, Nd content and Tb/Dy where relevant.

    December 6, 2015 - 7:47 PM

  • Positroll

    “@Positroll. Maybe Alkane should call themselves a Zr/Hf project and RE as a byproduct. Dubbo Zr/Hf? RE was in vogue 5 years ago. Time to move on? The main use is in nuclear whose qualification process at best is a decade. The same in aerospace.”
    Uh … they always called it the DZP – Dubbo Zirconium Project. That project started at a time when REEs were still completely boring, with prices below those of today. The name is still appropriate, since volume wise (tons produced) zirconia products make up the great majority of stuff produced (thousands of tons of zirconia as compared to 200t Hf). No need for Alk to downplay REEs now, since they never tried to pump the REE side of the business in the first place, unlike some other players …

    December 7, 2015 - 8:28 AM

  • Nick

    Thanks gentlemen and lady for contributing this information and comments
    …in Paris too they’re telling the story about our ‘rare earth’. Merry Christmas.

    December 7, 2015 - 11:13 AM

  • charles.1

    Positroll, I certainly believe Hf will have its day in the sun, and Dubbo will be a significant supplier, as will Tasman. But it is important to note that a company that currently produces no Hf, is promising to supply 200 tpa of high purity material (Hf/Zr separation is very tough) to a global market that is currently 50-odd tonnes, where the existing market participants are some of the worlds most cautious companies.

    It will happen, but it will be slow market penetration, there will be a battle with purity, the Hf price will fall, it will be delayed, it will cost more…..etc. That is not a criticism, its just the reality of industrial chemistry.

    December 9, 2015 - 10:30 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Totally agree with your comments. Being with AMR and trying to open the international market to Chinese rare earths in the mid 1990’s I know what you are saying. Penetrating an existing supply chain can only be done if the quality is at least the same and there is a significant incentive (ie. price) for the purchaser to switch. It is like Sc. There is potential demand growth but this will only grow over a number of years. Launching a multi product project spreads the risk but also requires multiple marketing programs and a broad engineering team to start multiple products unless this is staged over time as well. Alkane is still one of my top 4 RE projects but the RE component profits must support that individual investment.

    December 10, 2015 - 12:36 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Which frankly Alastair makes converting what’s in the ground directly to revenue dollars extremely hypothetical at best. I wonder what value you would place on Lynas’s existing customer engagement compared to the rest of the field? Or fully financed with a three year window @ 2.8% on the basis they maintain NdPr targets?
    Lumping them in with Moly does seem rather an odd pairing under “Chance of Success”, perhaps the current market cap better reflects that reality $9.65M vs $280.28M?
    BTW, interested in your source for Bayan Obo suite values compared to Mt Weld CLD, given that this one: eurare.eu/docs/eres2014/firstSession/XiaoshengYang.pdf
    compared to CLD values at TMR provides quite a different result. Let alone the issues of beneficiation & separation, not to mention waste handling.
    Which incidentally raises the Q of why the Duncan resource at Mt Weld did not make your list of potentials? With 4.84% TREO & an earlier proposition for 5000tpa NdPr + 300tpa Dy it surely should rank at least with the most likely, particularly given existing infrastructure and the presumption that the required underlying demand would ensure Lynas had the cash flow to underpin development.

    December 10, 2015 - 6:31 AM

  • Alastair Neill

    I put Molycorp and Lynas in as reference points as they are the two operating companies outside of China. If you notice I left chance of success for Moly as blank. With the closure of Mt. Pass they now do not have an operating mine. Lyons’ existing customer base is certainly of value as is the Moly customer base.
    The Bayun Obo values were based on Roskill reported percentages for ore composition. I used the same prices other deposits so Bayun Obo is a reference point for other “light” deposits. A lot of what they sell is to the domestic Chinese market.
    I did not include the Duncan deposit because with the current Lynas debt level I have no idea when they would expand into this deposit. They would have to increase their current debt level to do this and I am not sure if this is possible presently. Maybe you have better information than me as to their plans but I have heard nothing recently on Duncan.

    December 10, 2015 - 10:15 PM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Frankly Alastair I find various commentators fixation with Lynas debt rather dated. Peer comparison debt to equity from: csimarket.com/Industry/Industry_Financial_strenght.php?s=100

    Q3 15 industry average for Chemical Manufacturing was 1.41

    Q3 15 industry average for Metal Mining was 1.03

    Q3 15 Lynas Debt USD430M/Current mkt cap USD300.5M = 1.43

    So currently in line with the Chemical Manufacturing average and not so distant from Metal Mining, in fact 4c on the SP.

    More to the point is the ability to service that debt, but again commentators seem oblivious to the terms of renegotiation that, based on NdPr targets, the JARE coupon falls to 2.8% in line with the existing 2.75% for the Mt Kellet bond facility.

    With a three year runway at those concessional rates I’d fear more for the RE industry as a whole if Lynas can’t make it. Broad terms $12Mpa.

    Also comments Lynas needs to repay debt beyond the installments rather naive given debt is a normal function of business as per the industry averages above, not to mention the conversion option on the $225M Mt Kellet bond.

    On the presumption of the required NdPr demand growth I’ll suggest LAMP revenues will put Lynas in far better shape to finance Duncan development than pretty much anyone else on the lists above.

    “How do you make money in a niche?You keep your mouth shut – Frank Berger #AMG #GKGraphite @ @indmin’s #Graphite15”

    December 11, 2015 - 7:00 PM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Actually Alastair looks to me like the Lynas CLD & Mt Pass calcs are wrong rather than Bayan Obo, found several references to BO showing 0.1% Tb & 0.1% Dy which gives your $600 & $350 respectively.

    However referencing TMR suite values for CLD @ 0.09% Tb & 0.25% Dy provides values for Tb $540/Dy $875

    Incidentally Duncan @ 0.26% Tb & 1.27% Dy would be $1560 & $4445 respectively, with slightly lower NdPr values.

    December 12, 2015 - 12:17 AM

  • Markus Franke

    charles1: “I’m at a loss why Commerce presses on.”

    December 17, 2015 - 1:29 PM

  • charles.1

    Thanks for providing the link Markus. I’m glad that Alastair’s good work was able to rebuff the paid-for fluff written by Rockstone.

    December 17, 2015 - 8:01 PM

  • charles.1

    Further to the point Markus, I believe Alastair is fully independent vs Rockstone as per below. Very few junior mining companies use paid for “research” these days as they have no cut through with retail investors and make professional investors run a mile.

    Thanks again for the link.

    The author of this report is paid by Zimtu
    Capital Corp., a TSX Venture Exchange
    listed investment company. Part of the
    author’s responsibilities at Zimtu is to
    research and report on companies in
    which Zimtu has an investment. So while
    the author of this report is not paid
    directly by Commerce Resources Corp.,
    the author’s employer Zimtu will benefit
    from appreciation of Commerce Resources
    Corp.’s stock price. In addition, the author
    owns shares of Commerce Resources Corp.
    and would also benefit from volume and
    price appreciation of its stock. In this case,
    Commerce Resources Corp. has one or
    more common directors with Zimtu Capital
    Corp. Thus, multiple conflicts of interests

    December 17, 2015 - 8:20 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Charles. Yes you are correct. I was not paid by anyone to produce this article nor do I have any vested interest in any company in the article. I have advised some companies in the industry, some which are in my article and some which are not. After 20 years in the industry my goal was to try and compare projects on a common basis. As with the Rockstone article all the numbers are in USD as this is the main currency in the industry for sales.
    I agree OPEX is an important factor but in most cases this can only be proven once operations begin. Also OPEX to produce a mixed rare earth carbonate is significantly different than those contemplating full separation so how does one compare the differences? CAPEX, access to utilities, chemicals and labour are crucial also. However, the main question that will begin to rise as the players begin to understand the market is how to participate in the magnetic supply chain. Few buy oxide. How to produce/toll metal and/or alloy will have to be considered and addressed.
    A lot of work is being done, as seen at the recent technology Summit in Toronto, hosted by InvestorIntel. Eight companies at least are active in producing new concentration or separation approaches. There is obvious questions about scale up as in any new technology but one has to be competitive with the Chinese or at least within 20% as exports are still facing a 17% VAT rebate premium versus domestic sales inside China. At the end of the day can the produced material (concentrate, separated products) compete with the Chinese. Concentrate versus concentrate costs in China or separated products versus separated products in China.
    I have always found basket price a misleading valuation as it does not take into account the demand side of the equation. For traditional projects looking at gold equivalents this has some meaning and is a traditional method in junior mining. In the early days of the RE bubble this was used by those who failed to recognize that you cannot sell all the Ce ,Ho, Er …. Yb due to either massive oversupply or lack of demand. Also most basket prices take the market price for separated elements even though some projects do not contemplate separation. This skews OPEX as different projects are producing different final products. To “shed some light” on this a discount for unseparated carbonates would have to be applied as no one will buy unseparated concentrate at final market prices. Typically inside China Baotou SmEuGd concentrate is sold at 70-75% of the market price of Eu with no value given for the Sm or Gd. Since Eu is now $100/kg versus $700/kg a year ago this changes revenues substantially.
    A mixed rare earth carbonate is 50% water typically so freight will be doubled versus an oxide product. The other question is who will buy the product? It would not be very cost effective to move to China where the bulk of the separation is installed and that is sort of like coals to Newcastle. Solvay does not want or need a concentrate with high Ce values.
    Both Peak and Rare Element Resources are working to eliminate the Ce before separation to reduce chemical consumption in the SX stage. The resulting Ce oxide will have a limited market unless a new application can be developed.

    At the end of the day the true test is a company showing that it can compete with China, can right size the project and raise the funds to complete construction plus has a strategy for entering the magnetic materials supply chain.

    December 17, 2015 - 11:43 PM

  • Rare Earths 2015 – Lessons for 2016 | InvestorIntel

    […] they might have wanted to be, have spent their funds wisely and time will tell on their future. The recent article by Alastair Neill provides some encouragement around those remaining dozen or so even though his […]

    December 18, 2015 - 7:06 PM

  • Professor Kingsnorth on the Global State of the Rare Earth Market | InvestorIntel

    […] Weslosky: Well, Dudley I’d love to start by just commenting on an email you sent me about the, Levelling the Rare Earth Playing Field written by Alastair Neill. You wrote to me by saying, I believe that we all have something to […]

    December 21, 2015 - 1:10 PM

  • Professor Kingsnorth on the State of the Global Rare Earth Market | InvestorIntel

    […] Weslosky: Well, Dudley I’d love to start by just commenting on an email you sent me about the, Levelling the Rare Earth Playing Field written by Alastair Neill. You wrote to me by saying, I believe that we all have something to […]

    December 21, 2015 - 1:17 PM

  • Dennis

    I have advised some companies in the industry, some which are in my article and some which are not. After 20 years in the industry my goal was to try and compare projects on a common basis. – See more at: http://investorintel.wpengine.com/technology-metals-intel/levelling-the-rare-earth-playing-field/#sthash.L1zUIj5y.dpuf

    What happened to Stans Energy, Alastair? Wasnt Stan your favorite a few years back?

    December 21, 2015 - 1:43 PM

  • Alastair Neill

    Since this was my first article I don’t remember picking Stan’s before. Unfortunately that is in a protracted legal situation. They were not included until such time that this has been resolved. As I understand from their website they are working on arbitration. Once the situation is clarified I may include them in a future update.

    December 21, 2015 - 6:33 PM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *