EDITOR: | July 20th, 2016 | 26 Comments

Lifton challenges the WSJ editorial on Honda no longer using heavy rare earths

| July 20, 2016 | 26 Comments
image_pdfimage_print

This morning The Wall Street Journal editorial page, no less, “reports” that Honda will no longer use “heavy” rare earths in its “hybrid” car engines after 2017.

What the WSJ editorial staff does not understand is that this is shilling for Honda and says nothing about the use of rare earths in general for EVs, electrified, not hybrid, vehicles. Honda is among the world’s largest manufacturers of internal combustion engines, which do not and have not ever used rare earths in their core construction. Honda does not want the electrification of cars, if it ever happens, to happen soon, because it has a huge investment in the design and manufacturing of internal combustion engines. Hybrid combinations of electric and internal combustion power trains, such as in Toyota’s class leading Prius, have long used nickel metal hydride (rare earth based) batteries in the electric power train and high efficiency heavy rare earth using electric drive motors. Honda has done the same thing, but Honda has invested little in securing a non Chinese supply of rare earths whereas Toyota, through its trading company, has invested between $500,000,000 and one billion dollars so far to develop rare earth sources in India and Vietnam.

The craftily worded press release by Honda, which, of course, the WSJ has bought hook, line, and sinker, as a general statement talks about the tiny “hybrid” segment, which is at best a stop gap niche market. This is of course the best outcome for Honda, which wants to put the Chinese on notice that its control of a critical set of raw materials doesn’t stop Honda. Just as King Canute of England put nature on notice that the fact that he couldn’t order the tides to stop didn’t mean he wouldn’t keep trying. Of course any price pressure such publicity puts on rare earth prices doesn’t bother Honda at all. I wonder if any WSJ reporter ever stopped to think about asking Honda when they would stop buying traction motors, starter motors, generators, and power steering parts that do not contain heavy rare earth modified permanent magnets, which purchases of course are the bulk of their uses of the rare earths.

The goal of electric drive motor research in the automotive sector is to reduce the costs of manufacturing such motors without losing efficiency or performance. The manufacturing of such motors does not stop until research reaches some target; it is an ongoing moving target. No one is replacing dysprosium/terbium modified rare earth permanent magnets in traction (drive) motors, but the amounts of these modifiers are always changing as new magnet processing technology and better understanding of the underlying science advances.

If Honda is truly eliminating heavy rare earths from its products then we can look ultimately to Chinese made competing products to be more efficient and better performing. This is the conclusion I derive from the WSJ’s editorial (lack of) “analysis” of this press release.


Jack Lifton

Editor:

Jack Lifton is the CEO for Jack Lifton, LLC and is a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of technology metals. Technology metals ... <Read more about Jack Lifton>


Copyright © 2016 InvestorIntel Corp. All rights reserved. More & Disclaimer »


Comments

  • Aat Oskam

    Well, if it is true, it is good news for the “light” rare earths companies like Lynas, because Nd is a good part of Lynas’ production. Why are you challenging the “hot deformation” proces of Daido Steel so soon, Jack?

    July 20, 2016 - 5:42 PM

  • Jack Lifton

    Ast,

    I am not challenging their processing technology I am saying that it is just another magnet making technology, albeit far along in development. OEMs do not change specifications overnight and the acceptance by one of a new product or technology does NOT mean acceptance by all either at the same time or ever.
    As to Lynas: Of course the didymium they produce is their key and core product and the reason that they are backed by Japanese trading companies.
    In technology it is practice (application to mass production) that is the one and only measure of success and acceptance. This is what the current WSJ writers do not understand or choose willfully to ignore.
    Jack

    July 21, 2016 - 6:36 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Jack, rather than focus WSJ why not look to the supply chain for credibility?

    Source of the primary NdPrO unknown, could originate China, or now ROW, given consistent established supply.

    Magnequench could produce the bonded Neo powder at either their Chinese facility or the upgraded ex AMR facility in Thailand. They previously claimed 85% market share, since loss of patent in 2014 they have bled established market to former customers inside China, sounds like they’ve got smarter in response.

    “In contrast, isotropic bonded Nd-Fe-B magnets, such as those made from MQP™ powder grades, have very good linearity in the second quadrant engineering curve up to temperatures of 180°C. Hence, even without Dy, bonded Nd-Fe-B magnets offer equivalent performance to sintered Nd-Fe-B magnets for applications operating up to 180°C, without a significant increase in motor size.

    Since all MQP™ grades are Dy free, bonded Nd-Fe-B magnets will not be impacted by the impending supply-demand constraints and the resulting price increase. This will make an MQP™ based solution ideal and less expensive in many applications.”

    mqitechnology.com/dy-free-solution.jsp

    “MQFP – MQFP technology, applicable to all MQP grades, reduces the mean powder particle size from 160 microns to 5 microns.”

    Totally lay observation but possibly relevant next step of the supply chain:

    “The hot deformation method is a technology that enables nanometer-scale crystal grains to be well-aligned in order to realize a fine crystal grain structure that is approximately ten times smaller than that of a sintered magnet, which makes it possible to produce magnets with greater heat resistance properties.”

    daido.co.jp/en/event/160712_freemag_hevmotor.html

    Then, for at least the second known instance, we get a major OEM redesigning end product to facilitate Dy deletion:

    “Honda designed a new motor which accommodates this new magnet. In addition to the shape of the magnet, Honda revised the shape of the rotor to optimize the flow of the magnetic flux of the magnet. As a result, the hot deformed neodymium magnet that contains absolutely no heavy rare earth became usable for the drive motor of a hybrid vehicle, demonstrating torque, output and heat resistance performance equivalent to those of a motor that uses the conventional type of magnet.”

    honda.com/news/2016/4160712eng.html

    As Forbes Global #76 are Honda truly stupid enough to do a Volkswagon?

    Siemens of course was the other OEM who redesigned end product to facilitate Dy deletion, remodeling the stator and cooling system as part of the process of reducing Dy to 0.7% in the D6MW, then further enhancements were quickly developed to reduce Dy to 0.6% and simultaneously raise output in the D7MW platform.

    Seems Daido Steel have further ambitions:

    “With the newly-developed hot deformed neodymium magnet, Daido Steel will make a new entry into the market for magnets used for drive motors of hybrid vehicles, which has been basically monopolized by sintered neodymium magnets. Starting next month, August 2016, Daido Electronics will begin the mass-production and shipment of this magnet using a new production line that the company built in its factory (located in Nakatsugawa City in Gifu Prefecture in Japan) using a subsidy received from the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

    Moreover, Daido Steel will continue pursuing the development of heavy rare earth-free magnets with further improved properties.”

    Given Arnold’s quoted 2014 comparative ASP’s of $90kg for bonded NdFeB vs $150kg for sintered NdFeB not difficult to understand Daido’s enthusiasm if indeed they have nano engineered the crystalline structure of bonded NdFeB thru the 180C operating range, massive price advantage to take to market.

    Which, steak knives, gets a whole lot more interesting when you read Dr John Ormerod:

    “Another exciting processing technology that has the potential to revolutionize the production of bonded magnets is 3D printing or additive manufacturing. MAI has teamed with researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL). The technical objective of the proposal is to fabricate net shape isotropic NdFeB bonded magnets utilizing additive manufacturing technologies at ORNL. The goal is to form complex shapes of both thermoplastic and thermoset bonded magnets without expensive tooling and minimal wasted material.”

    magneticsmagazine.com/main/articles/bonded-magnets-a-versatile-class-of-permanent-magnets/

    Not difficult to imagine the cost efficiency, sans sintered alloy/swarf, of 3D printing HRE free bonded NdFeB to OEM specs.

    Interesting to note ROW Govt support to a minimum of two identified stages there. Frankly I would have thought ROW pundits would be celebrating the potential of a globalised effort to break free of the Dragon.

    July 21, 2016 - 8:18 AM

  • jeff stufsky

    Great news if Honda can produce a hybrid engine using less expensive and more stably available inputs. Yet another step in the evolution of no-less-powerful but increasingly cost-effective and cleaner engines. Even better, possibly this leads to further technology advancement for pure EVs. It’s certainly another vote for the inherent value and power of capitalism and competition. I’m not following the hubbub about the WSJ’s reporting if these are the facts of the day. As ever, we’ll see how it all plays out. Consumers, and investors, still need to be careful about putting all eggs in one basket.

    July 21, 2016 - 9:58 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth
    July 21, 2016 - 10:26 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Tim,

    Did we speak to each other in Singapore last November?

    Jack

    July 21, 2016 - 10:46 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    no

    July 21, 2016 - 10:48 AM

  • hackenzac

    What about weight, performance, and durability? It smells like near beer to me.

    July 21, 2016 - 10:57 AM

  • jeff stufsky

    Tim, all these articles are reflective of my long-held and previously shared views. Capitalism and competition breeds solutions through new or modified technology including the reduction or replacement of inputs that are deemed too expensive or relatively unavailable. Sometimes the outcome is – in baseball parlance – “only” a single or a double rather than a home run; while still leading to runs and wins. Good for Honda, and the WSJ as well as others for reporting it, and for US as well as other consumers who need worry less about the heretofore unrealized Armageddon of not-enough (heavy and/light) rare earths and monopolist practices in places like China. The (free) market invariably speaks louder than any big-handed government. Supplies will follow. There doesn’t seem to be much to lament, possibly other than investments in rare earth mining companies.

    July 21, 2016 - 11:13 AM

  • JJBeswick

    Yes Jeff, the trend is clearly towards low HRE NdFeB magnet usage across all application areas, although there’s likely to be a remnant Dy demand for use in very high temp applications.
    Frankly, the naysayers are increasingly looking like Don Quixote- like figures tilting at low HRE Siemens wind turbines.

    July 21, 2016 - 12:27 PM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Yes Jeff, agree your synopsis, one I have been suggesting for some time, the fundamental interest in RE has been the geopolitical play, largely now washed thru the system.
    Would be interested to see your list of “rare earth mining companies”, and exactly what they were mining, but the ROW RE production company just reported, apparently of little consequence here, is factoring $35kg NdPr the “new norm”, and structuring the business accordingly.
    Given ROW demand to May is running in line with the peak year 2006 appears they have adequate support, why stress the dragon thrashing?

    July 24, 2016 - 9:07 AM

  • Jack

    I think its a good idea to use 2006 as a baseline. If you just cut out 2007-15 as an anamoly then a realistic growth curve mapping the global economy is likely to result from now on. Because of the ways, rare earths are found in nature and how they are, separated there wlll always be a LREE/HREE imbalance, but I think that NdPr demand growth is the most important metric and that it may increase due to Chinese domestic demand at a, rate higher than thecrate of growth of global GDP

    JACK

    July 24, 2016 - 2:29 PM

  • jeff stufsky

    Tim, my reference to rare earth mining companies regards the huge list of entities with green field projects that many have thought would solve an alleged global shortage that never seems to materialize. I continue to think that the middle of the 2006-2015 period referenced by Jack may well represent the “golden years” for RE prices for the foreseeable future based on a combination of slow demand growth and ample supply. Slow demand seems to result from RE-bearing end-products that are still inconvenient to use and/or too high cost for mainstream purchase (e.g., EV cars, big storage batteries) alongside ample RE supply that now seems to revolve around a quick pivot back to the technology-drive, volume-related importance of more abundant LREEs instead of HREEs. Throw in by-product production and recycling and we are in an interesting holding pattern. At some point, if demand truly increases, new mining projects can and will be brought to market, especially outside of China. My point is that we are not resource constrained and the market finds its way to using available supplies of cost-effective inputs to make desirable and cost-effective end-products. I believe it is unlikely that that anyone will be held hostage by China in any regard. I am most interested in seeing whether solar power is allowed to dis-intermediate a central dispatch system that ensures relatively low cost power with effective 100% certainty at a competitive cost based today on natural gas and based tomorrow possibly on more nuclear.

    July 25, 2016 - 11:52 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Interesting historical from the Sino perspective:

    “China rare earth related systems for 30 years
    Published: July 21, 2016 Posted by: Baotou Rare Earth Products Exchange

    China Rare Earth since 1985 to encourage exports, in 2015 began to implement ad valorem resource tax, international status has been further enhanced to 30 years adhere to the “beginning of the heart do not forget,” temper “move on.”

    1985 – introduced the export tax rebate system
    1997 – Set export license (export restrictions)
    2002 – prohibit mining, smelting and separation of foreign investment projects
    2004 – mineral export tax rebate cancellation
    2005 – canceled the export tax rebate oxide
    2006 – Status of collection oxide ore export tax of 10%
    2007 – Status of collection of metal products 10% export tax
    In 2008– improve oxide, a compound tariff to 15-25%
    2010 – will cut rare earth export quotas by 40% over the previous year
    In 2011– since April 1, 2011, the State Council unified adjustment of rare earth ores resources tax standards, including light rare earth Bastnaesite, quarry alone is 60 yuan / ton; heavy rare earth including xenotime, ion rare earth ore is 30 yuan / ton. May 2011, “the State Council on promoting the sustained and healthy development of rare earth industry,” first proposed “national strategic reserve” concept. Rare Metal Exchange opened.
    2012 – A praseodymium, yttrium and praseodymium oxide metal new levy 25% export duty; neodymium, praseodymium, yttrium fluoride, chloride, carbonate newly imposed a 15% export tax; for lanthanum, praseodymium, neodymium , dysprosium, terbium, yttrium compounds other new levy 25% export duty; NdFeB permanent magnet pieces new quick-setting impose a 20% export tax; other tariffs unchanged. US, EU and Japan formally to the WTO proceedings against China’s rare earth export policy.
    2014 – WTO the United States, Europe, Japan v rare earth, tungsten, molybdenum related products management measures of the case made a final ruling that China’s rare earth export management measures are inconsistent with WTO rules. State Council approved the six business groups (Aluminum Company, Baotou Steel Rare Earth, Xiamen Tungsten, China Minmetals, Ganzhou Rare Earth and Rising colored) integration of the domestic large group of rare earth program.
    2015 – export quotas, export tariffs canceled; resources tax introduced (change levied ad valorem); began to dominate the ISO standard.”

    http://www.repe.com.cn/web/news/news_detail.jsp?parentid=60&classid=159&infoid=4345

    I’d suggest there are three distinct & completed phases of RE market development clearly outlined there, and we’ve just entered a fourth:

    1985/2005: expansion of primary industry and export for hard cash.

    2006/2010: removal of export subsidy and imposition of taxes to create dual price system, domestic/ROW, plus contraction of export quotas, all designed to draw capital & IP inside China.

    2011/2015: demand destruction from resulting speculation masked by domestic growth until late 2014, dramatically highlighted by the 6 week implosion of artificially maintained Dy, Tb & Lu pricing July 15.

    2016+: efficiency of RE proven by exponential growth ROW demand based off level playing field, four years ROW Govt/industry R&D eliminate tyranny of HRE, legacy Chinese supply/price distortions corrupt true economic values.

    ROW demand could account for as much as 40% of production quotas 2016, up from just 15% 2013, absolutely stunning turn around. Highly unlikely that China will continue to sponsor the abject failure of their 10yr plan at their cost for much longer, individual REE will find their true economic values as China winds down excess inventory/production.

    July 27, 2016 - 7:19 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Agree the concept of deleting the 2007/2015 period of Chinese distortion & manipulation but RE demand growth now simply based on the substance in the story, the true efficacy of RE, currently stimulated by sub economic price levels.

    However that demand growth is NOT coming from China, nor is it waiting for China, it is feeding OFF China, and its pricing/volume stimulus:

    Comment elsewhere:

    “Important thing not yet recognised by investment mkts is where the demand growth is actually occurring, probably because the real strength has only become apparent in the last few months and is also somewhat masked by Lynas’ growing contribution, which needs to be guesstimated on top of Chinese data (Given a portion of NdPr sales enter the Dragon).

    Yet to get Sino June exports but not difficult to extrapolate the strongest ROW demand since the peak years around 2006 off first 5 months.

    However just released is June NdFeB exports +18,9% YoY, and YTD showing +9.6%, calculate just 75% of LYC monthly 400t NdPr into ROW NdFeB gives another 1000t of magnets both May & June. Conservatively call it 250t NdPr/750t NdFeB Jan/April that ‘s potentially a further 5kt NdFeB over China exports 12,585t HY.

    http://newmat.chinaiol.com/pnjs/q/0725/50171065.html

    That’s 17,500t to June 2016 vs 2015 @ 11,500 China/2,500 Lynas = 14,000t

    Back of the envelop, HY ROW NdFeB growth 20% YoY.

    Anybody seriously think the Dragon is going to continue sponsoring that level of growth at their cost?

    Most particularly when you factor the respective value add differential between export ASP $50kg and import ASP $90.90kg.

    http://newmat.chinaiol.com/pnjs/q/0725/78171066.html

    Some very interesting data from the Lynas QR and subsequent briefings but the overwhelming impression has to one of total vindication for T4, their mkt intel totally read the right tea leaves late 2015, and consequently we’ll get some indication of what the much maligned LAMP is actually capable of next year, @ 27% NdPr.

    July 27, 2016 - 8:38 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Sans references being “moderated”:

    Agree the concept of deleting the 2007/2015 period of Chinese distortion & manipulation but RE demand growth now simply based on the substance in the story, the true efficacy of RE, currently stimulated by sub economic price levels.

    However that demand growth is NOT coming from China, nor is it waiting for China, it is feeding OFF China, and its pricing/volume stimulus:

    Comment elsewhere:

    “Important thing not yet recognised by investment mkts is where the demand growth is actually occurring, probably because the real strength has only become apparent in the last few months and is also somewhat masked by Lynas’ growing contribution, which needs to be guesstimated on top of Chinese data (Given a portion of NdPr sales enter the Dragon).

    Yet to get Sino June exports but not difficult to extrapolate the strongest ROW demand since the peak years around 2006 off first 5 months.

    However just released is June NdFeB exports +18,9% YoY, and YTD showing +9.6%, calculate just 75% of LYC monthly 400t NdPr into ROW NdFeB gives another 1000t of magnets both May & June. Conservatively call it 250t NdPr/750t NdFeB Jan/April that ‘s potentially a further 5kt NdFeB over China exports 12,585t HY.

    “reference”

    That’s 17,500t to June 2016 vs 2015 @ 11,500 China/2,500 Lynas = 14,000t

    Back of the envelop, HY ROW NdFeB growth 20% YoY.

    Anybody seriously think the Dragon is going to continue sponsoring that level of growth at their cost?

    Most particularly when you factor the respective value add differential between export ASP $50kg and import ASP $90.90kg.

    “reference”

    Some very interesting data from the Lynas QR and subsequent briefings but the overwhelming impression has to one of total vindication for T4, their mkt intel totally read the right tea leaves late 2015, and consequently we’ll get some indication of what the much maligned LAMP is actually capable of next year, @ 27% NdPr.

    July 27, 2016 - 8:41 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Tim,

    Would you be even more analytic with regard to specialization, please? I am not disagreeing with your overall analysis, I am asking you where in the supply chain the non-Chinese demand is growing? It seems to me as if the Chinese excess capacity for mining, separation, metal and alloy, and magnet(?) production is where the revenue is going. So that even if “demand” for RE enabled finished goods is growing outside of China does not this mostly increase RE related revenues in China?

    I note that todays Financial Times has a long piece emphasizing President Xi’s increasingly nationalistic agenda. It is certainly true that his government has been giving more and more credit facilities to SOEs to “invest” in manufacturing even though the theme of the (His!) current five year plan is to rebalance the Chinese economy away from savings and investment to consumption and services. I am not surprised therefore at the confusion in the ROW RE sector, which is looking at financial rather than political logic.

    Jack

    July 27, 2016 - 11:12 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Lol Jack, I’m just a mug punter, not paid for specifics, but I’ll suggest many ROW downstream industries are very simply looking at investment logic, engaging, or re-engaging, RE for its efficiencies & cost effectiveness, particularly having learnt how to employ them effectively, and particularly at current sub economic pricing, with the added incentive of the Dragon dismantling the two tier pricing structure, WTO made for a gracious face save.

    H1 16 demand, Sino exports + Lynas, looks circa 28kt, should H2 repeat those volumes 2016 will rank among the +50kt years 2003/4/5/6, and perhaps even challenge the 57.4kt peak in 2006, hell of a lot of LaCe, and 350% growth over 16kt 2012 nadir. Would be more than interesting to do a value comparison to 2006, gross value US$800M, should it get close:

    2.3 Exportation

    mystockcharts.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/article20100407-outline-on-the-development-and-policies-of-china-rare-earth-industry/

    For specifics best chase up Lynas for real time advice, but some pointers from QR3:

    “NdPr remained in high demand from magnet makers in Japan where we maintain over 50% share and in China with selected customers.”

    “Cerium sales benefitted from the strong business performance of our key customers in the Autocat and UV cut segments.”

    “Demand for our Lanthanum remained strong, supported by customers in both the Fuel Catalytic Cracking and Ferrite Magnet sectors. These are the two major applications using Lanthanum, both of which are enjoying continuous growth outside China.”

    And QR4:

    “….. consistent trend in sales growth over the past 2 years, Lynas’ sales volume reached a new record of 3,806 tonnes…………..decision to stockpile SEG (150t), our heavy rare earths mix”

    ” leading position as an NdPr supplier to magnet makers in Japan, reaching a new Lynas sales volume record in Japan, while maintaining consistent sales to selected customers in China.”

    “Lynas’ sales volumes of Cerium, Lanthanum and their compounds also reached new record levels, primarily due to the strong growth experienced by our major customers in the Autocat and UV Cut Glass markets.”

    As to China, we’ve all heard them, my China agent, a Kiwi who’s been dealing there +20yrs, was recently telling me of 6 x 100 story apartment towers built in a regional centre, 6000 units in total, all bought by FOUR families, and left vacant, of course. My mind immediately went to all the NdFeB in elevator motors, AC motors, water & waste pumps, etc, etc, remembering nearly 20% NdFeB run to DC motor/elevator & AC compressor.

    But of course there is no better illustration of the collapse of China domestic demand than graphical capitulation of the artificially speculated prices of Dy & Tb, in a bare 5 weeks (note DyO currently @ 1214 has subsequently fallen off the scale), hardly a function of true supply/demand:

    repe.com.cn/web/trend/dyo.html

    repe.com.cn/web/trend/tbo.html

    Should hardly be a revelation, been building for some time, given heavy losses, and equally heavy State subsidies, the Dragon has little choice but to knock its supply side into some semblance of a business.

    July 27, 2016 - 2:12 PM

  • Mike

    wasn’t there an interview coming with Amanda Lacaze?

    July 28, 2016 - 9:31 AM

    • Tracy Weslosky

      It will be up today

      July 28, 2016 - 9:47 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Recent FU on the Siemens’ reference:

    “The upgrade of the offshore direct-drive turbine to 8 MW is made possible through the introduction of new magnet technology with an even higher grade than that introduced in the SWT-7.0-154. This enables a rated power increase of more than 14% from 7 to 8 MW.”

    http://www.windpowerengineering.com/featured/business-news-projects/siemens-expands-portfolio-8-mw-offshore-wind-turbine/

    Significant part of the magnet upgrade from 6MW to 7MW was the reduction of Dy from 0.7% to 0.6%, wonder how much less the “new magnet technology” requires for enhanced output?

    Never rains but pours don’t it, seems the “heavies” mantra has become a race to the bottom.

    July 30, 2016 - 7:39 AM

  • Bill

    Amanda Lamaze of Lynas from the 30 June 2016 Quarterly Activities report:-

    Dysprosium and Terbium price variations are mainly driven by speculation, as those elements remain important components of permanent magnets, especially for environmentally-friendly motor vehicles and high power density wind turbines. End use demand for Dysprosium and Terbium is increasing, and production from ionic clay deposits in Southern China continues to create environmental concerns. These factors influenced Lynas’ decision to stockpile SEG, with the aim of capturing upside value as demand grows in the future.

    see page 6:
    http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01757943

    Tim, I believe Amanda Lamaze of Lynas has more of an idea on these matters than you do

    July 30, 2016 - 8:24 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Lol Bill, if you can’t sell it, guess you have to spruik it.

    Contrary to the 400t NdPr just rolling out the door each month.

    July 30, 2016 - 8:29 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    No matter what the product may be, calling an unsellable material an “asset” is risky. Molycorp had some 134 million dollars of such assets at the end, and I believe they were marked to zero in the final accounting, which, if it was so, was a very generous valuation by the accountants.

    July 30, 2016 - 10:09 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Exactly Jack, you’re only as good as your current economic value.

    July 30, 2016 - 11:24 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Which begs the Q, what are the respective economic parameters of individual RE?

    CoP vs downstream value, by application, anyone game to hazard a guess?

    July 30, 2016 - 11:38 AM

Leave a Reply

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