EDITOR: | February 26th, 2014 | 7 Comments

Northern Minerals Limited: Wolverine HRE Resource Doubled in upgrade at Browns Range

| February 26, 2014 | 7 Comments
image_pdfimage_print

Download (PDF, 3.28MB)


Raj Shah

Editor:

Raj Shah has professional experience working for over a half a dozen years at financial firms such as Merrill Lynch and First Allied Securities Inc., ... <Read more about Raj Shah>


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


Comments

  • Veritas Bob

    “Resource remains dominated by high value dysprosium and yttrium – 84% of the TREO within the Total (Indicated and Inferred) Resource is HRE.”

    Most of this is relatively low value yttirum, not high value dysproium. And that’s the case with most of the HREE projects. Which is why I proposed the term, HVREE, high valued rare earth. Europium, which per REE handbook is not an HREE, despite being called such by many REE companies, is an HVREE, while yttrium is not.

    February 26, 2014 - 8:47 PM

    • Bill Keenes

      I have been following Northern for over 3 years now and am confident when I say .. you don’t know what your talking about Bobby …

      the fact is the LREE produces will be producing their Ce and La (which usually comprises more than 50% of the distribution) at a loss, … where as Northern will be producing it’s Yttrium for a profit, also more than 50% of Northern revenuers will be from Dy

      when the pre-feasibility is released in about 2 to 3 months time it will prove what I have said and show you up for the fool you are

      February 27, 2014 - 5:34 AM

      • Veritas Bob

        I never said whether or not Northern Minerals would operate at a profit. I did say that yttirum is low value, not high value.

        February 27, 2014 - 12:56 PM

        • Tracy Weslosky

          VB – Your comment was edited due to the content being libelous. Watch it.

          February 27, 2014 - 1:30 PM

          • Veritas Bob

            Tracy,

            For the record, my edited post included mention of the possibility that some other entity’s interpretation of what constituted something (I shall not name either the entity or the something again) was different than my interpretation. Therefore, I do not believe it was libelous, even though I respect your right to edit from the persepctive of your cautious viewpoint.

            February 27, 2014 - 7:44 PM

          • Tracy Weslosky

            Thank you VB for appreciating what my lawyer costs every time we get near this line. You often make very strong points and try and reference your source when you take positions that are negative. I often tell people they can make a negative point easily by simply excluding the company in their commentary to which they have issues with. This is something that is a struggle for all of us, as the negative energy that comes from criticism is just that –…and often a waste of time. Positive support of what we like gets more attention. I would like to challenge you VB to let us know what you like on the companies that you do like, as I can guarantee you that many are aware of your ‘handle’.

            February 28, 2014 - 10:03 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Lol Bill, Frontier is showing Yttrium at $9kg ATM as of Feb 13th, and NTU will need to apply a final processing discount to it’s 92% mixed con.
    Perhaps you are suggesting the PEA will be in line with Moly’s original estimate of production costs?

    February 27, 2014 - 6:26 AM

Leave a Reply

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