Development of a Rare Earth Element Resource Database Management System

Von der Fakultät für Georessourcen und Materialtechnik der Rheinisch-Westfä- lischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines

Doktors der Naturwissenschaften

genehmigte Dissertation

vorgelegt von M.Sc.

Patrick Friedrichs

aus Würselen

Berichter: Univ.-Prof. (em) Dr. rer. Nat. Franz Michael Meyer

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ing. Hermann Wotruba

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 27. Januar 2017

Diese Dissertation ist auf den Internetseiten der Hochschulbibliothek online verfügbar. Declaration

Declaration

I declare that this dissertation was composed by myself. The work contained herein is my own except where explicitly stated otherwise in the text, and that this work has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification except as specified.

------

(Patrick Friedrichs)

II Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement

First, I would like to thank Prof. F. Michael Meyer for giving me the opportunity to write this dissertation as well as being part of the Siemens research program (S-FB). Fur- ther, I would like to offer my sincerest appreciation for his constant guidance, valuable feedback, and mostly for the keen interest, he showed throughout this dissertation. It was a pleasure working with him. Second, I would like to thank Prof. Wotruba for being the second communicant and also for his special interest in the DBMS he showed during the four years of the project. In addition, I would like to thank my colleague Nicolas Stoltz for the wonderful four years and the comfortable environment of cooperation and companionship. I will always miss the time we had during this project. Moreover, I want to thank Siemens AG for funding this interesting project as well as for the guidance throughout this project. Further, I am thankful for giving me the opportunity to write invention disclosures as well as patents. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Thomas Peuker and Dr. Sonja Wolfrum (Siemens AG) for their continuous feedback and that they always had a sympathetic ear. I am highly indebted and grateful to my fiancée Amelie for days and weeks of proof- reading, discussions and the moods she had to stand during the last couple of years. Thank you for your patience, love and encouragement throughout all ups and downs. Finally, I want to acknowledge the contribution of my family and friends, who supported me in all difficulties I encountered in my efforts to accomplish this dissertation. My sin- cere gratitude goes to my parents for supporting and encouraging me during the years.

III Publications

Publications

Friedrichs, P.T. & Meyer, F.M.: REE Database Management System: Evaluation of REE deposits and occurrences. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS). Jour- nal of Sustainable Metallurgy, Springer, 2016.

Friedrichs, P.T., Meyer, F.M. & Stoltz, N.B.: Evaluation of Rare Earth deposits using a dynamic Database Management System. 11th Rare Earth Conference, Singapore, No- vember 12th 2015.

Friedrichs, P.T., Meyer, F.M. & Stoltz, N.B.: Evaluation of Rare Earth deposits using a dynamic Database Management System (Poster). 11th Rare Earth Conference, Singa- pore, November 12th 2015.

Stoltz, N.B., Friedrichs, P.T. & Meyer, F.M.: Ion Adsorption Clays – A Geometallurgical Approach. 11th Rare Earth Conference, Singapore, November 12th 2015.

Friedrichs, P.T., Stoltz, N.B. & Meyer, F.M.: Introducing a Rare Earth Resource Man- agement System. SGA 13th Biennal Meeting, Nancy, 24th – 26th August 2015.

Friedrichs, P.T., Meyer, F.M. & Stoltz, N.B.: The economic potential of the global Heavy Rare Earth Element deposits in comparison to the high-class Chinese deposits. Joint Meeting GV and DMG, Tübingen, September 16th, 2013.

Stoltz, N.B., Meyer, F.M. & Friedrichs, P.T.: Economic potential of Rare Earth Elements in apatite of the Khibina Complex, Kola Peninsula, Russia. Joint Meeting GV and DMG, Tübingen, September 16th, 2013.

IV Patents of the S-FB

Friedrichs, P.T., Meyer, F.M. & Stoltz, N.B.: The economic potential of global REE deposits. Rare Earth Elements and Compounds Conference, Munster, September 2015.

Stoltz, N.B., Meyer, F.M. & Friedrichs, P.T.: No metal without mineral – geometallurgy of unconventional REE ores and minerals. Rare Earth Elements and Compounds Con- ference, Munster, September 2015.

Patents of the S-FB

DE 102014203171 A1 - Verfahren zur Abtrennung von Seltenerdverbindungen aus einem Feststoffgemisch. Veröffentlichungsdatum: 27.August, 2015. Erfinder. Patrick Friedrichs (RWTH), Marc Hanebuth (Siemens AG), Nicolas Stoltz (RWTH), Sonja Wolfrum (Siemens AG).

DE 102014202792 A1 - Mobile Vorrichtung zur Behandlung von wertstoffhaltigem Ab- baugut. Veröffentlichungsdatum: 20. August 2015. Erfinder: Patrick Friedrichs (RWTH), F. Michael Meyer (RWTH), Nicolas Stoltz (RWTH), Sonja Wolfrum (Siemens AG).

DE 102014201303 A1 - Verfahren zur Abtrennung von Seltenerd-Bestandteilen aus einem unterschiedliche Seltenerd-Bestandteile sowie wenigstens einen Nicht-Selten- erd-Bestandteil enthaltenden Gemengestrom. Veröffentlichungsdatum: 30. Juli, 2015. Erfinder: Sonja Wolfrum (Siemens AG), Patrick Friedrichs (RWTH), Marc Hanebuth (Siemens AG), Nicolas Stoltz (RWTH).

V Table of Content

Table of Content

Declaration ...... II

Acknowledgement ...... III

Publications ...... IV

Patents of the S-FB ...... V

Table of Content ...... VI

List of Figures ...... IX

List of Tables ...... XII

List of Abbreviations ...... XIII

Abstract ...... XV

Kurzfassung ...... XVII

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aim ...... 2

2 Rare Earth Elements ...... 4 2.1 Definition and explanation of REE terms ...... 4 2.2 Applications and use of REE ...... 5 2.3 Critical Elements of REE ...... 8 2.3.1 Calculation of specific methods to evaluate CREE-deposits ...... 10 2.3.2 Interpretation of CREO values in REE deposits ...... 12

3 Mineralogy & Geology ...... 17 3.1 REE Minerals and ores ...... 17 3.2 Deposit Types ...... 19 3.3 Resources & Reserves ...... 20 3.3.1 Terms ...... 20 3.4 REE Deposits ...... 25 3.4.1 LREE deposits ...... 25 3.4.2 HREE+Y deposits ...... 29

4 Economy ...... 31 4.1 Market of the Rare Earth Elements ...... 31 4.1.1 Pricing ...... 36 4.1.2 Supply & Demand ...... 38 4.1.3 Price Development ...... 41

5 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS) ...... 51

VI Table of Content

5.1 Definition of parameters ...... 54 5.1.1 General Information ...... 54 5.1.2 Geography ...... 54 5.1.3 Owner Information ...... 56 5.1.4 Geology ...... 58 5.1.5 Mineralization ...... 58 5.1.6 Material Grade ...... 59 5.1.7 Economy ...... 60 5.1.8 Mining ...... 61 5.2 Structure of the DBMS ...... 64 5.2.1 Tables ...... 64 5.2.2 Relationships ...... 66 5.2.3 Forms ...... 67 5.2.4 Queries ...... 71 5.3 Layout of the DBMS ...... 74 5.3.1 Design ...... 75

6 Systematization of the DBMS ...... 77 6.1 Search Systems ...... 78 6.1.1 Detailed description of the Deposit Search Menu features ...... 79 6.1.2 Occurrence Search Menu ...... 83 6.2 Compare Deposit Menu ...... 84 6.2.1 Compare Deposit ...... 84 6.2.2 Dynamic Basket Price Calculator ...... 86 6.2.3 Oxide & Metal Prices ...... 87 6.2.4 Creation of Overall report ...... 89 6.3 Result Systems ...... 91 6.3.1 Rating ...... 91 6.3.2 Clustering ...... 94 6.3.3 Ranking ...... 95 6.3.4 Use-Value Analysis ...... 96

7 Application of the DBMS ...... 102 7.1 Comparison and Evaluation of REE deposits and occurrences ...... 102 7.1.1 Rating ...... 102 7.1.2 Clustering Groups ...... 108 7.2 Evaluation of REE deposits ...... 119 7.2.1 Ranking ...... 119

VII

7.2.2 Use-Value Analysis ...... 126

8 Conclusion ...... 142 8.1 Discussion ...... 142 8.2 Concluding Summary ...... 149

9 Literature ...... 152

10 Appendix ...... 159 10.1 Appendix I ...... 159 10.2 Appendix II – Basket Price China Domestic of REE deposits ...... 161 10.3 Appendix III – Basket Price FOB of REE deposits ...... 163 10.4 Appendix IV – Material Grades of REE deposits ...... 166 10.5 Appendix V – China Domestic & FOB Prices in US-$/kg ...... 171 10.6 Appendix VI – Ranking System ...... 172 10.7 Appendix VI – Results of Use-Value-Analysis...... 176

VIII List of Figures

List of Figures

Figure 1: Global Rare Earth Element production from 1950 until 2000 (Haxel, et al., 2002)... 1 Figure 2: Criticality graph – Critical Elements plotted with respect to supply risk and economic importance (European Commission, 2014)...... 8 Figure 3: Criticality of REE, economic importance versus supply risk...... 10 Figure 4: Major REE deposit types in a tectonic context. (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012) .. 20 Figure 5: Precision levels of the three different stages of a mineral resource. (Dominy, et al., 2002) ...... 22 Figure 6: General relationships between Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2004) ...... 23 Figure 7: Progress stages and timeline for a REE deposit (modified after (Lynas Corp., 2014)) ...... 24 Figure 8: Structural and functional coherence of the REE market...... 34 Figure 9: Exemplary view of the FOB prices from Q1 2011 until Q4 2012 (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 37 Figure 10: Connections between demand and supply companies in the REE market in 2012. (logos are trademarks of companies, only used in this slide) ...... 40 Figure 11: Price development of lanthanum-, cerium- and Samarium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 42 Figure 12: Price development of praseodymium- and neodymium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 43 Figure 13: Price development of the three Heavy RE Oxides europium, terbium, dysprosium plus yttrium (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 44 Figure 14: Price development of lanthanum-, cerium- and Samarium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 45 Figure 15: Price development of praseodymium- and neodymium--oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 46 Figure 16: Price development of europium-, terbium-, gadolinium-, dysprosium- and yttrium- oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015))...... 47 Figure 17: Basket Price China Domestic from 2005 until 2014...... 49 Figure 18: Basket Price FOB from 2005 until 2014...... 50 Figure 19: Data entries, parameters, occurrences and deposits...... 51 Figure 20: Workflow of the development of the Database Management System ...... 53 Figure 21: Insert field attribute through the operation Data Type...... 65 Figure 22: Relationships between all tables / columns of the DBMS...... 66 Figure 23: Creation of Forms through different datasheets...... 67 Figure 24: Check boxes in the controls toolbox are used for implementing boxes into the form...... 68 Figure 25: Exemplary view of building the form for the price feature...... 68 Figure 26: Code Builder option inside the Form Builder with implemented boxes...... 69 Figure 27: Macro Builder with implemented codes...... 70 Figure 28: Interacting Comboboxes in Visual Basic components...... 71

IX List of Figures

Figure 29: Definition of queries through the Query Builder...... 72 Figure 30: Forming relationships between different tables through “Cascadeafter”...... 73 Figure 31: Expression builder for Queries...... 74 Figure 32: Display of the Navigation Panel...... 75 Figure 33: Form Builder in MS-Access with Header, Detail, Footer and Property Sheet...... 76 Figure 34: Operation centre of the DBMS...... 78 Figure 35: Exemplary search within the Deposit Search Menu...... 79 Figure 36: Deposit Search – Deposit Araxa (Brazil)...... 80 Figure 37: Deposit Search – Result Deposit Araxa (Brazil) ...... 80 Figure 38: Deposit Search – Country (Brazil) and Ore (Monazite)...... 81 Figure 39: Deposit Search – Country (Brazil) and Ore (Monazite)...... 81 Figure 40: Deposit Search – Parameter Description...... 83 Figure 41: Compare Menu with the above selected deposits, in the column “Material Grade”...... 85 Figure 42: Export System to PFF/Excel conversion...... 85 Figure 43: Basket Price Calculator with choices of deposit and year...... 87 Figure 44: Price Menus of the DBMS, depicted as a hierarchy...... 88 Figure 45: DBMS Price Feature for FOB Oxide...... 89 Figure 46: Overall Comparison menu viewing the deposits Mountain Pass and Storkwitz. ... 90 Figure 47: Rating system with range of AAA to C and explanations...... 93 Figure 48: Cluster Menu with five different clusters, exemplary “Eudialyte Cluster“...... 94 Figure 49: Ranking system with Material Grade and TREO...... 96 Figure 50: Use-Value-Analysis, determination of values, best-worst value system...... 97 Figure 51: Value-Point-Transformation...... 98 Figure 52: Preferences Matrices...... 99 Figure 53: Scoring Model of Use-Value Analysis with goal criteria and weighting...... 100 Figure 54: Exemplary results of Use-Value Analysis according to defined rules ...... 101 Figure 55: Use-Value-Analysis – Stages...... 101 Figure 56: Excerpt of Rating system, showing categories AAA-AA...... 103 Figure 57: Excerpt of Rating System, category A...... 104 Figure 58: Excerpt of Rating system, category BBB...... 105 Figure 59: Excerpt of Rating system, categories BB-B...... 106 Figure 60: Excerpt of Rating system, categories CCC-C...... 107 Figure 61: Excerpt of Eudialyte Clustering Group ...... 110 Figure 62: Excerpt of Bastnasite Clustering Group ...... 113 Figure 63: Excerpt of Monazite- Clustering Group ...... 116 th Figure 64: Ranking in case of Dy2O3 content, Rank first to 12 ...... 120 Figure 65: Ranking by Dy2O3 content, Rank 29 to 41...... 121 Figure 66: Overall Ranking of Material Grade ...... 122 Figure 67: TREO Ranking...... 123 Figure 68: Top ten results of the first calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case I)...... 129 Figure 69: Top ten results of the second calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case II)...... 133

X List of Figures

Figure 70: Top ten results of the third calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case III)...... 136 Figure 71: Top ten results of the fourth calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case IV)...... 139

XI List of Tables

List of Tables

Table 1: Lanthanides and their approaches to the terms LREE, MREE & HREE+Y...... 5 Table 2: REE use in the diverse fields of applications...... 6 Table 3: Excerpt of Appendix I with exemplary deposits and the corresponding CREO values ...... 15 Table 4: Major Rare earth element minerals (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012) ...... 18 Table 5: Material Grade (normative) in wt-%, according to seven sources...... 26 Table 6: Mineral distribution of the deposits Maoniuping, Weishan, Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass...... 28 Table 7: Material grades of IAC deposits in Southern China (Shen, 2014)...... 30 Table 8: Column “General Information” and its different parameters ...... 65 Table 9: Attributive Ratings from categories AAA to C...... 92 Table 10: Ranking Eudialyte- Clustering Group ...... 111 Table 11: Ranking Bastnasite- Clustering Group ...... 114 Table 12: Ranking Monazite-Clustering Groups ...... 118 Table 13: Overall Ranking of TREO and single element TREO Ranking, Overall Ranking 1- 20...... 125 Table 14: Use Case I, basic scenario for UVA...... 127 Table 15: Use Case II, Material Grade and CREE scenario for UVA...... 131 Table 16: Use Case III, Economy, Basket Prices and Production...... 134 Table 17: Use Case IV, Pr-, Nd- and Dy-oxide, Radioactive Elements and TREO ...... 137 Table 18: Results of Use Cases I – IV and total result including rank...... 141

XII List of Abbreviations

List of Abbreviations

C CREE Critical Rare Earth Element

D DBMS Database Management System

F FOB Free-On-Board

G Geo Geology - project title

H HREE Heavy Rare Earth Elements HREO Heavy Rare Earth Oxides

I IAC Ion Adsorption Clay(s)

J JORC Joint Ore Reserve Committee of AustralAsian JV Joint Venture

L LCA Life Cycle Assesment LCD Liquid-crystal display LED Light-emitting diode LOI Letter of Intent LOM Life of mine LREE Light Rare Earth Elements

M MOU Memorandum of Understanding MREE Medium Rare Earth Elements MRT Magnetic resonance tomography

N NCREE Non-Critical Rare Earth Elements

XIII List of Abbreviations

NdFeB Neodymium Iron Boron (Permanent Magnet) NI 43-101 National Instrument 43-101

P PRC People's Republic of China

R R&D Research and Development REE Rare Earth Elements REO Rare Earth Oxides RoW Rest of the World

S S-FB Siemens research unit

T TREO Total Rare Earth Oxide

U US-$/kg United States Dollar per kilogram USA United States of America

XIV Abstract

Abstract

The future availability of Rare Earth Elements (REE) is a very important issue in the 21st century due to a rapid growth in demand Moreover, inequality between supply and demand has led to monopolistic supply conditions controlled by China. This resulted in severe challenges for REE consuming companies and competing REE producers outside China. These circumstances had boosted exploration activities for REE prospects worldwide over the past years. Currently, there are several information sources on REE prospects scattered in scientific literature, company reports, and feasibility studies. However, there is no source accessible which contains all relevant data on REE occurrences and deposits. REE are progressively gaining an essential part within new technologies, such as clean energy, military, and consumer electronics sectors. With each of these sectors incessantly expanding, industrial demand for the constituent REE is rising rapidly, hence their inclusion in the group of strategic elements. An acute problem for strategic elements is the concentration of the world's largest producers in a small number of countries. However, the supply problems are partly based on complex ores, separation issues, and the safe handling of hazardous elements. Further, it depends on the high market volatility and increasing demand. Therefore, the evaluation of REE deposits has become very crucial for sustaining the security of future supply. To analyse future supply options, it is important to point out the difference between producing deposits, a prospective deposit and a simple occurrence. This dissertation analyses current REE prospects concerning geological, mineralogical, economical, mining and environment-technical attributes by creating a DBMS. Another part of this dissertation is the analysis of Critical REE (CREE) and its market structure. These features are essential for analysing the REE sector and its prospects. Moreover, they also help to validate the necessity for developing the DBMS. The main part of developing the DBMS is based on information databases, which contain collective information on 1190 prospects with known REE enrichment. The data are, however, of differing accuracy and reliability, depending on the degree of exploration undertaken to date. Grade and tonnage information is available for about 250 deposits, while more detailed geologic and economic parameters such as material grade, defined resources (TREO tonnage) and reserves, CREE and Basket Price are

XV Abstract known for 79 sites. In addition, the database also contains entries pertaining to the abundances of toxic elements such as thorium and uranium. The system includes an economic dataset of REE producing companies and potential producing companies. The evaluation systems implemented in the DBMS are Rating, Clustering, Ranking and Use-Value Analysis. However, all systems evaluate the existing producing deposits as well as the potential deposits for possible future production. Further, the DBMS provides the opportunity to analyse the complete dataset of all prospects by using the implemented rating system. This system includes all occurrences and deposits worldwide and rates them according to attributes of market and statuary mining codes. These attributes, are of high relevance with regard to the assessment of the REE sector. Thus, the evaluation system of Rating is a useful tool to analyse the complete REE sector concerning producing and potential prospects The evaluation system of Clustering is used to subdivide the REE sector by the ore- containing raw mineral, which is relevant for industrial separation and use. Thus, within the evaluation system Clustering, it is possible to constitute different Clustering Groups, namely Eudialyte, Bastnasite and Monazite. The third evaluation system is Ranking, which functions as a pre-evaluation system to the Use-Value Analysis. It is a calculation tool that computes TREO values combined with material grade values of single elements. As a result, it ranks the regarded prospects in TREO per oxide. In this dissertation, three different ranking systems are analysed. Most oxides are weighted equally. However, lanthanum, cerium and samarium are weighted regressively. This is a consequence of the high abundance and thus, lower prices for these oxides. The Use-Value Analysis is the main evaluation system in the DBMS. It evaluates deposits according to selected parameters of the categories Material Grade, Economy and Mining. These parameters include mineral contents, presence of toxic elements, TREO tonnage, Basket Price and production volume. Within the Use-Value Analysis, different case studies according to different views on the REE sector are presented within this dissertation. These case studies evaluate the REE sector concerning its economy, and environmental as well as mineralogical issues.

XVI Kurzfassung

Kurzfassung

Die Verfügbarkeit von Seltenen Erdelementen (SEE) ist im 21. Jahrhundert von stra- tegischer Bedeutung aufgrund einer stetig wachsenden Nachfrage. Der SEE-Sektor wird durch ein Ungleichgewicht in Angebot und Nachfrage sowie der Vormachtstellung Chinas und des daraus resultierenden Monopols beschrieben. Dies führt zu enormen Herausforderungen sowohl für SEE konsumierende Industrieunternehmen als auch für konkurrierende SEE Produzenten außerhalb Chinas. Diese Gegebenheiten resultier- ten in einer Verstärkung der Explorationsaktivitäten weltweiter SEE Prospekte in den vergangenen Jahren.

Im Verlauf der fortschreitenden Technisierung in den letzten beiden Dekaden erlang- ten SEE sukzessive einen essentielleren Stellenwert im Bereich Energie, Militär und Elektronik. Durch den stetigen Ausbau dieser Sektoren erhöhte sich die Nachfrage bezüglich SEE. Dies ist der Grund, SEE in die Gruppe der strategischen Elemente einzubeziehen. Ein akutes Problem ist das Defizit zwischen Produktion und Nachfrage bezüglich einzelner SEE wie Neodym, Europium, Terbium und Dysprosium sowie teil- weise Praseodym und Yttrium. Diese Versorgungsprobleme basieren auf dem Abbau komplexer Erze und den daraus resultierenden Separationsproblemen sowie in der hohen Volatilität des Marktes und der steigenden Nachfrage. Daher ist die Evaluierung SEE Lagerstätten essentiell um die zukünftige Versorgungssicherheit der SEE konsu- mierenden Verbraucher zu gewährleisten. Insbesondere durch die hohe Nachfrage nach Konsumgütern und Industrieanwendungen wie Magneten, Legierungen und Elektronik steigt der Bedarf an SEE exponentiell an.

Diese Dissertation evaluiert SEE Prospekte bezüglich ihrer geologischen, mineralogi- schen, ökonomischen sowie bergbau- und umwelttechnischen Eigenschaften durch die Erstellung eines Datenbank Managementsystems (DBMS). Ein weiterer Teil dieser Arbeit stellt die Evaluierung der kritischen SEE sowie der SEE Marktstruktur dar. Diese Teilbereiche der Dissertation sind essentielle Bestandteile für die Evaluierung des SEE-Sektors.

Das DBMS umfasst einen wirtschaftlichen Datensatz von SEE produzierenden sowie potenziell produzierenden Unternehmen. Die implementierten Bewertungssysteme im

XVII Kurzfassung

DBMS sind Rating, Clustering, Ranking und eine Nutzwertanalyse. Die Systeme be- werten mögliche zukünftige Produktionsmöglichkeiten anhand von implementierten At- tributen und Kriterien.

Das System Rating erfasst den kompletten Datensatz aller weltweiten Prospekte. Diese werden anhand von Marktattributen sowie Ressourcenzertifizierungs-Codes bewertet. Somit stellt das Bewertungssystem Rating ein nützliches Werkzeug dar, um den kompletten SEE Sektor in Bezug auf produzierende und potenziell produzierende SEE-führende Prospekte zu analysieren.

Das Bewertungssystem Clustering wird verwendet um den SEE Sektor in attributive Teile zu unterteilen, welche ressourcenspezifische Merkmale aufweisen und von hoher Relevanz sind. Diese Dissertation beinhaltet drei verschiedene Clustering Gruppen bezogen auf die Erze Eudialyt, Bastnäsit und Monazit.

Das dritte Bewertungssystem, Ranking, ist ein System, welches als Vor-Evaluierungs- system zur Nutzwertanalyse dient. Dieses System ist ein Kalkulationswerkzeug welches Werte des TREO und Material Grade miteinander kombiniert und als Resultat die betrachteten Prospekte in TREO per Oxid bewertet.

Die Nutzwertanalyse ist das wichtigste Bewertungssystem im DBMS. Es bewertet La- gerstätten anhand von ausgewählten Parametern der Kategorien Material Grade, Eco- nomy und Mining. Diese Parameter beinhalten Informationen zur Mineralverteilung, radioaktiven Elementen, TREO Tonnage, Basket Price und Produktionsvolumen. In der Nutzwertanalyse sind verschiedene Use Cases basierend auf verschiedenen res- sourcentechnischen Perspektiven bzgl. des SEE Sektors erstellt worden.

XVIII Introduction

1 Introduction

The importance of Rare Earth Elements (REE) can be very well understood with a statement of Deng Xiaoping in 1992: “The middle East has oil. China has Rare Earths” (Xiaoping, 1992). This declaration defines the REE as a geo-political resource.

The Chinese government exploited the fact that there is no other big producer worldwide since the Mountain Pass era (1965 – 1985) (Figure 1). Historically, there was no big REE producer other than China between 1990 and 2010. This status ended when Molycorp restarted the Mountain Pass mine to produce REE.

Figure 1: Global Rare Earth Element production from 1950 until 2000 (Haxel, et al., 2002).

Before 1990 REE were used in alloys, metals, cables and catalysts as well as in the first colour TVs and computer monitors. In the period of 1990 until 2000, the development of LCDs and LEDs as well as other modern technologies, especially in the health care sector (e.g. MRTs), drastically increased the demand for REE in several industrial

1 Introduction sectors. Nowadays, REE are progressively gaining an essential role in new technologies, such as clean energy, military, and consumer electronics. With each of these sectors incessantly expanding, the industries’ demand for the constituent REE increases, hence their inclusion into the group of so-called strategic elements. A crucial problem for strategic elements is that the main producers are clustered in a small number of countries. For instance, China possesses a monopoly on the majority of REE and has recently decreased their export quotas. The supply problems are partly based on complex ores, separation issues, handling harmful elements, the high market volatility, and increasing demand. Therefore, the evaluation of REE deposits has become very crucial for sustaining the security of future supply. In times of high demand for consumer goods and industrial applications like magnets, alloys, electronics and additional fields, the need for REE increases exponentially. To analyse future supply options, it is important to point out the difference between producing deposits, a prospective deposit and a simple occurrence.

1.1 Aim

The aim of this thesis is the creation of a database management system (DBMS) for evaluating global REE deposits and occurrences concerning their potential as future REE suppliers.

Worldwide, there are no comparable systems simultaneously showing and evaluating REE deposits and occurrences. The system should identify and classify current and future REE resources and reserves. Further, it should characterize REE deposits according to sustainability criteria and define their economic potential (i.e. in ground value). Accordingly, the objective of this work is the development of a coherent DBMS which analyses, compares and finally evaluates REE deposits and occurrences.

The herein developed DBMS includes implemented search and compare functions as well as evaluation classifications. The assessment of deposits and occurrences is based on specific predefined, parameters. The selection of the parameters is based on geological, mineralogical, economic and environmental criteria. These parameters are defined within the structure of the DBMS. In this regard, the DBMS includes three

2 Introduction main systems, a search, a comparison and an evaluation system. The three major systems are interconnected via the criterion Deposit.

The dissertation was developed as part of the S - FB (Siemens research unit) at RWTH Aachen University and represents the sub project 1.2 (TP 1.2). The S-FB was established in 2011 by Siemens AG and RWTH Aachen University to evaluate the Rare Earth sector and to establish a process chain for Rare Earth mining and separation.

The four-year project was completely funded by Siemens AG. The project consisted of six subprojects (TP 1 – 6) which dealt with the subjects of geology, mining, separation, processing, metallurgy and life cycle assessment concerning REE deposits and their products. Partial project TP 1 (Geo) was further divided into two sections. Division 1 (TP 1.1) was responsible for the geo-metallurgy and sample analyse of REE deposits, whereas division 2 (TP 1.2) dealt with analysing REE deposits and occurrences worldwide with the aid of a Database Management System. Additionally, TP 1.2 developed six invention disclosures resulting in three patent applications. All inventions and patents are property of Siemens AG.

The initial need for TP 1.2 can be explained by a current lack of one comprehensive database covering geological, mineralogical, economic and environmental parameters of REE prospects and mining. Thus, the contribution to the S-FB project is the identification and classification of current and future REE resources. Thereby, the REE deposits are characterized according to sustainability criteria and their economic potential (i.e. in-ground value). The objectives and methods used in this R&D project are the acquisition of information and data including geological, mineralogical, economic and environmental aspects from REE deposits and prospects worldwide. Moreover, these data have to be evaluated, screened and implemented into a database structure with linkages that enables the classification of all REE deposits and occurrences worldwide.

3 Rare Earth Elements

2 Rare Earth Elements

2.1 Definition and explanation of REE terms

The differentiation between light, medium and heavy REEs evokes a rather controver- sial discussion. There are a couple of misleading usages of the term REE. In (geo-) chemistry, metallurgy, economy/ mining and the industrial sector, the usage of the terms light (LREE), medium (MREE) and heavy REE (HREE) often differs.

In (geo-) chemistry, LREE are defined from lanthanum to gadolinium (Table 1) because of the increasing unpaired electrons from 0 to 7. In contrast to that, LREE in metallurgy are classified from lanthanum to neodymium due to the calculation and design of separation and processing issues. In the mining sector, LREE are grouped from lanthanum to samarium due to big price margins in the years 2010-2012 as well as high demand and small supply, and high scarcity of HREE.

Within the metallurgical sector, the elements from samarium to gadolinium are classified as MREE (Table 1). MREE are also called the SEG (samarium, europium and gadolinium) group because of its occurrence within the early stages of SX (Solvent Extraction) (Hatch, 2012). SX stages are the main commercial processes used to sep- arate and purify REE (Hatch, 2012). Further, both approaches – the (geo-) chemical as well as the metallurgical – group HREE from terbium to lutetium plus yttrium. Thus, HREEs are classified from terbium to lutetium (Table 1) because of their paired electrons from 6 to 0. Yttrium is implemented into the HREE group due to its similar ionic radius and its chemical properties.

According to the economical approach, HREE are classified from europium to lutetium plus yttrium (Table 1). Therein, europium and gadolinium are classified as Heavy REE (Hatch, 2012) because of their high volatile prices. In line with these differentiations, the economical approach assigns the elements from holmium to ytterbium as HREE merely due to their scarcity in supply. In terms of prices, these elements are as high as for example neodymium or praseodymium.

4 Rare Earth Elements

Table 1: Lanthanides and their approaches to the terms LREE, MREE & HREE+Y.

57 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 39 Approach La Ce Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Y LREE HREE (geo-) Chemistry LREE MREE HREE Metallurgy LREE HREE Economy, industry

LREE=Light REE; MREE=Medium REE; HREE+Y=Heavy REE+Yttrium

2.2 Applications and use of REE

REE are processed and traded in the form of oxides, metals, mischmetals, powders and carbonates for industrial end use. The industrial demand is approximately 125,000 tons per year of total rare earth oxides (TREO). The fields of applications of Rare Earth Elements are diverse. REE are very important as end use materials for catalysts, ceramics, glass, phosphors, defence, metal alloys, and magnets as well as in the electronics sector (Table 2).

5 Rare Earth Elements

Table 2: REE use in the diverse fields of applications.

REE REE Applications Products REE Applications Products REE Catalysts Petroleum Refining La,Ce,Pr,Nd Metal Alloys Hydrogen storage La,Ce,Pr,Nd Catalytic Converter NiMH batteries Y Fuel Additives Fuel cells Chemical Processing Steel Air Pollution Controls Lighter flints Ceramics Capacitors La,Ce,Pr,Nd Aluminium/Magnesium Sensors Eu,Gd,Dy,Lu,Y Cast iron Colorants Superalloys Scintillators Magnets Motors Pr,Nd, Sm Refractories Power generation Tb,Dy Glass Polishing compounds La,Ce,Pr,Nd Microphones & speakers Optical glass Gd,Ho,Er MRI UV resistant glass Anti-lock brake system X-ray imaging Automotive parts Thermal control mirrors Communication systems Colorizers/Decolorizers Electric drive & propulsion Phosphors Display phosphors Ce,Pr,Nd Magnetic storage disk Fluorescent Lighting Eu,Gd,Tb,Er,Y Microwave power tubes Medical Lighting Magnetic refrigeration Lasers Electronics Display phosphors Ce,Pr,Nd Fibre Optics CRT Eu,Tb,Dy,Y Defence Satellite Communications La,Pr,Nd,Sm PDP Guidance Systems Eu,Tb,Dy,Lu,Y LCD Aircraft Structures Medical imaging phosphors Fly-by-Wire Lasers Smart Missiles Fiber optics

Particularly in catalyst applications, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium and neodymium (lanthanum - neodymium) are often used in catalytic converters, fuel additives, and chemical processing as well as in petroleum refining and air pollution controls. In ceramics applications, lanthanum - neodymium, europium, gadolinium and dysprosium as well as lutetium and yttrium are processed in capacitors, sensors, colorants, scintillators and refractories.

The industrial sector of glass applies lanthanum – neodymium as well as gadolinium, holmium and erbium to polishing compounds, special forms of glass and other application areas, as shown in (Table 2). In the case of phosphors, REE cerium, praseodymium and neodymium as well as europium, gadolinium, terbium, erbium and yttrium

6 Rare Earth Elements are processed in display phosphors, special modules of lighting, lasers and fibre optics (Table 2).

REE also play an important role in the defence industry. Lanthanum, praseodymium, neodymium and samarium as well as europium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium and yttrium are processed primarily for use in satellite communications, guidance systems and missiles (Table 2). Furthermore, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium and dysprosium are often used in missiles as well as in guidance systems by using samarium Cobalt (SmCo) and Neodymium Iron Boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets (Grasso, 2013). Samarium is a component of SmCo magnets used in many defence and commercial technologies. Neodymium, in combination with praseodymium and dysprosium, is processed to create the strongest available permanent magnets for wind generation.

In the industrial sector of magnets, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, terbium and dysprosium are essential raw materials for the production of motors, permanent magnets, automotive parts and other technologies (Table 2). Further, in electronics, cerium, praseodymium and neodymium as well as europium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium are used in CRT (Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), PDP (Programmed Data Processor), LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), fibre optics, lasers and other applications (Table 2).

In the metal alloys sector, lanthanum – neodymium and yttrium are used in batteries, fuel cells, steel, flints, superalloys and other applications (Table 2). For instance, lanthanum can be applied to make steel more malleable (Rare Earth Technology Alliance, 2015).

Regarding the different usages of REE, one can state that critical REE (CREE) are used in nearly all application areas. Therefore, this group of elements must be observed and evaluated in detail, particularly in regard to possible economic conse- quences.

7 Rare Earth Elements

2.3 Critical Elements of REE

The term Critical Elements can be defined as those elements gaining high economic importance mostly due to a lack in supply and therefore, a high supply risk. The term was first established by the European Commission (European Commission, 2014). In the first draft of the European Commission in 2010, there was a list of fourteen critical elements pointed out a potential economic risk (European Commission, 2014). In the second draft in 2013, the list contained twenty critical elements (European Commission, 2014).

Figure 2 describes the relationship between critical elements’ economic importance and their supply risk. As can be seen, both types of REE have a clearly higher supply risk than all other elements, although they have a lower economic importance (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Criticality graph – Critical Elements plotted with respect to supply risk and economic importance (European Commission, 2014).

There are a plenty of reasons for the extremely outlying location of HREE. Primarily, HREE have a high supply risk because of their scarcity. HREE mostly originate from the South Chinese Ion Adsorption Clay (IAC). High contents of europium, gadolinium, terbium and yttrium as well as the LREE neodymium and samarium are mined out of these deposits (Krishnamurthy & Gupta, 2015). Tonnage and grades (0.05 -0.2 %

8 Rare Earth Elements

REO) of REE content in IAC deposits are the lowest of all Chinese deposits (Krishnamurthy & Gupta, 2015). Moreover, Chinese IAC deposits have tonnages smaller than 10,000 tons of Mineral Resources (British Geological Survey (BGS), 2011). Furthermore, in the last twenty years the ratio of reserves of IAC in contrast to the production declined from 50:1 to 15:1 (Krishnamurthy & Gupta, 2015). Thus, the highly-demanded HREE will have a high supply risk for the future.

In addition, LREE also tend to remain critical in the case of neodymium and, to a lesser extent, praseodymium. The high demand for these elements for industrial application leads to a higher supply risk. Another reason is that the Chinese mine Bayan Obo is currently the main producer of LREE.

Figure 3 depicts the economic importance versus supply risk of the elements within the REE Group. There is a rather linear trend, i.e. a low supply risk implies a low economic importance. This can be explained by the economic principle of demand controlling supply. In this case, due to the limited nature of these resources, all REE with a high economic importance carry the risk that, at a certain point in time, there will not be enough material to meet the high demand of the market.

9 Rare Earth Elements

Figure 3: Criticality of REE, economic importance versus supply risk.

Therefore, neodymium, europium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium are classified as CREE. Vice versa, lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, samarium, gadolinium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium remain Non-Critical REE (NCREE).

2.3.1 Calculation of specific methods to evaluate CREE-deposits

The calculation of CREE is a method to evaluate Critical REE and the corresponding deposits. The comparison of all REE deposits concerning their criticality is necessary for evaluating their potential. Therefore, four different formulae of criticality (four modifications) are discussed in this dissertation. In the calculations, the CREE value is calculated by the use of the Critical Rare Earth Oxide (CREO) value based on the normative Material Grade of a REE deposit.

10 Rare Earth Elements

1st Modification: Dundee Screen

The Dundee Screen calculates the CREE value based on the five critical elements plus praseodymium (occasionally changeable from neutral to critical) (Dennis, et al., 2012). The formula is set up by dividing the weight procent of these critical elements by that of lanthanum- and cerium-oxide (Dennis, et al., 2012):

∑(푤푡 − % 푛표푟푚. ) (푁푑, 푃푟, 퐸푢, 푇푏, 퐷푦, 푌) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠 퐶푅퐸퐸 = ∗ 100 ∑(wt − % norm. ) (퐿푎 & 퐶푒) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠

2ndModification CREO:

The second modification displays a formula without praseodymium. The changes to the CREE should be marginal, however, it is essential for the later evaluation to only show the calculation of the CREO with constantly critical elements. Therefore, the formula differs only in the numerator:

∑(푤푡 − % 푛표푟푚. ) (푁푑, 퐸푢, 푇푏, 퐷푦, 푌) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠 퐶푅퐸퐸 = ∗ 100 ∑(wt − % norm. ) (퐿푎 & 퐶푒) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠

3rd Modification CREO/NCREO:

The third modification is a newer form of interpreting the real value for CREE deposits aimed at tackling the lack of consistency due to not implementing all other NCREE into the evaluation. A couple of REE deposits worldwide have a rather high wt-% value of samarium-, gadolinium-, holmium-, erbium-, thulium-, ytterbium- and lutetium-oxide. Therefore, the formula divides the weight percent of all five critical elements by that of all other elements including praseodymium:

∑(푤푡 − % 푛표푟푚. ) (푁푑, 퐸푢, 푇푏, 퐷푦, 푌 ) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠 퐶푅퐸퐸 = ∗ 100 ∑(wt − % norm. ) (퐿푎, 퐶푒, 푃푟, 푆푚, 퐺푑, 퐻표, 퐸푟, 푇푚, 푌푏, 퐿푢) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠

11 Rare Earth Elements

4th Modification CREO/NCREO w/o Y:

By excluding yttrium oxide within the fourth modification, the impact of yttrium oxide on the CREE values calculated with the first three formulae becomes obvious. This is particularly important as in some deposits the total amount of REE consists of up to 60 wt-% norm. yttrium. Thus, without implementing this element, calculating CREE deposits becomes more precise:

∑(푤푡 − % 푛표푟푚. ) (푁푑, 퐸푢, 푇푏, 퐷푦) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠 퐶푅퐸퐸 = ∗ 100 ∑(wt − % norm. ) (퐿푎, 퐶푒, 푃푟, 푆푚, 퐺푑, 퐻표, 퐸푟, 푇푚, 푌푏, 퐿푢) − 푂푥𝑖푑푒푠

2.3.2 Interpretation of CREO values in REE deposits

Interpreting CREE values with help of the introduced modifications is very useful for identifying deposits with high grade CREE. In this chapter, the differences between these modifications are depicted in detail.

The Dundee Screen (first modification) depicts all deposits with high-grade CREE values such as the South Chinese IAC deposits of Longnan and Guangdong Southeast with values > 2,000 (Table 3). Furthermore, it shows that HREE deposits at Browns Range and Lofdal as well as the IAC deposit of Longnan 3 yield a CREE value of approximately 704 to 835 (Table 3). A third group in this evaluation are HREE deposits of Norra Kärr and other Chinese IAC deposits (Longnan 2, Chongzuo, Guangdong and both deposits of Xinfen and Xunwu) with a CREE value in the medium range of 120 to 245 (Table 3). The last group to be mentioned are typical LREE deposits that have small CREE values due to respectively high grades of lanthanum and cerium. These are Bayan Obo, Mount Weld CLD and Maoniuping with CREE values of 23 to 35.

Comparing this with the second modification (CREO), one can observe that the differences of CREE values within the first two groups are only marginal. Within the high- grade CREE deposits, values decrease approximately by 1-2% compared to the Dun- dee Screen (Table 3). The elimination of praseodymium for this group is meaningless,

12 Rare Earth Elements as these deposits have rather low levels of praseodymium. Similarly, within HREE deposits, CREE value decreases 1-3% (Table 3). However, the third group shows much higher changes ranging from 5 to 15% (Table 3). This shows that the corresponding deposits contain higher amounts of praseodymium. Even more extreme is the difference between Dundee and CREO regarding LREE deposits, as this group exhibits differences between 21 and 25% (Table 3). Thus, the amount of praseodymium in these is the highest of those deposits considered here. Accordingly, this approach shows that comparing the Dundee Screen with CREO is a useful and quite easy method to identify deposits with a significant amount of praseodymium, since e.g. deposits with high values of praseodymium like Mount Weld CLD, Bayan Obo or Maoniuping are rated considerably better within the Dundee Screen than within CREO.

Comparing the percentage changes between the Dundee Screen and CREO using the third modification CREO/NCREO, one can identify major differences in the evaluated deposits’ values in Table 3.

In comparison to the Dundee Screen and CREO, changes between 84 and 89% are observed within the first group (Longnan 1 – Guangdong Southeast), whereas within the second group (Browns Range – Lofdal-Bergville) the percentage changes yield 66- 72% (Table 3). One can state that the values of both groups converge within the third modification. In contrast to the clear changes within the first two groups, the third (Chongzuo – Xunwu 1) and fourth groups (Mount Weld CLD – Maoniuping) show only minor differences concerning the comparison of the Dundee Screen vs. CREO/NCREO, respectively CREO vs. CREO/NCREO. Nevertheless, even these differences between the Dundee Screen and CREO are apparent. While comparing the third group concerning the Dundee Screen vs. CREO/NCREO and CREO vs. CREO/NCREO, the differences reach 37-52% and 31-46% respectively (Table 3).

Within the fourth group, the value changes differ yet again. While comparing the Dun- dee Screen to CREO/NCREO, the percentage difference amounts to 29-31%, whereas the comparison of CREO and CREO/NCREO only yields changes of 8-11%.

It can be therefore be concluded that the analysed groups converge. Differences of formerly 7,000 – 10,000 % (comparison of first and fourth group in the Dundee Screen

13 Rare Earth Elements and CREO) are no longer present (Table 3). The largest gap between the lowest and the highest CREO/NCREO value, Maoniuping (16.14) and Longnan 3 (341.36), is approximately only 2,000 %.

This means, that the third modification, including all elements, gives a more detailed interpretation of the actual presence of CREE in current deposits. However, excluding yttrium due to its lower criticality within the fourth modification yields a much more complex and detailed analysis of the remaining CREE.

The percentage changes using the fourth modification compared with the application of the prior modifications on the four groups are relatively consistent. The key result is that the first three groups converge to such a great extent that they can be considered as a complete group. The range of CREE values in the newly created group is between 62.65 (Chongzuo) and 43.13 (Lofdal) (Table 3). The former deposits of the fourth group, including the deposit of Norra Kärr, form a second group. The CREE value range of this group is between 33.87 (Norra Kärr) and 15.56 (Maoniuping) (Table 3). Furthermore, it can be seen that the highest evaluated deposits (>2,000 CREE) in both the Dundee Screen and the modified CREO do not have the former extreme position.

Table 3 depicts that the Dundee Screen and CREO are insufficient for an evaluation of deposits regarding their criticality values. The modifications of CREO/NCREO as well as CREO/NCREO w/o Y show a much better analysis of the values. Thus, they represent a much better classification of deposits into groups.

14 Rare Earth Elements

Table 3: Excerpt of Appendix I with exemplary deposits and the corresponding CREO values

Bayan Mount Guang- Deposits Maoniuping Xunwu 1 Xunwu 2 Norra Kärr Xinfen 1 Xinfen 2 Obo Weld CLD dong

Dundee Screen 23.27 32.52 34.89 121.45 135.41 165.91 196.6 205.62 218.34 Dundee Screen Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Groups CREO 17.48 24.7 27.67 103.59 116.13 157.12 171.93 184.27 195.07 CREO Groups Group 4 Group 4 Group 4 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 CREO / NCREO 16.14 22.46 24.63 71.09 75.9 104.54 100.02 107.43 104.48 CREO / NCREO Group 3 Group 3 Group 3 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Groups CREO / NCREO 15.56 22.33 23.68 54.44 58.12 33.87 55.11 55.35 50.7 w/o Y CREO/ NCREO Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 w/o Y Groups Dundee Screen -25% -24% -21% -15% -14% -5% -13% -10% -11% vs. CREO in % Dundee Screen vs. CREO / -31% -31% -29% -41% -44% -37% -49% -48% -52% NCREO in % Dundee Screen vs. CREO / -33% -31% -32% -55% -57% -80% -72% -73% -77% NCREO w/o Y in % CREO vs. CREO / -8% -9% -11% -31% -35% -33% -42% -42% -46% NCREO in % CREO vs. CREO/ NCREO w/o Y in -11% -10% -14% -47% -50% -78% -68% -70% -74% % CREO/ NCREO vs. CREO/ -4% -1% -4% -23% -23% -68% -45% -48% -51% NCREO w/o Y in %

15 Rare Earth Elements

Table 3: continued

Deposits Chong- Lofdal- Longnan Browns Guangdong Longnan 4 Longnan 3 Longnan 1 zuo Bergville 2 Range Southeast

Dundee Screen 245.45 704.26 822.65 835.66 2052.78 2057.49 2400.61 2519.19 Dundee Screen Group 3 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Groups CREO 221.72 697.52 799.12 825.74 2,036.11 2,024.46 2,367.58 2,486.20 CREO Groups Group 3 Group 2 Group 2 Group 2 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 CREO / NCREO 122.34 238.33 268.74 232.59 255.4 324.83 341.36 280.87 CREO / NCREO Group 2 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Groups CREO / NCREO w/o 62.65 43.13 57.4 46.16 48.78 49.07 54.89 59.11 Y CREO/ NCREO w/o Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Group 1 Y Groups Dundee Screen vs. -10% -1% -3% -1% -1% -2% -1% -1% CREO in % Dundee Screen vs. CREO / NCREO in -50% -66% -67% -72% -88% -84% -86% -89% % Dundee Screen vs. CREO / NCREO w/o -74% -94% -93% -94% -98% -98% -98% -98% Y in % CREO vs. CREO / -45% -66% -66% -72% -87% -84% -86% -89% NCREO in % CREO vs. CREO/ -72% -94% -93% -94% -98% -98% -98% -98% NCREO w/o Y in % CREO/ NCREO vs. CREO/ NCREO w/o -49% -82% -79% -80% -81% -85% -84% -79% Y in %

16 Mineralogy & Geology

3 Mineralogy & Geology

3.1 REE Minerals and ores

The International Mineralogical Association defines a mineral as "an element or chemical compound that is normally crystalline and that has been formed because of geological processes" (Nickel, 1995). An ore is defined as an accumulation of sufficient minerals with important elements that can be economically extracted from rock (Guilbert & Park Jr., 1986). For instance, Bastnasite is a mineral while Bastnasite-(Ce) is a typical REE ore.

REE minerals do not occur naturally as metallic elements, they rather occur in oxides, carbonates, phosphates, silicates and less frequently in halides. Approximately 200 REE minerals are known in the mineralogical context (British Geological Survey, 2011). However, only a few are commercially significant (British Geological Survey, 2011). REE-bearing minerals vary in their concentrations but tend to be biased towards either LREE or HREE (British Geological Survey, 2011).

Typical RE minerals are Bastnasite, Monazite and Xenotime. Bastnasite is typically found in LREE deposits such as Bayan Obo (China) and Mountain Pass (USA) (Table 4) and contains low concentrations of thorium and uranium. LREE deposits of Mt. Weld (Australia) as well as the placer deposits in Brazil and India are typical deposits with Monazite as the main RE mineral. Monazite yields the highest value of the toxic element thorium with approximately 27 wt-% (Table 4). Both minerals gain the highest grades in REO (Table 4). Contrary to Bastnasite and Monazite, Xenotime is typical of HREE deposits such as Lofdal (Namibia) or Browns Range (Australia). It yields average values of thorium (approx. 8.4 wt-%) and the highest values of uranium (approx. 5.8 wt-%).

The REE-bearing clays of the IAC deposits Longnan, Xunwu, Xinfen, Chongzou, Changting and to a lesser extent Guangdong (Southeast China) are extremely enriched with HREE. Non-existent concentrations of radioactive elements are distinctive of IAC deposits. Other significant REE-containing minerals are Parisite, Synchisite, Fluorocarbonates, Churchite, Fergusonite, Loparite and Samarskite (Tasman Metals Ltd., 2015). Further REE-bearing minerals are Apatite, Eudialyte and Zirconium, which

17 Mineralogy & Geology contain a low grade of thorium and uranium. Eudialyte is one of the lowest uranium and thorium bearing REE minerals.

Table 4: Major Rare earth element minerals (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012)

Relevant rare el- Mineral name Major deposit type(s) Examples (past, present, ements (range or max. Formula and potential producers) value) 53–79 wt% Carbonatites (CRB); hy- Bastnasite Bastnäs, SW; Mountain Pass, US; ΣREO; drothermal- metasomatic depos- Maoniuping, Weishan, and Bayan REECO3(F,OH) ≤2.8 wt% ThO2 its(HMD) Obo, CH; Karonge Gakara, BI 58–63 wt% Parisite CRB; HMD Mountain Pass, US; Weishan and ΣREO; CaREE2(CO3)3(F,OH)2 ≤4.0 wt% ThO2 Bayan Obo, CH 48–52 wt% CRB; HMD associated Barra do Itapirapuã, BR; Lugiin Gol, Synchysite ΣREO; with CRB MN; CaREE(CO3)2(F,OH) ≤5.0 wt% ThO2 and granites Kutessay, KR Ba–REE fluorocar- 22–40 wt% HMD; CRB Bayan Obo, CH bonates ΣREO; BaxREEy(CO3)x+yFy ≤0.7 wt% ThO2 38–71 wt% CRB; HMD; granitic peg- Monazite Kangankunde, ML; Bayan Obo, CH; ΣREO; matites; Fe oxide–phosphate Steenkampskraal, SA; Mt. Weld, AU; (REE,Th,Ca,Sr)(P,Si,S)O4 ≤27 wt% ThO2; rocks; Tomtor, solid solution to cheral- RU; Tamil Nadu and Kerala, IN; Bu- ≤0.8 wt% UO2 laterites; placers ite ena, BR; Nolans Bore and Eneabba, AU; Pe- (Ca,Th,REE)PO4 rak, MA 43–65 wt% Granites and pegmatites; Kutessay, KR; Pitinga, BR; Tomtor, Xenotime ΣREO; HMD RU; Mt. (REE,Zr)(P,Si)O4 ≤8.4 wt% ThO2; associated with granites; Weld, AU; Kinta and Selangor, MA laterites; placers; rarely ≤5.8 wt% UO2 Lofdal, NA CRB 43–56 wt% Churchite Laterites Mt. Weld, AU; Chuktukon, RU ΣREO; REEPO4•2H2O ≤0.3 wt% ThO2 43–52 wt% Granites and pegmatites; Fergusonite Bayan Obo, CH; Nechalacho, CA ΣREO; HMD associated with peralka- REENbO4 ≤8.0 wt% ThO2; line rocks ≤2.4 wt% UO2 28–38 wt% Peralkaline feldspathoidal Loparite Lovozero, RU ΣREO; rocks (Na,REE,Ca)(Ti,Nb)O3 ≤1.6 wt% ThO2

18 Mineralogy & Geology

3.2 Deposit Types

REE deposits exist in many metamorphic, sedimentary and igneous rocks (British Geological Survey, 2011). There are several rock-forming and hydrothermal processes which influence the concentration and distribution of REE (British Geological Survey, 2011). These processes include the enrichment with magmatic or hydrothermal fluids, subsequent redistribution and concentration by weathering and other surface processes as well as separation into mineral phases and precipitation (British Geological Survey, 2011).

In geological terms, REE deposits and occurrences can be divided into two major deposit types: primary and secondary. Primary deposit types are (1) Carbonatite-associated, (2) associated with alkaline igneous rocks, (3) Iron-REE and (4) Hydrothermal deposits (British Geological Survey, 2011). In contrast, secondary deposits are (1) Placers (Marine-, Alluvial- and Paleo-Placers), (2) lateritic deposits and (3) IAC (British Geological Survey, 2011). This difference is caused by the environment in which REE are enriched (British Geological Survey, 2011). Primary deposits are associated with hydrothermal and igneous processes, whereas secondary deposits are formed by weathering and sedimentary processes (British Geological Survey, 2011).

Figure 4 depicts the geological setting of REE deposits. REE deposits are typically formed due to processes of weathering, orogeny or rifting, mantle upwelling and met- asomatism as well as lithospheric delamination (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012). Most REE deposits are associated with breccias, postorogenic granites, carbonatites, anor- ganic granites and peralkaline foid rocks (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012). Further- more, they are usually located in bioclastic sediments, (paleo-) placers or laterites (Fig- ure 4).

19 Mineralogy & Geology

Figure 4: Major REE deposit types in a tectonic context. (Chakhmouradian & Wall, 2012)

3.3 Resources & Reserves

3.3.1 Terms

Mineral resources and ore reserves are factored in the range of evaluation of geologic deposits. These terms are described in certification codes like the JORC code (statutory mining code of Australia/Asia), the Ni 43-101 code (statutory mining code of Can- ada), the SAMREC code (statutory mining code of Africa) and other minor codes. These codes are used to certify resources and reserves in deposits. In the case of exploration results, the terms “modifying factors”, “resource” and “reserves” are the three main factors.

After JORC (2004), modifying factors are defined as follows:

 “Modifying Factors are considerations used to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors.”

These modifying factors, in particular the level of detail the modifying factors imply, influence whether a deposit can be defined as a mineral resource or reserve, including different categories within these two main definitions. Mineral resources and the corresponding sub-categories are defined as follows according to the JORC code (JORC, 2004):

20 Mineralogy & Geology

 “Mineral Resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade (or quality), continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge. Mineral Resources are sub-divided - in order of increasing geological confidence - into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories.”  “An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade (or quality) are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to an Ore Reserve.”

 “An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or quality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Fac- tors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Ore Reserve.”

 “A Measured Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or quality), densities, shape, and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Fac- tors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an In- ferred Mineral Resource.”

Each of the above mentioned statuses (Inferred, Indicated and Measured) vary in their stage of precision. Figure 5 depicts the precision levels of the different forms of mineral resources. The degree of precision depends on the level of geological knowledge and

21 Mineralogy & Geology confidence. Higher or more detailed geological knowledge leads to a higher degree of precision. Thus, the resource status of Measured is the one with the highest precision level, whereby Inferred implies the lowest precision level.

Mineral Resource Precision: Developed /// Undeveloped

Measured +/- 5-10% --- +/- 10-15% Indicated +/- 15-25% --- +/- 25-35% Inferred +/- 35-100%

Figure 5: Precision levels of the three different stages of a mineral resource. (Dominy, et al., 2002)

To distinguish mineral resources from reserves, the JORC code (JORC, 2004) defines the latter and the corresponding sub-categories as follows:

 “An Ore Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured and/or Indi- cated Mineral Resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted and is defined by studies at Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility level as appropriate that include application of Modifying Factors.”

 “A Probable Ore Reserve is the economically mineable part of an Indicated, and in some circumstances, a Measured Mineral Resource. The confidence in the Modifying Factors applying to a Probable Ore Reserve is lower than that applying to a Proved Ore Reserve.”

 “A Proved Ore Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured Min- eral Resource. A Proved Ore Reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the Modifying Factors.”

Figure 6 shows the relationship between mineral resources and ore reserves. From this graphic, it is easily comprehensible that the higher the level of geological knowledge and confidence and the more detailed the consideration of modifying factors, the higher the probability of proved ore reserves.

22 Mineralogy & Geology

Figure 6: General relationships between Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2004)

The JORC code (JORC, 2012) also defines different types of technical studies; it is distinguished between three main types:

 “A Scoping Study is an order of magnitude technical and economic study of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. It includes appropriate assessments of realistically assumed Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors that are necessary.” (JORC, 2012)

 “A Preliminary Feasibility Study (Pre-Feasibility Study) is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method is established and an effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions on the Modifying Factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors.” (JORC, 2012)

 “A Feasibility Study is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of applicable Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are necessary

23 Mineralogy & Geology

to demonstrate that extraction is reasonably justified (economically mineable). The results of the study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision.” (JORC, 2012)

Figure 7 depicts the progress stages and the timeline for investigating REE deposits. It starts with typical grass roots geological investigations and sampling, and ends with the construction of the pit. The time of development for an open pit is around 10 to 15 years.

There are four main stages for REE deposits. The first one is the certification of the resource or scoping study (Figure 7). It is followed by the next main stage, which is the pre-feasibility study. This includes financial analysis, configuration or planning of underground or pit mining and development of a processing method (Figure 7). The third stage is the actual feasibility study. It contains the justification of the economic feasibility of mining and the detailed assessment of applicable modifying factors. The final stage describes the construction of either pit or underground mines as well as the establishment of all facilities (e.g. processing plants).

Figure 7: Progress stages and timeline for a REE deposit (modified after (Lynas Corp., 2014))

24 Mineralogy & Geology

3.4 REE Deposits

The description of REE deposits depends on the material grade respectively the mineral distribution of the deposit. In this chapter, only current and former producing deposits of REE are discussed, whereas potential deposits are neglected.

3.4.1 LREE deposits

LREE deposits are defined by their high amount of cerium, lanthanum and neodymium as well as medium to high amounts of praseodymium and samarium. Usually, the content for LREE deposits is > 75 wt-%. The content of HREE and yttrium is relatively low.

There are six LREE deposits worldwide that play a significant role in the REE segment. The most well-known LREE deposits that are in production are Bayan Obo (China), Maoniuping (China), Dalucao (China), Weishan (China), Mountain Pass (USA) and Mount Weld CLD (Australia). Of these six deposits, Mountain Pass and Mount Weld CLD are currently struggling because of low market prices (Jamasmie, 2015; Worstall, 2014).

Bayan Obo

The Bayan Obo deposit is located in the region of Inner Mongolia, Northern China. This deposit is currently the main producer of REE worldwide, with a steady production of 50,000 tons per year of REO. This is approximately 42.5 % of the world production. The owner of this deposit is Baotou Iron and Steel and Rare Earth Company, which is part of the Baotou Group. The Bayan Obo deposit consists of three big ore bodies (Main, East and West) which divide the deposit into three parts.

The main exploitation takes place in the Main and East in the form of open pit mining. The Main ore body contains 20,000,000 tons of mineral resources with contents of 35 wt-% iron and 6.19 wt-% REO (Hitzmann, et al., 1992). In contrast to this, the East ore body consists of 15,000,000 tons of mineral resources with a content of 33 wt-% iron and 5.71 wt-% REO (Hitzmann, et al., 1992). Approximately 98 % of the material grade

25 Mineralogy & Geology

(normative) originates from the five LREE lanthanum (24 wt-%), cerium (50 wt-%), praseodymium (6 wt-%), neodymium (18 wt-%) and samarium (1 wt-%) (Table 5).

The material grade of Bayan Obo alternates in several studies due to different unknown Chinese sources (Table 5). Table 5 shows the average material grade of the deposit Bayan Obo, generated from seven different sources: Nomura Int. Ltd. (Darby 2010); (Arafura Resources, 2012); (Hu, et al., 2011) (Shiraishi, 2010); (U.S. Department of Energy, 2010); and Jacob Securities Inc. (Moreno, 2011). The different values of REO content for the same deposit also reflect the difficulty in obtaining reliable information, which is partially due to the policy of China’s government.

Table 5: Material Grade (normative) in wt-%, according to seven sources.

U.S. Jacob Nomura Int. Dacha Hu et al., Arafura Akira Department Securities Ltd., Strategic Delft, REO Resources, Shiraishi, of Energy, Inc., Average October Metals Inc., October 2012 Spring 2010 December January 2010 August 2012 2011 2010 2011 La2O3 23.00% 25.00% 23.00% 23.00% 26.50% 23.00% 23.00% 23.79% CeO2 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.80% 50.00% 50.00% 50.11% Pr6O11 6.20% 5.10% 6.20% 6.20% 4.34% 6.20% 6.20% 5.78% Nd2O3 18.50% 16.70% 18.50% 18.50% 15.40% 18.50% 18.50% 17.80% Sm2O3 0.80% 1.20% 0.80% 0.80% 1.10% 0.80% 0.80% 0.90% Eu2O3 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.21% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% Gd2O3 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.60% 0.70% 0.70% 0.69% Tb4O7 0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.03% 0.10% 0.10% 0.08% Dy2O3 0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.10% 0.07% Y2O3 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% Total 99.60% 98.90% 100.10% 99.60% 99.28% 99.50% 99.60% 99.51%

Maoniuping

The Maoniuping deposit in Sichuan (China) is the second largest LREE producer worldwide. The typical REE key minerals are Bastnasite and Monazite (Kynicky, et al., 2012). The REE mineralization is related to carbonatites and syenites (British Geological Survey, 2011). The annual production rate is 13,600 tons of REO and the reserves are 3.2 million tons REE (Shen, 2014) with a grade of 0.5 – 8.16 wt-% (Kynicky, et al., 2012). Table 6 shows the REO distribution with 99 wt-% LREE and only 1 wt-% HREE.

26 Mineralogy & Geology

Daluxiang (or Dalucao)

Daluxiang is another Sichuan-situated, REE-producing deposit. It has the same geological properties as Maoniuping. The grade of REO in this deposit is approximately 1.0 – 4.5 wt-% (Liu, et al., 2015). Mineral resources amount to 15.2 million tons (Verplanck, et al., 2014) and the reserves are approximately 990,000 tons of REO (Shen, 2014). No production and mineral distribution data is available for this deposit, but it is currently in production (Shen, 2014). It also belongs to the LREE fraction of Sichuan-located deposits.

Weishan

The Weishan deposit is located in the province of Shandong, China. The reserve is calculated to be approximately 2.55 million tons REO and the grade is roughly 3.13 wt-% (Zhi Li & Yang, 2014). The deposit is a typical carbonate type and the main minerals are Bastnasite and Parisite (Zhi Li & Yang, 2014). The normative distribution of REO is similar to that of the previously mentioned LREE deposits. LREE are distributed with a value of approximately 98 wt-%, whereas HREE accounts for less than 2 wt-% (Table 6).

Mount Weld CLD

The Mount Weld Central Lanthanide deposit (CLD) is an Australian mine located 700 km Northeast of Perth. Mount Weld is a carbonatite deposit situated in a volcanic plug (Lynas Corp., 2015). Moreover, the carbonatite is approximately 3 km in diameter (Lynas Corp., 2015). This carbonatite also hosts other undeveloped deposits like Dun- can, Swan, Crown and Emu (Lynas Corp., 2015). The deposit contains 1,454,000 tons of REO and has an average REE grade of 9.73 wt-% (Hatch, 2015). The relative distribution of REO is depicted in Table 6. Mount Weld CLD is also a high grade REE deposit with around 98 wt-% LREE and only 2 wt-% HREE (Hatch, 2015). In 2014, Mount Weld CLD produced 3,965 tons of REO (Lynas Corp., 2014).

27 Mineralogy & Geology

Mountain Pass

The Mountain Pass mine is located near the border of the states California and Nevada in the United States. Geologically, Mountain Pass is a carbonatite deposit with six different Bastnasite minerals of relevance (Molycorp Inc., 2012). This deposit is a former uranium mine, and produced REE until August 2015 (Molycorp Inc., 2012). Since then, Molycorp stopped all activities and shut down the mine due to financial struggles (Jamasmie, 2015). The proven reserves amount to 156,000 tons with 8.45 wt-% TREO and the probable reserves are estimated as 18,267,000 tons with 7.48 wt-% TREO (Molycorp Inc., 2012). Table 6 illustrates the distribution of REO. Mountain Pass contains 99 wt-% LREE and only 1 wt-% HREE (Molycorp Inc., 2012). In 2014, Mountain Pass produced 4,785 tons of REO (Molycorp Inc., 2015).

Table 6: Mineral distribution of the deposits Maoniuping, Weishan, Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass.

Zhi Li & Wang, et Hatch, Yang, Hatch, 2015 al., 2008 2016 2014 Maoniup- Mount Weld Mountain Weishan REO ing CLD Pass La2O3 29.200% 32.00% 23.880% 33.200% CeO2 50.300% 49.00% 47.540% 49.100% Pr6O11 4.600% 4.00% 5.160% 4.300% Nd2O3 13.000% 11.50% 18.130% 12.000% Sm2O3 1.500% 1.40% 2.440% 0.800% Eu2O3 0.200% 0.15% 0.530% 0.100% Gd2O3 0.500% 0.40% 1.090% 0.200% Tb4O7 0.000% 0.50% 0.090% 0.060% Dy2O3 0.200% 0.50% 0.250% 0.050% Ho2O3 0.000% 0.50% 0.030% 0.020% Er2O3 0.000% 0.50% 0.060% 0.020% Tm2O3 0.000% 0.50% 0.010% 0.020% Yb2O3 0.000% 0.50% 0.030% 0.020% Lu2O3 0.000% 0.50% 0.000% 0.010% Y2O3 0.500% 0.20% 0.760% 0.100% Total 100.000% 102.15% 100.000% 100.000%

28 Mineralogy & Geology

3.4.2 HREE+Y deposits

HREE deposits are characterized by a LREE/HREE-ratio with contents of europium to yttrium higher than 25 wt-% (Kingsnorth, 2012). The only HREE producing deposits are the South Chinese IAC deposits of Changting, Chongzou, Longnan, Xunwu and Xinfen (Shen, 2012a). Usually, the production of all IAC deposits totals between 40,000 and 50,000 tons per year (Shen, 2014). This varies due to illegal mining in the Southern part of China. Operational costs aggregate to 3 US-$ per kilogram (US-$/kg) of mined

REO (Shen, 2014). The toxic elements yield a very small value of 0.002 wt. -% ThO2 and 0.032 wt.-% U3O8 (Shen, 2014). The production of all Longnan deposits yields approximately 3,000 tons per year REO with an average mine life of 9.62 years (Shen, 2014). Some of the IAC deposits contain high amounts of neodymium and less yttrium (Shen, 2012a). The relative mineral distribution of REO within these deposits varies extremely. On one hand, there are the typical high-grade HREE deposits of Longnan (Table 7). On the other hand, two other types of IAC deposits can be characterized by high grades of neodymium and small grades of yttrium (Xunwu) as well as medium values for neodymium and yttrium (Xinfen, Changting and Chongzuo) (Table 7). The Longnan deposits stand out due to their high values of dysprosium, gadolinium, terbium and erbium as well as yttrium (approx. 60 wt-%). The Xunwu deposits have the highest neodymium values in all of China with up to 30 wt-%. The Xunwu deposits also have high grades of gadolinium. However, the deposits in Xinfen, Changting and Chongzuo yield high grades in gadolinium and dysprosium.

29 Mineralogy & Geology

Table 7: Material grades of IAC deposits in Southern China (Shen, 2014).

Longnan Longnan Longnan Longnan Xunwu Xunwu Xinfen Xinfen Deposit Changting Chongzuo 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2

La2O3 2.48% 7.80% 2.18% 2.18% 38.00% 29.84% 26.20% 20.93% 20.93% 19.49%

CeO2 0.49% 2.40% 1.09% 1.09% 3.50% 7.18% 1.90% 3.23% 1.83% 5.33%

Pr6O11 0.98% 2.40% 1.08% 1.08% 7.41% 7.14% 6.00% 5.62% 5.56% 5.89%

Nd2O3 5.07% 9.00% 3.47% 3.47% 30.18% 30.18% 21.10% 17.55% 20.45% 22.43%

Sm2O3 3.91% 3.00% 2.37% 2.34% 5.32% 6.32% 4.50% 4.54% 5.00% 4.64%

Eu2O3 0.30% 0.03% 0.37% 0.10% 0.51% 0.51% 0.71% 0.93% 0.93% 0.72%

Gd2O3 6.62% 4.40% 5.69% 5.69% 4.21% 4.21% 4.80% 5.96% 5.63% 4.58%

Tb4O7 1.34% 0.90% 1.13% 1.13% 0.46% 0.46% 0.77% 0.68% 0.82% 0.76%

Dy2O3 8.83% 7.48% 7.48% 5.30% 1.77% 1.77% 4.10% 3.71% 5.03% 4.27%

Ho2O3 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 1.40% 0.27% 0.27% 0.80% 0.74% 0.94% 0.89%

Er2O3 5.10% 4.26% 4.26% 3.60% 0.88% 0.80% 2.00% 2.48% 2.37% 2.05%

Tm2O3 0.66% 0.60% 0.60% 0.00% 0.13% 0.13% 0.20% 0.27% 0.30% 0.30%

Yb2O3 3.94% 3.34% 3.34% 2.70% 0.62% 0.62% 1.60% 1.13% 2.11% 1.48%

Lu2O3 0.51% 0.47% 0.47% 0.30% 0.13% 0.13% 0.20% 0.21% 0.30% 0.33%

Y2O3 58.30% 64.10% 64.97% 56.20% 10.07% 10.07% 25.10% 24.26% 27.79% 26.85%

In summary, the difference between LREE and HREE deposits is an important issue when analysing the REE segment. Particularly in the case of CREE, it is necessary to differentiate between HREE and LREE deposits. Furthermore, the analysis and differentiation between these two types of deposits are also essential for considering the topic of supply and demand.

30 Economy

4 Economy

In this chapter, the economy of the REE market is discussed. The main elements described in this work are the market structure and its participants, market entrance barriers and supply and demand linkages. Furthermore, a description of the different price schemes is given.

4.1 Market of the Rare Earth Elements

The market for REE is a complex structured network of demand and supply caused by a high grade of non-transparency in the diverse trading systems. The channels of trade and pricing are often quite confusing, since REE are not listed on stock exchanges and therefore, are not publicly traded (Radon, et al., 2012). REE products (e.g. oxides, metals and powders) are directly traded between supplier and buyer. The trading systems of the REE market mostly function following the Over-the-Counter-Principle (OTC) and can be structured into three categories (Radon, et al., 2012). These categories are (a) Broker System, (b) Online platforms and (c) Direct Contact (Radon, et al., 2012).

The Broker System (a) is a conventional trading system which merges seller and buyer (Radon, et al., 2012). Contact is made by broker or trading companies specializing in REE (Radon, et al., 2012) like Toyota Tshusho, Advanced Materials Japan, Rhodia China or Hefa Baotou RE. They manage the price negotiation and cash flows within the transactions (Radon, et al., 2012). The broker does not receive a fee for the negotiations or in transactions, and benefits solely from arbitrage (margin between buying and selling price) (Radon, et al., 2012).

The trading system of online platforms (b) is a method of buying and selling REE products via websites such as Asian Metals, Metal Pages, China RE or Alibaba. The websites function as live markets, where registered market participants drop, sell or buy notes via communication media (Radon, et al., 2012). Most of the participants only list the price as negotiable (Radon, et al., 2012). Therefore, the suggested prices just give hints about the current REE spot prices (Radon, et al., 2012).

31 Economy

Within Direct Contact (c), either buyers or sellers communicate directly and transactions take place directly between the two parties – similar to the corporate bond market - and not via a centralized market (Radon, et al., 2012). During the negotiation phase, supply contracts and conditions regarding margins and prices are arranged. In reaching agreements on price, both parties orient themselves on the current available prices on online platforms such as Asian Metals or Metal Pages (Radon, et al., 2012). The negotiated contracts determine the fixed prices by set price ranges (Radon, et al., 2012). These contracts promise a relative price stability that cannot be reached on the volatile spot market. Depending on the outcome of negotiations, this system is either profitable or unprofitable for producers, because producers can generate more exact volumes due to determined prices and demand, but they may lose profit if spot prices increase (Radon, et al., 2012). With Direct Contact, both parties typically sign contracts in form of a Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent, an Offtake Agreement or a Strategic Partnership, respectively.

This decentralized market can be described considering its morphology by three different market systems– oligopoly, duopoly and monopoly (Figure 8). Theoretically, a market is based on the equilibrium between supply and demand. How- ever, in the REE market there are only a couple of suppliers – mostly Chinese – and contrary to that, considerably more demanders. This results from of the manifold of applications, as well as China’s strength in production and total dominance on the market (Figure 8). The entire market is primarily classified as an oligopoly (Figure 8) by the market participants. On the one hand, there are the three Chinese main suppliers: Baotou Steel Rare-Earth Hi-Tech Co. Ltd., Aluminium Corporation of China (Chinalco) and Minmet- als Ganzhou RE Co. Ltd. (Minmetals) (Figure 8). On the other hand, there are demanders like Molycorp Inc., Lynas Corp. and other companies from Malaysia, Russia and Thailand (Gambogi, 2016). The market volume of 124,000 tons RE Oxides (Gambogi, 2016) is scattered over all of these market participants. As a result of Chinese industrial companies being nationalized, Chinese producers can be grouped together as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (Tse, 2011; British Geological Survey (BGS), 2011). Following this definition, all other companies outside China can be combined as the Rest of the World (RoW) producers. This newly formed situation leads to a transformation from an oligopoly market to a duopoly market.

32 Economy

Thus, in the duopoly market there are only two suppliers: PRC and RoW. Nevertheless, and according to the definition of a duopoly, there are still many companies on the demand side (Gagliardi, 2012). The complete market can be structured into ten sub-markets, which are characterized by REE’s demand sectors. The aggregated worldwide output is up to 124,000 tons of REO with 105,000 tons produced by China and at least 19,000 tons by RoW (Figure 8). Accordingly, China has a market share of 85 % while RoW companies share only 15 % of the market (Figure 8). This highlights China’s superiority in the REE market. Moreover, a market share > 35 % (Gocht, 1983) allows sufficient power to hold a monopolistic position in the market. Thus, in this context, China not only holds the status of the main supplier, but that of a monopolist as well (Figure 8).

33 Economy

Figure 8: Structural and functional coherence of the REE market.

In the 1990s, China flooded the market with low cost REE concentrates and replaced other market participants, which could not produce profitably due to decreasing prices (Gagliardi, 2012). In 2011, China increasingly withdrew as a supplier from the global

34 Economy

REE market by reducing their Export Quotas. In numbers, this means the export volume declined from 50,145 tons in 2009 to 30,258 tons in 2011 (China Ministry of Commerce, 2013). Between 2012 and 2014, there were only marginal changes. The Export Quota in 2014 was 30,611 tons of REE (China Ministry of Commerce, 2013). In 2015, China abandoned its Export Quota due to a lawsuit with the World Trade Organ- ization (WTO) (Jamasmie, 2015).

Due to the unbalanced supply and demand situation, the REE market may be characterized as a seller’s market. According to the definition of a seller’s market, the margin of demand exceeds the margin of supply, therefore the seller has more influence on the market than the buyer (Feess, 2004). The combination of a monopolistic market and a seller’s market also results, besides in the opportunity of margin and price fixing, in the opportunity to establish submarkets (Feess, 2004). This process results in the bipolarity of the market (Feess, 2004). Furthermore, the bipolarity of the REE market is caused by the existing price differentiation. On the REE market, there are differences between the China Domestic and the Free-on-Board (FOB) price. The classification of two groups of consumers which have to pay divergent prices is associated with a price differentiation of the third order (Feess, 2004). Within a third order price differentiation, the consumers of a good are subdivided into several groups, which are awarded different price based on willing- ness-to-pay (Feess, 2004). China differentiates two groups of consumers – consumers on national territory and consumers outside of national territory. Consequently, the two-price feature of China Domestic and FOB emerges. Therefore, China set up high barriers to enter the market. In theories of economics and competition, market entry barriers are obstacles that can prevent a possible market participant from entering the preferred market (Sullivan & Sheffrin, 2003). In the REE market, one can define at least, two market entry barriers – the cost per kilogram (kg) REE and the production tonnage per year. Because of this specific situation caused by the monopoly of China, even companies which are producing might temporarily be unable to stay in the market due to difficulties with operational expenditures and/or decreasing prices (Jamasmie, 2015; Worstall, 2014).

35 Economy

4.1.1 Pricing

On the REE market, there is the FOB and the China Domestic price for all 15 REE. The FOB is the price for international consuming companies, whereas the China Do- mestic is the internal price for all Chinese companies. China trades the resources within their borders with an approximately 35-40% lower price margin (China Ministry of Commerce, 2013). Nevertheless, there is a functional coherence between the FOB and the China Domestic pricing. The typical formula for the FOB is as follows (Lynas Corp., 2013):

퐹푂퐵 = 푠푎푙푒푠 푡푎푥 + 푒푥푝표푟푡 푡푎푥 + 푒푥푝표푟푡 푐표푠푡푠 + 퐶ℎ𝑖푛푎 퐷표푚푒푠푡𝑖푐 [푈푆$]

With the aid of this price calculation, the FOB has a certain grade of transparency. However, influential variables can only partially be estimated. The export tax can be limited to an value between 15 to 25 % (Lynas Corp., 2013). Although the costs for the export permit cannot be estimated, the reduction of the Export Quota is associated with increasing costs (Radon, et al., 2012). However, the development of the China Do- mestic price is still not transparent and therefore, the FOB price is hardly calculable.

The typical price system of a natural resource is a calculation of costs for a single resource in a centralized market (Feess, 2004). In contrast to that, the price system of REE is completely contrary to the conventional assumption of calculating resource prices. The prices of REE are element specific and vary per element by a couple of 100 US-$/kg (Figure 9). For instance, in Q1/2011, the price for europium amounted to 719.2 US-$/kg. In Q3/2011, it was 4900 US-$/kg, while in Q4/2012, the price for europium gained approximately 1770 US-$/kg. Equally volatile are the prices for terbium and dysprosium. Figure 9 depicts that the prices for terbium varied from Q1/2011 to Q3/2011 by 3040 US-$/kg and from Q3/2011 to Q2/2012 by 2410 US-$/kg. The price for dysprosium was 412.9 US-$/kg in Q1/2011, increased to 2262.31 US-$/kg in Q3/2011 and eventually decreased to 630 US-$/kg in Q4/2012.

36 Economy

Figure 9: Exemplary view of the FOB prices from Q1 2011 until Q4 2012 (price data taken from (Metal- Pages, 2015)).

However, for the pricing on goods markets, more factors appear and thus the market model has to be modified (Feess, 2004). For natural resources, the market model has to be modified to account for exploitation costs and prospective emerged welfare losses caused by depletability (Feess, 2004). Price fluctuations occur due to problems caused by the monopolistic market situation as well as influential factors such as rarity, criticality or purity.

Economically, a so-called accounting price (the benefit of a resource unit at a random point in time t) has to be included (Feess, 2004). In this case, the accounting price is equal to the opportunity costs (=the loss of benefit caused by choosing an action alternative), because the resource unit cannot be produced in another period (Feess, 2004). Modifying this assumption by including exploitation costs and influencing factors, leads to the following equation:

푅퐸퐸 푃푟𝑖푐푒 = 퐼푛푐푟푒푚푒푛푡푎푙 푐표푠푡푠 + 푂푝푝표푟푡푢푛𝑖푡푦 푐표푠푡푠 + 퐸푥푝푙표𝑖푡푎푡𝑖표푛 푐표푠푡푠 + 퐼푛푓푙푢푒푛푐푒 푓푎푐푡표푟푠

37 Economy

4.1.2 Supply & Demand

The feature of supply and demand in the REE sector is very different than with all other resources. Generally, the demand defines the supply. However, this only holds true for not limited resources. For natural resources and particularly for REE, other rules apply. First, one has to keep in mind that there is not always an equilibrium between supply and demand. For instance, the demand in 2011 was estimated to be 105 kt of total REE and forecasts state an increase of up to 160 kt in 2016 (Kingsnorth, 2012). The supply in 2011 was estimated to be only slightly higher than the estimated demand, namely 113 kt (Kingsnorth, 2012). Kingsnorth (2012) predicted the supply yielding 195 kt in 2016. Thus, the predicted numbers promise a rather positive development, since the supply should be at least slightly higher than the demand.

To understand the REE market, it is necessary to analyse the suppliers’ side. The origin of the suppliers is considered to be one of the main critical factors. Analyses show that more than 85 % of the global supply originates from China (cf. Chapter 4.1). As it is described in Chapter 4.1, buyer and seller sign contracts in form of Memoran- dum of Understanding (MOU), Letter of Intent (LOI), Joint Venture (JV), Strategic Part- nership or Offtake Agreements. These contracts are usually employed in the REE sector between buyer and seller in the Direct Contact system. However, all these forms of contracts may be cancelled. One argument for this is the high volatility of REE prices. Thus, neither operational costs nor raw material costs for further production can be predicted in a sufficient manner.

Figure 10 illustrates the relationships between (potential) global supply and demand companies. On the left part of the figure, REE demanding industrial companies are depicted. On the right part, REE-producing and potentially producing companies in 2012 are displayed. Furthermore, Figure 10 shows the interactions between REE-using industrial companies and governmental institutions. These companies either have agreements with potential REE producers outside China or have contact to Chinese REE trading and/or producing companies. Industrial companies like e.g. Shin Etsu, Rhodia, BASF, Siemens, Bosch, Toyota, TDK and others have Direct Contact agreements or contracts with potential REE producing companies like Alkane, Lynas, Molycorp, Great Western, Ucore, Tantalus or others.

38 Economy

The highest amount of contracts in this profiling approach are held by Lynas Corp., Great Western Group (GWG) and Molycorp Inc. BASF and Rhodia have supply contracts with Lynas Corp., whereby Siemens has a LOI with the same company. Vacu- umschmelze holds a LOI with GWG. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Defence invests in the GWG, whereas Aichi Steel and Electron Energy hold supply and cooperation agreements with GWG. Moreover, Sumitomo, Hitachi Metals, Mitsubishi and Arnold Magnetic Technologies hold LOIs and JVs with Molycorp Inc. These contracts result in security of supply, and thus represent the attempt at gaining more independence from China. On the other side, American steel companies like Dexter, Adams or MCE and other non-American companies like Aichi Steel and Bosch have direct contacts to Chinese REE producing companies such as Baotou Steel, Chi- nalco and Minmetals. One reason might be that none of these companies believes in a steady RoW producer that can produce high margins of REE. Figure 10 shows that there are three methods to establish cooperations between REE-using companies and potential producing or producing companies. Both are based on the idea of security of supply. Some industrial companies do have contracts with minor potential producers due to the opportunity of exclusive supply. Other industrial companies are interested in supply contracts with major potential producers, e.g. with Lynas Corp., Molycorp. Inc. and Great Western Group. Thus, they are more interested in a safe supply situation. Finally, many industrial companies do not recognize potential producers as future supply partners. Therefore, they choose Chinese REE producing companies as supply partners.

39 Economy

Figure 10: Connections between demand and supply companies in the REE market in 2012. (logos are trademarks of companies, only used in this slide)

40 Economy

4.1.3 Price Development

In this chapter, the development of both China Domestic and FOB prices is described. The prices for China Domestic are considered from 2005 until 2015 and the prices for the FOB from 2002 until 2015. The REE of erbium, holmium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium are excluded due to unavailable price data.

4.1.3.1 China Domestic Oxide Prices

In Figure 11, the development of China Domestic prices for lanthanum (La)-, cerium (Ce)- and samarium (Sm)- oxides is depicted. One can recognize that the price structure of these elements stays quite similar over time. Within the period of 2005 to 2007, they yielded nearly the same price of around 2.5 US-$/kg. In 2008, La-oxide had slightly higher prices. The most noticeable event took place in 2011, when the prices for all three types of REO increased and reached a peak. This growth in price was in the case of Ce-oxide five times (20 US-$/kg), for La-oxide four times (16 US-$/kg), and for Sm-oxide six times higher (12 US-$/kg) than the price in the year before. Moreover, it is striking that Ce-oxide gained the highest prices, although La-oxide was slightly higher in previous periods. Nevertheless, after this peak in 2011, the prices declined again very abruptly, leading back to the level of prices from 2005 to 2007.

41 Economy

Figure 11: Price development of lanthanum-, cerium- and Samarium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal- Pages, 2015)).

In Figure 12, the price development of praseodymium (Pr)- and neodymium (Nd)- oxide is depicted. Until 2010 they both had similar prices between 10 and 33 US-$/kg. Similar to the prices of the REO discussed above, they reached a peak in 2011 with 105 US- $/kg for Pr-oxide and 132 US-$/kg for Nd-oxide. However, in contrast to Sm-, Ce- and La-oxide, the prices did not decrease as rapidly afterwards. In this case, one can observe a very interesting development of prices. Pr-oxide reached higher prices than those of Nd-oxide from 2012 until 2015. Moreover, while Nd-oxide prices constantly declined, Pr-oxide prices increased again in 2014. Nevertheless, afterwards both oxides continued with the decreasing trend, resulting in prices of 60 US-$/kg for Pr-oxide and 46 US-$/kg for Nd-oxide in 2015.

42 Economy

Figure 12: Price development of praseodymium- and neodymium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal- Pages, 2015)).

Figure 13 illustrates the price development of the HREO europium (Eu), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy) and yttrium (Y). There, one can notice that these oxides are more diverse with respect to prices. Compared to the other REO described above, similar trends apply for Eu-, Tb- and Dy- oxides. They also reached a peak in 2011. However, from 2011 to 2015, the prices declined and reached similar levels to the prices before 2011. In detail, this means that Eu-oxide started with prices between 300 and 400 US- $/kg and gained 253 US-$/kg in 2015, whereas Dy-oxide yielded between 55 and 165 US-$/kg and in 2015, 257 US-$/kg. is the case of Tb-oxide is different, since there were big price fluctuations before 2011, leading to a range between 250 and 640 US-$/kg. In 2015, the price was relatively low again at 253 US-$/kg. In the case of Y-oxide, there are no data for the period between 2010 and 2014 available. Compared to the other HREO, prices are relatively low. From 2005 to 2010, the price ranged between 6 and 11 US-$/kg. Although there is no information on the following periods, one might argue that the price of 26 US-$/kg in 2015 demonstrates a more or less positive development over longer periods. Furthermore, this positive trend might apply for Tb- and Dy-oxide as well as for Pr- and Nd-oxide, since the level of prices in 2015 were higher than in the periods before 2011. In addition, the downward trend seems to be less steep than directly after the peak. In contrast to that, the development

43 Economy of Sm-, La- and Ce-oxide might tend to be more negative. Here, the downward trend after 2011 is still very steep and prices in 2015 were already on the same level as in the period before. Therefore, further price decreases for these oxides may be possible.

Figure 13: Price development of the three Heavy RE Oxides europium, terbium, dysprosium plus yttrium (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015)).

4.1.3.2 FOB

Similar to China Domestic, all REO in the FOB exhibit the same peak in 2011. Figure 14 depicts the price development of La-, Ce- and Sm-oxides for FOB. One can notice that the prices for these REO are very similar, despite the downward trend after 2011. For Sm-oxides, it was less steep than for the others, although the prices in 2015 were again nearly the same, ranging from 2.8 to 3.2 US-$/kg. This means that the changes in price were not very big in total, considering that the prices in 2002 range from 2.3 to 3 US-$/kg. However, the peak with 102.5 to 103.5 US-$/kg was tremendous.

44 Economy

Figure 14: Price development of lanthanum-, cerium- and Samarium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal- Pages, 2015)).

In Figure 15, one can see the price development for Pr- and Nd-oxides in FOB. Until 2010, the prices were very similar and ranged between 3.9 and 29 US-$/kg. In 2011, Pr-oxide yielded prices of 196 US-$/kg and Nd-oxides 234 US-$/kg. Similar to in China Domestic, the price order changed in 2014 due to a small peak in the Pr-oxide price. Overall, the price changes are similar to China Domestic, leading to higher prices for both oxides in 2015 compared to the periods before 2011.

45 Economy

Figure 15: Price development of praseodymium- and neodymium--oxide (price data taken from (Metal- Pages, 2015)).

Figure 16 illustrates the price development for Eu-, Tb-, Gd-, Dy- and Y-oxides in FOB. From 2002 to 2004, Tb-oxide was ranked lower than Eu-oxide and varied in price between 65 and 70 US-$/kg. However, the price of Tb-oxide increased to 657 US-$/kg in 2007 and was higher than that of Eu-oxide until mid-2008. Nevertheless, Eu-oxide remained rather constantly more expensive than Tb-oxide until 2014. Despite similar price levels over time, the price difference within the peak in 2011 reached approximately 550 US-$/kg.

Regarding Dy-oxide prices, one can note a rather linear upward trend until 2009. Within the peak of 2011, the price increased to 1471 US-$/kg. Afterwards, prices of Dy-oxide declined.

Gd- and Y-oxide prices proceeded in a more stable manner than the other three. The peak prices of both oxides were not as high as those of Eu-, Tb- or Dy-oxide. As described for Pr- and Nd-oxides, the price changes are similar those for to China Domes- tic. However, in 2015, the prices for all five oxides were still higher than they were before 2011.

46 Economy

Figure 16: Price development of europium-, terbium-, gadolinium-, dysprosium- and yttrium-oxide (price data taken from (Metal-Pages, 2015)).

In summary, and taking into account the price development of China Domestic as well as FOB, one might argue that the prices of Nd-, Eu-, Tb- and Dy-oxides showed a less steep downward trend after 2011 than those of the other RE Oxides. This might be a result of these being classified as CREE. Therefore, they have a much higher economic importance than the other REE. Considering the situation of a very high demand and a very low supply, it may be assumed as a logical economic consequence that suppliers are able to sell these CREE for higher prices even for a longer time period after the peak in 2011. The nature of the peak can be explained with China’s RE Export Quotas. At the end of December 2010, China decided to limit the exports to 15 kt for the first part of 2011 (Hatch, 2012). Consequentially, prices increased, often more than 1000 % in July and August.

47 Economy

4.1.3.3 Basket Price

For calculating the resource price of a deposit, it is necessary to introduce a so-called Basket Price. The unit basket price (in US-$/kg) is the theoretical price that could be obtained for one kilogram of fully separated REO, containing REO in the same proportions as found in-situ within the deposit (Hatch, 2010). In this price scheme, any single resource is counted and merged to one single price. The oxides of erbium, holmium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium are excluded because of no available price data.

4.1.3.4 FOB and China Domestic Basket Prices

The China Domestic Basket Price for REO is set up to compare worldwide deposits concerning their Basket Price. Furthermore, it is used to see how they behave in comparison to the Chinese deposits.

In Figure 17, the development of the deposits Bayan Obo (China), Browns Range (Australia), Changting (China), Longnan 1 and 2 (China) and Maoniuping (China), Mount Weld CLD (Australia), Mountain Pass (USA) , Xinfen 1 (China) and Xunwu 1 (China) are depicted. One can observe that the Basket Price structure of these deposits is quite similar over time.

From 2005 to 2009, LREE (Bayan Obo, Maoiniuping, Longnan 2 Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass) and HREE (Browns Range, Changting, Longnan 1 and 2, Xinfen 1 and Xunwu 1) deposits yielded nearly the same gap in Basket Price with around 10 – 15 US-$/kg. For instance, the deposit of Longnan 2 belongs to the LREE because of its high contents of both neodymium and praseodymium (cf. chapter 3.4.2). In 2009, the gap was reduced to < 10 US-$/kg. Between 2010 and 2013, the price gap increased again. Particularly, in 2011 the price gap increased to > 50 US-$/kg due to the price peak for both oxides.

Oxide prices for HREE increased to levels > 2000 US-$/kg while LREE oxide prices remained < 200 US-$/kg (cf. chapter 4.1.3). In 2012, the price gap was still high but decreased to approximately 30 US-$/kg. During the period between 2013 and 2014, the price gap remained stable at around 25 US-$/kg. Furthermore, one can observe

48 Economy that the deposits of Browns Range, Longnan 1 and Changting have the same price with a peak of approximately 120 US-$/kg in 2011. The only larger difference in value can be identified in 2014, when the Basket Price of Changting was marginally higher than that of the other HREE deposits. Thus, the Basket Price difference between the LREE and HREE deposit reflects in average a ratio of 1:2 in stable times and a ratio of 1:2.5 in peak times.

Figure 17: Basket Price China Domestic from 2005 until 2014.

Similar to China Domestic Basket Prices, all evaluated deposits in the FOB reveal rather similar price gaps. Figure 18 depicts the Basket Prices for the FOB development of the same REE deposits as in the description of the China Domestic Basket Prices. One can notice that the Basket Price structure of all deposits are very similar, despite the ratio between LREE and HREE, which is 1:1.5 in stable times and approximately 1:2 in peak times. This is caused by the lower price margin of FOB oxide prices. Fur- thermore, the price gap is also slightly different than in the case of China Domestic Basket Prices. It was around 140 US-$/kg in the peak time of 2011. In 2014, the price gap declined further to approximately 35 US-$/kg. In summary, Basket Prices of both FOB and China Domestic point out the salient difference between LREE and HREE deposits.

49 Economy

Figure 18: Basket Price FOB from 2005 until 2014.

50 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

5 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

The aim of developing a Database Management System (DBMS) is to create a structure for evaluating both deposits and occurrences. Nowadays, it is possible to receive information on REE deposits and occurrences with the aid of specific websites, REE reports and, in particular, REE companies’ websites. However, these information sources offer neither a comparison nor a detailed evaluation of REE deposits and occurrences. Particularly, the topic of occurrences is only treated in scientific publications or information websites for mineralogy or geology (e.g. mindat.org). Therefore, it is important to build up a user-specific DBMS for comparing and evaluating REE deposits and occurrences.

The created DBMS is an Access-based (Microsoft, 2013) system. It contains normal tables and forms as a specified evaluation interface, where it is possible to compare and evaluate REE deposits and occurrences. The development of the system starts with data acquisition from nearly 1,200 sites. After defining 120 parameters for eight columns, the whole database is set up as a 1,200 x 120 matrix (Figure 19). Thus, the database is composed of eight main tables with different categories. These categories are General Information, Geography, Owner Information, Geology, Mineralization, Ma- terial Grade, Economy and Mining.

Figure 19: Data entries, parameters, occurrences and deposits.

51 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Following the steps of data acquisition and parameter definition, logical relationships are created (Figure 20). These relationships are very important for the internal linkages of particular tables, which are developed by a primary key, e.g. Deposits. This is con- ducted by setting one parameter as primary key and linking it with all main tables. Therefore, the primary key is the main criterium in the newly-created DBMS.

Afterwards, specified queries are defined and created. Then, individual forms are designed and consequently, the selection menus that were produced are implemented into the DBMS (Figure 20). The goal is to create simple menus so that the handling of the system is as easy and fast as possible. Therefore, forms for comparing deposits and their attributes are implemented (Figure 20), enabling switching between the menus in a very short time.

The utilization of the DBMS begins with the implementation of comparison forms. After all comparison forms are implemented, the evaluation systems Rating, Clustering, Ranking and Use-Value Analysis are developed. These evaluation systems assess deposits according to their attributes, place in the market and potential for gaining importance within the REE market (Figure 20). Thus, the evaluation systems of the DBMS determine the potential of the deposit to exceed the market entrance barrier for the REE market.

52 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 20: Workflow of the development of the Database Management System

53 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

5.1 Definition of parameters

5.1.1 General Information

Deposits: Name of the deposit or name of the mining district.

Deposit Type: Depends on the character of the rock and classifies it in mineralogical terms.

Country: A territory of a nation or state.

State or Province: A territory governed as an administrative or political unit of a country.

Deposit Rating: Modified after and partly depending on systems of credit rating for companies. It should systematically rate deposits according to their mineralogical and economical characteristics and values. Rating levels are graded from highest level AAA to lowest level C. Within the ranking system, there are nine levels (AAA-AA-A-BBB-BB-B-CCC-CC-C), which allow for the differentiation of deposits and occurrences. Level AAA means a first class deposit for REE with ratings of the highest values in the deposit's economics and resources. Level C stands for the worst deposits with respect to economic feasibility, political systems (unrest), tonnage, grade ore concentration, trade and environment (Green Mining).

Source&Date of Estimate(s): First estimation of deposits.

Government Type/Form (Country): Type of government by country.

5.1.2 Geography

Latitude: Geographic Location.

54 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Longitude: Geographic Location.

Nearby Port (in km) Linear Distance: Nearest port in linear distance to deposit.

Industries (existing): Existing industries pertaining to infrastructure of REE deposits/mining.

Road Map./Existing/Conditions: Mapping and distance of optional transport system.

Railway Map./Existing/Conditions: Mapping and distance of optional transport system.

Airport Map./Existing/Conditions: Mapping and distance of optional transport system.

Country-GDP (millions of US-$): “Gross Domestic Product = refers to the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.” (Science Daily, 2012).

Country-GNP (millions of US-$): “Gross National Product = an estimate of the total money value of all the final goods and services produced in a given one-year period by the factors of production owned by a particular country's residents.” (Investopedia, 2012)

Industrial Logistics: “Classification under three headings: (i) product support, also referred to as engineering logistics or post-sale customer support, (ii) production support which includes more traditional forms of logistics such as the supply chain and final product distribution, and finally (iii) industrial sector which includes non-firm specific issues linked to transportation policy, support location of industrial parks, etc." (Barros, 1997).

55 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

5.1.3 Owner Information

Company: Name of the company and date of establishment.

Stock Exchange Symbol: “A unique series of letters assigned to a security for trading purposes. NYSE and AMEX listed stocks have three characters or less. Nasdaq-listed securities have four or five characters. If a fifth letter appears, it identifies the security as other than a single issue of common stock. They are also known as "ticker symbols”. The fifth letter of the ticker symbol of a Nasdaq listed stock can prove very helpful in finding out the history of a company. For example, if there is an "E" as the fifth letter, the company has had previous trouble with their SEC filings.” (Investopedia, 2012)

ISIN (International Securities Identification Number): “A unique international code, which identifies a securities issue. Each country has a national numbering agency, which assigns ISIN numbers for securities in that country.” (ISIN, 2012)

Equity emission (Date and Share Price ($)): Emission of shares with share & opening price.

Historical Max ($): Historical maximum share price in US-$.

Historical Min ($): Historical minimum share price in US-$.

Market Capitalization ($): “Market capitalization (or market cap) is the total value of the issued shares of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding. As outstanding stock is bought and sold in public markets, capitalization could be used as a proxy for the public opinion of a company's net worth and is a determining factor in some forms of stock valuation.” (SKS Business, 2012)

Share quantity: Maximum amount of shares a company emitted.

56 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Licences: Licences a company earns from the state to explore an occurrence/ a deposit.

Contracts Government: A Company's contracts with the government.

Subsidy: A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction.

Royalties: “Royalties (sometimes, running royalties, or private sector taxes) are usage-based payments made by one party (the "licensee") to another (the "licensor") for the right to ongoing use of an asset, sometimes an intellectual property. Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation. A royalty interest is the right to collect a stream of future royalty payments, often used in the oil or music industry to describe a percentage own- ership of future production or revenues from a given leasehold, which may divested from be the original owner of the asset.” (Russell & Cohn, 2012)

Trade capacity (tons/Country): Trade capacity of the country.

Market Share (Country): Market share of the country.

Import (Country): Import of REE by country.

Export Quota (tons/year/Country): Export quota of REE by country.

Production volume (Country): Production volume of REE by country.

Domestic Consumption (tons/Country): Total consumption of REE by single country (internal consumption).

State-owned deposits (Country): 57 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

State-owned deposits by country, particularly communistic countries.

State-owned companies (Country): State-owned companies by country, particularly communistic countries.

5.1.4 Geology

Host Rock(s): Rock which serves as a host for other rocks or for mineral deposits.

Geochemistry: Geochemical analysis of minerals to evaluate for REE.

Geochronology: The branch of geology concerned with ordering and dating of events in the earth's history, including the origin of the earth itself.

Geological Risks: Natural Hazards (e.g. earthquake zones, floods, tropical cyclones, etc.).

5.1.5 Mineralization

Deposit Status: Deposit or occurrence (setting for all deposits and occurrences in the DBMS).

REE Deposit - Type (LREE/HREE): Difference between a LREE deposit (including more than 75 % of LREE) and a HREE deposit (including more than 25 % of HREE+Y).

Ore Mineral Association: "A group of minerals found together in a rock. Includes all ore minerals suggesting the complexity of geological processes generating them (e.g. remobilisation)". (Stylianos- Stavvas, 1995)

58 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Ores: Types of ores relevant to REE deposits (Monazite, Bastnasite, Xenotime, Ion-Adsorp- tion Clays, Apatite, Eudialyte, and Zirconium).

Gangue Minerals: Gangue minerals refer to material associated with ore. They are also mined and afterwards removed by crushing and separation processes.

Ore Minerals: Minerals that are significant for the ore or the deposit.

5.1.6 Material Grade

La2O3: Lanthanum-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

CeO2: Cerium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Pr6O11: Praseodymium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Nd2O3: Neodymium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Sm2O3: Samarium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Eu2O3: Europium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Gd2O3: Gadolinium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Tb4O7: Terbium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Dy2O3: Dysprosium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Ho2O3: Holmium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Er2O3: Erbium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Tm2O3: Thulium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Yb2O3: Ytterbium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Lu2O3: Lutetium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE).

Y2O3: Yttrium-Oxide of a Rare Earth Element (REE). 59 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Uranium Grade (U3O8): Grade of Uranium (U3O8) within the deposit.

Thorium Grade (ThO2): Grade of Thorium (ThO2) within the deposit.

Niobium (Nb): Mineral contained in the ore body and by-product of REE mining.

Tantalum (Ta): Mineral contained in the ore body and by-product of REE mining.

5.1.7 Economy

Cut-Off-Grade (wt-%) INFERRED (INF): Cf. chapter 3.3

MR (t) INF: Cf. chapter 3.3

TREO (wt-%) INF: Total Rare Earth Oxide value of the deposit in weight percentage.

TREO (t) INF: Total Rare Earth Oxide value of the deposit in tonnage.

Cut-Off-Grade (wt-%) INDICATED (IND): Cf. chapter 3.3

MR (t) IND: Cf. definition of MR (t) INF.

TREO (wt-%) IND: Cf. definition of TREO (wt-%) INF.

TREO (t) IND: Cf. definition of TREO (t) INF.

Cut-Off-Grade (wt-%) MEASURED (MEA): Cf. chapter 3.3

MR (t) MEA: Cf. definition of MR (t) INF.

TREO (wt-%) MEA: Cf. definition of TREO (wt-%) INF.

TREO (t) MEA: Cf. definition of TREO (t) INF.

60 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

MR (t) Total: Cf. definition of MR (t) INF.

TREO (wt-%) Average: The total sum of all 15 Rare Earth Elements in wt-%.

TREO (t) Total: The total sum of all 15 Rare Earth Elements in t.

Reserves: Cf. chapter 3.3

In situ value TREO ($/t): “The in-situ value regards the size and grade of the acquired resource chastened by the level of country risk, as perceived and analysed at the time of the transaction. This is the level of expectation one has with the mining project and one of the factors that has an impact on the acquisition price.” (Hatch, 2012)

Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) Deposit: “= Unit Basket Price FOB (in US-$/kg). This is the theoretical price that could be obtained for one kilogram of fully separated RE oxides, containing RE oxides in the same proportions as found in-situ within the deposit (e.g. if the proportion of neodymium oxide in the total RE oxide material grade is 10%, the unit basket price includes the market price for 100 grams of neodymium oxide).” (Hatch, 2012)

Basket Price ($/kg) /(Domestic China) Deposit: Cf. definition Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) Deposit.

5.1.8 Mining

Deposit Information: Contains specific information regarding the deposit.

General Development Status: General development status of the deposit (stages).

Actual Production:

61 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Actual production of the deposit.

Historical Production: Historical production of the deposit.

Open Pit / Underground: Type of mining.

Mining life (LOM): “The time in which, through the employment of the available capital, the ore reserves‒ or such reasonable extension of the ore reserves as conservative geological analysis may justify‒will be extracted.” (Hoover, 2013)

Mining (Tip)  Ratio, Tonnage: Tip material, tonnage and ratios between production and tipping.

Overburden: “In mining and in archaeology, overburden (also called waste or spoil) is the material that is situated above an area of economic or scientific interest. In mining, it is most commonly the rock, soil, and ecosystem that is located above a coal seam or ore body. Overburden is distinct from tailings, the material that remains after economically valuable components have been extracted from the generally finely milled ore. Overburden is removed during surface mining, but is typically not contaminated with toxic components and may be used to restore an exhausted mining site to a semblance of its ap- pearance before mining began. Overburden may also be used as a term to describe all soil and ancillary material above the bedrock horizon in a given area.” (Factforge, 2013)

Stripping Ratio: “In mining, stripping ratio or strip ratio refers to the ratio of the volume of overburden (or waste material) required to be handled in order to extract some volume of ore. For example, a 3:1 stripping ratio means that mining one cubic meter of ore will require mining three cubic meters of waste rock. Stripping ratios are typically reduced to show the volume of waste removal required to extract one unit volume of ore. For instance, 2:1 as opposed to 4:2. When compared to surface mining, which requires overburden removal prior to ore extraction, underground mining operations tend to have lower stripping ratios due to increased selectivity. All other factors being equal, mining at a

62 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS) higher stripping ratio is less profitable than mining at a lower stripping ratio because more waste must be moved (at a cost per unit volume) for an equivalent volume of revenue generating ore. If the ratio is too high given a particular price of ore and associated cost of mining then it may not be economical to conduct mining.” (Hartman, 1996)

Mining recovery: An expression of the amount of product (nominal or actual) that can be manufactured from a given input of raw material  Mining (mining-onlineexpos, 2013).

Processing recovery: “An expression of the amount of product (nominal or actual) that can be manufactured from a given input of raw material.“ (Rothsay, 2014).

Metallurgical recovery: “An expression of the amount of product (nominal or actual) that can be manufactured from a given input of raw material  Metallurgy.” (Rothsay, 2014)

Recultivation: “General expression used for the making of bare areas (raw mineral soils) fertile again through bioengineering and refertilization.” (Rothsay, 2014)

Acid Mine Drainage: “Acid mine drainage, Acid and metalliferous drainage (AMD), or acid rock drainage (ARD), refers to the outflow of acidic water from (usually abandoned) metal mines or coal mines. However, other areas where the earth has been disturbed (e.g. construction sites, subdivisions, transportation corridors, etc.) may also contribute acid rock drainage to the environment. In many localities the liquid that drains from coal stocks, coal handling facilities, coal washeries, and even coal waste tips can be highly acidic, and in such cases, it is treated as acid rock drainage. Acid rock drainage occurs naturally within some environments as part of the rock weathering process but is exacer- bated by large-scale earth disturbances characteristic of mining and other large construction activities, usually within rocks containing an abundance of sulfide minerals.” (MinTails, 2015)

63 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Dimension Tailings: Tailings in length, width and depth (dimension).

Environmental protection (Deposit, Air, Water, Soil): Protection of the environmentSeparation PlantsContamination through air, water and soil.

Artisanal Mining (Miners/Country): Artisanal mining by country, especially Asia, Africa & South America.

5.2 Structure of the DBMS

5.2.1 Tables

Building basic tables

Basic tables are the starting point of each construction of databases and are the output information generated for the databases. Generally, basic tables are created by using Design View (Microsoft, 2013). The Design View of a table is the typical tool for con- structing tables in MS Access (Microsoft, 2013). In the program, the field name can be specified using the ‘Data Type’ dropdown menu(Figure 21). These system suggestions are mandatory arguments. The subsequent description is filled depending on the system requirements. MS Access tables (Microsoft, 2013) also have inbuilt functions like “Filter” and “Sort” in which a search for a specific entry is possible. However, such search requests are not robust and hence cannot replace the usefulness of defining queries.

64 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 21: Insert field attribute through the operation Data Type.

The entries contained in a basic table are generally related to one another. There are many such logical tables formed in the database, e.g. General Information, Geography, Geology and Mineralization. Table 8 depicts the main column General Information and displays its parameters/fields Deposits, Deposit Type, Country and State or Province.

Table 8: Column “General Information” and its different parameters

65 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

5.2.2 Relationships

Data needs to be extracted based on the type of information within the tables. Various one to one (1:1) or one to many (1:n) relationships are formed among the tables (Figure 22). For 1:1 relationships, the primary key between two corresponding tables has to be equal. In the case of the DBMS, Deposits and Occurrences are the primary key and belong to all tables (Figure 22).

A second primary key is a special feature which is implemented into the system . In the case of the DBMS, the second primary key is the parameter Country and includes an exclusive feature for searching for countries and displaying the corresponding deposits and occurrences. Therefore, in this special situation, the primary key cannot be Deposits.

Figure 22: Relationships between all tables / columns of the DBMS.

66 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

5.2.3 Forms

Building basic forms

Figure 23 depicts the different options to create a “Form”. In order to make a “Switch- board Form” (Microsoft, 2013) like a “Start Page”, a blank form is chosen and various types of buttons can be designed to meet the requirements. Forms like “Multiple Items”, “Datasheets” or “Split Forms” (Microsoft, 2013) are useful when creating forms for specific queries (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Creation of Forms through different datasheets.

In Figure 24, various control tools can be selected to generate the content of a form. Depending on the requirements, options like “Text Boxes”, “Hyperlinks”, “List Boxes” and several “Button” specifications are available as tools (Microsoft, 2013). Moreover, pictures and graphs can also be inserted into forms. “Check Boxes” and optional buttons are user-specific tools and create important components for utilising the DBMS (Figure 24).

67 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 24: Check boxes in the controls toolbox are used for implementing boxes into the form.

After defining a query, the information in the system is provided. For this purpose, forms are designed. Furthermore, forms can be constructed either for a query or according to the user’s independent input. The form designed in Figure 25 is used to access the data of all oxides in one single page for the layout of the DBMS.

The buttons “Select Oxide” and “Go to Start Menu” (Figure 25) are typical control tools (Figure 24) to switch from one form to another. This is done by implementing a “Control Design Form”. Thus, switching from one form to another is possible depending on the requested type of data.

Figure 25: Exemplary view of building the form for the price feature. 68 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

There are various methods to program the actions in a form. Figure 26 depicts three options to implement codes in a form, e.g. “Macro Builder”, “Expression Builder” and “Code Builder” (Microsoft, 2013) (Figure 26).

Figure 26: Code Builder option inside the Form Builder with implemented boxes.

Figure 27 illustrates a typical window to build VBA codes for a particular set of actions. In the illustrated code “Form_AllDataDepositF”, the “DoCmd.OpenForm” function is used. This function causes the system to perform a specific action. In this case, the “DoCmd.OpenForm”-command is used to open or close a form. The first argument “FormName” (e.g. “CDimensionF”) is compulsory. Optional arguments, , such as “View”, “FilterName” or “WhereCondition” can also be implemented. However, if multiple of these arguments are used, they have to be separated by. Moreover, “Win- dowMode” as “acNormal” - bypassing “FilterName”, “WhereCondition” and “DataMode" - are written in the code and gaps (“”) are filled in any column and are separated by commas.

69 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 27: Macro Builder with implemented codes.

Typical situations within system operations are so-called “Events”. These events are the actions for which a specific response is required. Generally, events depend on interactions during system operation. Typical events are “OnClick”, “AfterUpdate”, “Be- foreUpdate” and “OnSelectionChange”. Figure 28 depicts one event and stands in contrast to the multiple events that are described in the VBA code. The “Combobox” “Cbocountry” is created within the forms. After updating the system, “Cbodeposit” automatically refreshes itself. This example illustrates how an event of one “Combobox” can affect another while using a VBA code.

70 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 28: Interacting Comboboxes in Visual Basic components.

5.2.4 Queries

Building basic queries

Queries are major components of databases and can be defined and built within the “Query-Design” (Microsoft, 2013). The “Query-Design” gives a comprehensive approach to the system. However, there are also other approaches, e.g. “Query-Wizard”, to build a query. “Query-Design”, provides the option to select various tables or even other queries that need to be combined to form a new main query (Figure 29). As per requirement, there are specific fields in each of these tables that can be selected. There are other orders like “Sort” or “Criteria”, which can be used to personalize the search results. Thus, queries are used for parameters selected via comparison within the DBMS.

71 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 29: Definition of queries through the Query Builder.

The actual data that is required from the database has to be determined in advance. Based on this determination, the requested queries can be defined. Figure 30 shows the query created for the information of Ores belonging to the criteria Deposits. The fields Country and Ores are not in the same table (“countrytodeposit”; “Mineraliza- tionT”). Thus, the relationship constructed between them helps to retrieve data from both tables at the same time.

72 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 30: Forming relationships between different tables through “Cascadeafter”.

The criteria clause for a query is an important feature. It determines which rows of the table have to be displayed as an output. Figure 31 shows an example of the method used to build those criteria. There, the parameters from the categories Material Grade and General Information are used as main criteria. Another feature that is used for building criteria is the “Expression Builder”. The “Expression Builder“ (Microsoft, 2013) is responsible for the codes in the query criteria (Figure 31).

73 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 31: Expression builder for Queries.

5.3 Layout of the DBMS

Access-based databases have simple structures and user-friendly layouts. Therefore, the DBMS consists of operation windows graphic user interface in which all system actions take place.

Another key point is the width of the graphic user interface. Access-based databases have limited height and width for the operational windows (Microsoft, 2013). This causes several problems concerning visualisation of displayed parameters in comparison or evaluation systems. In the example in Figure 32, the “Display Navigation Panel”-checkbox is empty. This helps to hide the navigation panel and provides a wider window for interactions within the database.

74 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 32: Display of the Navigation Panel.

5.3.1 Design

The typical design of an Access-based database system is created by “comboboxes” (Figure 33). The features of Access-based forms and user-specific forms are created in the “Form View”. Ease of use is the main goal when creating user-specific forms. In this case, the system is created for quickly controlling single paths of the DBMS. By operating the implemented buttons in the DBMS (“one-click-method”), the system can output the requested information in a very short time. This systematization leads to a fast understanding and handling of the DBMS.

75 Development of the Database Management System (DBMS)

Figure 33: Form Builder in MS-Access with Header, Detail, Footer and Property Sheet.

76 Systematization of the DBMS

6 Systematization of the DBMS

The main goal of the DBMS systematization is to create a very user-friendly system with optimized speed and handling. Therefore, an operation centre (OPC) with the ability to search and compare occurrences and deposits was implemented into the system.

The OPC is divided into four main parts. The first part is the Deposit Search Menu (Figure 34), which offers the opportunity to search within five different categories. The search criteria are Deposit, Country, Company, Ore and TREO (Figure 34). For the search category “TREO”, the system allows the user to switch between the three statuses of a defined resource: inferred, indicated and measured (Figure 34). After selecting the preferred information, the system directly opens the menu with the related search results. The opportunity to switch back to the OPC at any time is given. The second main part of the OPC is the Occurrence Search Menu (Figure 34). The search categories in this are the same as those in the Deposit Search Menu. The Compare Deposit Menu is implemented (Figure 34, lower left) as the third main part of the OPC. Using this function, the system compares REE deposits with each other. Moreover, this menu includes two further sub-menus, the Basket Price Calcula- tor and the Prices menu (Figure 34). Both can be applied for oxides as well as metals The last part of the OPC are the evaluation systems. The DBMS contains four different evaluation systems to account for the problematic situation of comparing and evaluating both deposits and occurrences. The evaluation systems are Rating, Ranking, Clus- ter and Use-Value Analysis. Each of these evaluation systems can be selected to apply a detailed evaluation of deposits as well as occurrences (Figure 34).

77 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 34: Operation centre of the DBMS.

6.1 Search Systems

The main categories of the Search Systems are one essential part of the DBMS. There, a search for any occurrence or deposit can be undertaken. Both systems (Deposit & Occurrence Search) get the request via the input of a specific feature, e.g. Deposit, Country, Company or Ore. Furthermore, for the Deposit Search, it is possible to search within three categories or statuses of the TREO tonnage for the deposits in the DBMS. To perform such a search, values can be entered – specifically ranges – for the inferred, indicated and measured resource category. Using the Search button (Figure 34), activates the next sub-menu, which is the direct Search Menu.

In this system, any information on the selected deposits will be displayed. Then, it is possible to switch between the eight main columns, e.g. General Information, Geogra- phy, Owner Information, Geology, Mineralization, Material Grade, Economy and Min- ing (Figure 35). The Search Menu displays all of the 120 parameters. Moreover, it depicts the complete records of the requested deposits (Figure 35). Finally, the system

78 Systematization of the DBMS includes the appropriate references in a second information line, directly beneath the parameter information (Figure 35).

Figure 35: Exemplary search within the Deposit Search Menu.

6.1.1 Detailed description of the Deposit Search Menu features

The Deposits Search Menu contains a list of all deposits. There are multiple options to filter the list of deposits. As mentioned in chapter 6.1, the search options are Deposit, Country, Company, Ore, and TREO (INF, IND, MEA).

It is possible to filter the search using the following four single choices (1-5) as well as four combinations (6-9): 1) Deposit 2) Country 3) Company 4) Ore 5) TREO values (INF or IND or MEA) 6) Country and Ore

79 Systematization of the DBMS

7) Country, Ore and TREO values (INF or IND or MEA) 8) Country and TREO values (INF or IND or MEA) 9) Ore and TREO values (INF or IND or MEA) 10) No values in any field (*) (*) If no values are entered in any of the fields (Deposit, Country, Company, Ore and TREO), the entire list of deposits that is implemented into the database is displayed.

For example, if a single search (1) for the deposit Araxa (Brazil) is performed, then the deposit can be selected from the drop-down list (Figure 36).

Figure 36: Deposit Search – Deposit Araxa (Brazil).

After that, the DBMS provides the requested information on the selected deposit, Araxa (Figure 37).

Figure 37: Deposit Search – Result Deposit Araxa (Brazil)

80 Systematization of the DBMS

A second option is a search for a combination of criteria (6 to 9). All four combinations (6 to 9) can be chosen for a combined search, e.g. Country (Brazil) and an Ore (Mon- azite) (Figure 38).

Figure 38: Deposit Search – Country (Brazil) and Ore (Monazite).

Searching for the criteria (Country and Ore), results in a list of three deposits (Aracruz, Araxa, Catalao). All deposits are Brazilian and consist of the ore Monazite.

Figure 39: Deposit Search – Country (Brazil) and Ore (Monazite).

81 Systematization of the DBMS

In a search for deposits, the system generates a list of results for the above-mentioned combination (Figure 39). A click on the search button will give details of deposits. Search results include the following details:

● General Information: Deposits, Deposit type, Country, State or Province, Deposit rating, Source and Date of Estimate(s), Government type or form (country) ● Geography: Deposit, Latitude, Longitude, Nearby port (in km) linear distance, Industries (existing), Road mapping deposit harbor (km), Railway mapping deposit harbor (km), Airport mapping/existing/condition, Country GDP, Country GNP, Industrial logistics ● Owner information: Deposits, Company(date), Stock exchange symbol, ISIN(International Sec. Id. Number), Equity emission (Date and share price), Historical max, Historical min, Market capitalization, share quantity, Licenses, Import(tons/country) ● Geology: Deposits, Host rocks, Geochemistry, Geochronology(ages), geological risks ● Mineralization: Deposits, Deposit status, deposit REE type (LREE/HREE), Ore mineral association, Gangue minerals, Ore minerals, Ore 1 - Ore 7

● Material Grade: Deposits, La2O3 to Y2O3 ● Economy: Deposits, Cut-off grade INF, MR (t) INF, TREO (t) INF, Cut-off grade IND, MR (t) IND, TREO IND, TREO (t) IND, Cut-off grade MEA, MR (t) MEA, TREO MEA, TREO (t) MEA, MR(t) total, TREO average, TREO (t) total, Basket price (FOB) deposit, Basket price (China Do- mestic) deposit, In situ value TREO, reserves ● Mining: Deposits, Deposit information, General development status, Actual production, Historical production, Open pit, Mining life, Mining(Tip), Overburden, Stripping ratio, Mining recovery, processing recovery, Metallurgical recovery, Recultivation, Acid mine drainage, Dimension tailings, Environmental protection, Artisanal Mining

In addition, a brief description of each column header is given. The column header can be selected to display the description.

82 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 40: Deposit Search – Parameter Description.

The description of the parameters is shown by clicking on the underlined name of the parameter. As an example, in Figure 40, the description of the parameter Host Rock is displayed.

6.1.2 Occurrence Search Menu

This menu contains a list of all occurrences. It is similar to the Deposits Search Menu, and there are nearly the same options to filter the list of occurrences:

● Occurrence ● Country ● Company ● Ore

The search can be filtered using the following combinations:

1. Occurrence and Country 2. Ore and Country

83 Systematization of the DBMS

3. No values in any field*

(*) If no values are given in any of the fields (Occurrence, Country, Company and Ore) a complete list of all occurrences implemented in the DBMS is displayed.

6.2 Compare Deposit Menu

The Compare Deposit Menu consists of three parts: the Basket Price Calculator, the Compare Deposits Menu and the Prices Menu. Using these three menus, preferred deposits can easily be compared.

6.2.1 Compare Deposit

Within the Compare Deposit Menu, the system allows for the comparison of up to five REE deposits. All deposits in the DBMS may be selected. Moreover, all eight main columns can be used to compare the selected deposits. In this menu, parameters of interest can be selected by clicking the field beside their name. There is an additional checkbox for Sources and References. Below the specific deposit information, this checkbox shows the references and sources which were used to obtain the information for the selected deposit (Figure 41).

In the next step, the system can export the parameters that need to be compared as an Excel- or PDF-file. Furthermore, the system has the ability to create an overall report for the selected deposits. In this overall report, all parameters are included and can be exported into an Excel- or PDF-file.

In the tab Geology, e.g. deposits of Araxa, Bayan Obo and Bear Valley are compared with respect to geological parameters such as Host Rocks, Geochemistry, Geochro- nology and Geological Risks. To get the specific information on sources and references for this exemplary search, the relevant checkbox has to be selected as well. The result of this specific search is presented in Figure 41.

84 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 41: Compare Menu with the above selected deposits, in the column “Material Grade”.

To export the results, e.g. for Host Rocks and Geological Risks as an Excel- or PDF- file, the corresponding checkboxes as well as the Report button are used. The results of this search operation and the export options are displayed in Figure 42.

Figure 42: Export System to PFF/Excel conversion.

85 Systematization of the DBMS

6.2.2 Dynamic Basket Price Calculator

The Basket Price Calculator is a dynamic feature of the DBMS designed to calculate the Basket Price of a deposit for any year from 2002 to 2015. This feature can also be used for newly inserted data. It includes two options:

● China Domestic Basket Price Calculator ● FOB Basket Price Calculator

Both options have three timeframes: Yearly, Monthly and Daily Basket Price Calcula- tor.

If one of the options Yearly, Monthly or Daily is chosen, a new window appears in which the Basket Price calculation for the selected option is shown (Figure 43). There are two input options, Deposit and Year (Figure 43). Both options must be filled in to calculate the Basket Price (Figure 43). Using the drop-down list, a deposit for which the price should be calculated is selected. To complete the calculation, the year must be selected from a drop down list as well. The system can calculate prices from 2002 to 2015. After selecting a year, the prices of oxides in that year are presented. For example, if the year 2015 is selected, it will be shown that the price of La2O3 was 3.2 US- $/kg in 2015 (Figure 43). The list of oxides for which the prices are displayed for each year is as follows:

● La2O3

● CeO2

● Pr6O11

● Nd2O3

● Sm2O3

● Eu2O3

● Tb4O7

● Dy2O3

● Y2O3

● Gd2O3 (only available for FOB)

Gd2O3 (partial), Ho2O3, Er2O3, Tm2O3, Yb2O3, and Lu2O3 are excluded due to no available price data in the China Domestic market.

86 Systematization of the DBMS

The Basket Price for a deposit is calculated based on the percentages of oxides in the deposit and the prices of oxides in a given year. For instance, in Figure 43 one can see that the yearly calculated Basket Price for Araxa in 2015 is 15.94 US-$/kg. The Monthly and Daily Basket Price Calculator works in the same way.

Figure 43: Basket Price Calculator with choices of deposit and year.

There are two additional options in the Basket Price Calculator. Following the actual calculation, the calculated price for the chosen year can be saved to a particular table for Basket Prices or to a table containing information on general economic issues. Us- ing this feature, the calculated price may also be used in the main categories Economy and Use-value analysis. Implementing the calculated price into at least the Basket Price Table is mandatory for further analysis.

6.2.3 Oxide & Metal Prices

Another feature of the DBMS is the menu of oxide and metal prices. Figure 44 depicts the breakdown of the Price Menu, which is divided into oxide and metal prices, further divided into FOB and China Domestic, and lastly divided into yearly, monthly and daily prices. The yearly prices are given from 2002 to 2015.

87 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 44: Price Menus of the DBMS, depicted as a hierarchy.

The yearly prices for La-, Ce-, Pr-, Nd-, Sm-, Eu-, Tb-, Dy- and Y-oxides are displayed by choosing the following path:

Prices  Oxide Prices  FOB Oxide Prices  Yearly Prices

Figure 45 depicts the oxide prices for Pr-, Nd-, Eu-, Tb-, Dy- and Y-oxide for the FOB in US-$/kg in 2015.All preferred oxides can be selected and the prices for all years will be shown (Figure 45). An overview of monthly and daily prices can also be obtained.

88 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 45: DBMS Price Feature for FOB Oxide.

6.2.4 Creation of Overall report

This option saves all compared results in one single Excel-file. Using the previously mentioned report option, it is only possible to save compared results for one category. Therefore, if the system should compare data for the deposits of e.g. Mountain Pass and Storkwitz in more than one category, the button Create overall Report has to be selected. For example, the following categories are chosen:

 General Information: Deposit Type and Country  Geography: Industries (existing) and Road Mapping  Owner Information: Company (Date) and Equity Emission

89 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 46: Overall Comparison menu viewing the deposits Mountain Pass and Storkwitz.

All information is requested for each option in the categories General Information, Ge- ography and Owner Information. After using the operator Create Overall Report, the generated report is displayed in a new window. At the top of the window is the option to save the compared results in an Excel-file.

90 Systematization of the DBMS

6.3 Result Systems

Result Systems are implemented into the DBMS to evaluate REE occurrences and deposits. The evaluation systems include Rating, Clustering, Ranking and Use-Value Analysis. This four-part system was developed due to the lack of a comparison and evaluation system for occurrences and deposits. Currently, there are only systems that give information concerning attributes of occurrences and deposits. There are no other systems worldwide that compare occurrences and deposits.

6.3.1 Rating

The Rating System is an attributive evaluation system that is based on the systems of well-known rating agencies. Such a system is the only possibility to compare occurrences and deposits. For most occurrences, not much valuable information is available; mostly only geographical and limited geological information is provided. Thus, there is often no information, which can be used to evaluate a particular occurrence. On the other hand, for most deposits, rather detailed information can be obtained, e.g. data of resources and reserves, economic data and mining data. An attributive analysis is the only chance to evaluate both occurrences and deposits. The description of attributive categories from AAA to C is given in Table 9.

91 Systematization of the DBMS

Table 9: Attributive Ratings from categories AAA to C.

AAA Deposit - in production; certified resource and reserve; production rate; existing infrastructure; established in REE market

AA Deposit - in production; certified resource and reserve; lower production rate than deposits AAA; existing infrastructure; established in REE market

A Deposit - production in near future; certified resource and reserve; good perspective to enter the market; certified resource and reserve; finalized pre- production phase (bankable feasibility); high Basket Price; high amount of HREE

BBB Deposit - production in far future; middle perspective to climb market entrance barrier; certified resource; Pre-Feasibility study completed

BB Deposit - JORC/NI-43/SAMREC Code, certified resource

B Occurrence - information on locality; information on REE grades received through drilling phases (information on core drilling), phase before JORC/Ni- 43/SAMREC Code, certification of resource

CCC Occurrence - information on locality; information on REE grades received through first drilling phase (information on core drilling)

CC Occurrence - information on locality; geological sampling of overburden, REE grades information

C Occurrence - only information on locality; little information on REE grades through geological evaluation

Table 9 depicts all attributive rating categories and highlights the boundary between an occurrence and a deposit. Ratings of AAA to AA characterize deposits producing REE that are well-established in the market. Thus, for example, the deposit Bayan Obo has an AAA status because of its production rate of 50,000 tons of REE per year (Shen, 2014) and a market share of approximately 40 %. In contrast, the deposit Maoniuping has an AA status because of the lower production rate of 10,000 tons per year (Shen, 2014) and a market share of only 8 %. The statuses A to BB represent deposits which have the potential to become a REE producer or were producers in the past (e.g. chapter 4.1, Mountain Pass and Mount 92 Systematization of the DBMS

Weld). The smallest common denominator in this class is the certification of resource. Therefore, the boundary for deposits and occurrences is between BB and B. All levels from B to C, are, per definition, occurrences. They have no certified resource, thus they are in the beginning phase.

Using the Select View Order option, the deposits can be ordered from highest (AAA) to lowest (C) or from lowest to highest rating (Figure 47). The results can be filtered to only show deposits with specific rating using the Show Rating option. The system can display either a single rating status like AAA or a range like AA to BBB (Figure 47).

Figure 47: Rating system with range of AAA to C and explanations.

This menu also provides the opportunity to generate a report of the rating result by selecting the Report button.

93 Systematization of the DBMS

6.3.2 Clustering

The feature Clustering is a tool for categorizing deposits based on a submitted argument. It creates matrixes in forms of data groups. Attributive parameters that have a high importance to a certain topic are combined with deposits to form Clustering Groups. For instance, in Figure 48, by selecting the arguments Eudialyte, Bastnasite and Monazite, the system builds Ore Clustering Groups. The aim of such Ore Cluster- ing Groups is to classify all occurrences and deposits which contain one of these three requested ore types.

Figure 48: Cluster Menu with five different clusters, exemplary “Eudialyte Cluster“.

For instance, the Clustering Groups are as follows:

● Eudialyte ● Bastnasite ● Monazite

94 Systematization of the DBMS

When one of the three categories is selected, the system will show the list of deposits and occurrences which contain that argument. In this menu, a field with a Select option is implemented to decide if only occurrences or deposits, or both shall be selected (Figure 48).

6.3.3 Ranking

The Ranking system ranks every single attribute from the highest to the lowest value. In the case of lanthanum, cerium and samarium, as well as for the toxic elements, the ranking order is reversed (lowest to highest). Each deposit is given a ranking for each ranked attribute. Ranking is divided into three categories (Figure 49):

● All Ranking ● Material Grade ● Economy

The term All Ranking is a combination of the Material Grade and Economy rankings and gives the complete ranking of all attributes. The category Material Grade includes all REO and the toxic elements of uranium and thorium. The criteria which are used for the Economy Ranking are TREO (t) INF, TREO (t) IND, TREO (t) MEA, TREO (t) total and FOB Basket Price Ranking.

95 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 49: Ranking system with Material Grade and TREO.

6.3.4 Use-Value Analysis

The Use-Value Analysis is an evaluation tool for deposits in the DBMS. It is chosen because its systematization is optimized for usage in databases. The system of the Use-Value Analysis within the DBMS contains seven columns:

● Stages ● Values ● Criteria Values ● Value Point Transformation ● Preference Matrix ● Scoring Model ● Rank Order

The typical form of a Use-Value Analysis contains the determination of a goal system and the weighting of the sub-goals. Furthermore, it describes the goal and sub-goal 96 Systematization of the DBMS criteria. Then the values are categorized according to the best-worst-value system. The best values are assigned the maximum number of points (10), while the worst values receive the lowest points (0) (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Use-Value-Analysis, determination of values, best-worst value system.

In the second step, the Criteria Values are inserted into the system. Then the Value- Point-Transformation is implemented by two formulae of progressive and digressive nature.

In the cases of thorium and uranium, the best value is the lowest content in ppm; alter- natively, the worst value is the highest content in ppm.

Formula a) shows the progressive Value-Point-Transformation. For the determination of x, the second intercept theorem is taken as the basis. The point scores are calculated as the result of the following equation:

a) Progressive: 푥 − 퐿표푤푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐿푃) 퐻𝑖푔ℎ푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐻푃) − 퐿표푤푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐿푃) = 퐶푟𝑖푡푒푟𝑖푎 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐶) − 푊표푟푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (푊푉) 퐵푒푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐵푉) − 푊표푟푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (푊푉)

97 Systematization of the DBMS

퐻𝑖𝑔ℎ푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐻푃)−퐿표푤푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐿푃) ⇔ x = (C – WV) * + 퐿푃 퐵푒푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐵푉)−푊표푟푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (푊푉)

Formula b) depicts the digressive Value-Point-Transformation. Again, the second intercept theorem is taken as the basis. The point scores are determined bythe digressive formula:

b) Digressive: 퐻𝑖푔ℎ푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐻푃) − 푥 퐻𝑖푔ℎ푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐻푃) − 퐿표푤푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐿푃) = 퐶푟𝑖푡푒푟𝑖푎 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐶) − 퐵푒푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐵푉) 푊표푟푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (푊푉) − 퐵푒푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐵푉)

퐻𝑖𝑔ℎ푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐻푃)−퐿표푤푒푠푡 푃표𝑖푛푡푠 (퐿푃) ⇔ x = (C – BV) * + 퐻푃 퐵푒푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (퐵푉)−푊표푟푠푡 푉푎푙푢푒 (푊푉)

After calculating both the progressive and digressive values, the completely calculated table for the Value-Point-Transformation is implemented into the system (Figure 51).

Figure 51: Value-Point-Transformation.

98 Systematization of the DBMS

The Preference Matrix feature illustrates another weighting system. In the matrix, the attributes are weighted against each other, meaning criterion x is weighted against criterion y (Figure 52). There are five scoring opportunities in the matrix:

a) 2:0 = Criterion 1 is more important than criterion 2 b) 1:1 = Criterion 1 is weighted equally to criterion 2 c) 0:2 = Criterion 1 is less important than criterion 2 d) 2:1 = Criterion 1 is slightly more important than criterion 2 e) 1:2 = Criterion 1 is slightly less important than criterion 2

Following the scoring, the total points are calculated for each attribute. Then the system outputs the total points of the Preference Matrix,and the points of each attribute are divided by the total points of the Preference Matrix. This results into a weighting for each attribute (Figure 52). These weighted values are implemented into the Scoring Model.

Figure 52: Preferences Matrices.

Another feature of the Preference Matrix is that scenarios are created by changing the scores for each parameter. Thus, all values in the table may be edited and refreshed. After changing the values in any table, the new score is added to the Scoring Model by clicking the button Update Scoring Model. For example, if it is stated that HREE are

99 Systematization of the DBMS the most valuable attributes, the system scores the attributes according to this scenario.

Based on Criteria Values and Preference Matrix values, points are assigned to each deposit in the Scoring Model (Figure 53). From the results of this model, the Sum Cri- teria are calculated and can be transformed into a Rank Order.

Figure 53: Scoring Model of Use-Value Analysis with goal criteria and weighting.

This tool also includes there is an option to generate a report of the results by selecting the Export to Excel button. Thus, each potential scenario and its results can be saved. There are two options to filter the Rank Order results. By selecting a deposit in the Select Deposit option, the Rank Order for only one deposit is checked (Figure 54). It is possible to change the order to either ascending or descending by selecting the Sum Criteria field (Figure 54).

100 Systematization of the DBMS

Figure 54: Exemplary results of Use-Value Analysis according to defined rules

Another special feature in the Use-Value Analysis system is the Stages Tree (Figure 55). In this feature, the percentages of the first two levels can be changed according to particular attributes, which are automatically selected by the system. After changing the percentage values, the model is updated via the button Update Percentage. The changes within the Stages Tree have a direct effect on the Scoring Model, which, the system then automatically.

Figure 55: Use-Value-Analysis – Stages.

101 Application of the DBMS

7 Application of the DBMS

7.1 Comparison and Evaluation of REE deposits and occurrences

This chapter describes the static comparison and evaluation systems of the DBMS. These are represented by Rating, Clustering and Ranking systems. The systems present opportunities to evaluate both REE occurrences and deposits according to geological availability of REE resources.

7.1.1 Rating

The Rating System is a that provides an evaluation of deposits and occurrences. It gives rating classes and highlights the difference between REE producing deposits and potential producing deposits. Furthermore, it shows classified differences between deposits and occurrences and categorizes these prospects according to their attributes. In general, it classifies the boundary between an occurrence and a deposit.

Thus, the Rating System of the DBMS is an evaluation tool that presents the opportunity to compare occurrences and deposits. This approach serves to solve the problematic situation of defining whether a prospect is an occurrence or a deposit. The Rating System also gives information on the status of a prospect and its significance. The attributes of the Rating System are regular features of certification codes or feasibility studies.

Figure 56 depicts the Rating System, showing a view of AAA to AA ratings. The deposit Bayan Obo has an AAA status because of its high production margin, as well as its world market share of approximately 40 %. Furthermore, it has certified resources and reserves, as well as an existing infrastructure with processing and separation plants in Baotou. In comparison to Bayan Obo, the Chinese deposits Changting, Dalucao, Guangdong, Longnan, Xihuashan and Xinfen have an AA status due to their lower production rates and smaller market shares. However, each deposit has a certified resource and re-

102 Application of the DBMS serve, as well as existing infrastructures. The deposits Chatrapur Orissa Sands Com- plex, Maoniuping, Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass also earn an AA status because of their current or former production rates. Thus, the categories AAA and AA describe deposits, which are currently producing or have produced in the past.

Figure 56: Excerpt of Rating system, showing categories AAA-AA.

In contrast to deposits with AAA-AA status, deposits with A status are smaller producers, have been smaller producers in the past or exhibit high potential to become a future supplier for both LREE and HREE. Compared to deposits of higher rating, all

103 Application of the DBMS deposits with A status (Figure 57) have less elaborate infrastructure or do not have separation and processing plants. The deposits of Chongzuo, Dingnan, Fanshan and Weishan are small producers of LREE in China. The deposits of Dong Pao (Vietnam) and Chao Fa Mine (Thailand) were former REE producers of LREE for internal consumption. Further examples of deposits with A-status are Araxa, Khibina and Lovozero, potential future LREE producers. Moreover, the deposit of Norra Kärr has the potential to become a future HREE supplier.

Figure 57: Excerpt of Rating System, category A.

104 Application of the DBMS

Deposits with status BBB (Figure 58) are possible potential producers in the far future and have an average perspective to enter the market. For instance, the deposit Browns Range is a potential REE producer for HREE based on a certified resource and a pre- feasibility study, but has neither a completed infrastructure nor a bankable feasibility. Thus, the possible production start-up cannot occur in the near future. The same applies for the deposits Bear Lodge, Dubbo, Fen, Mount Weld Duncan and Nam Xe N+S.

Figure 58: Excerpt of Rating system, category BBB.

105 Application of the DBMS

Figure 59 illustrates the classes at the boundary between the status of occurrence and deposit (BB to B). For example, the occurrence of Tomtor is rated as class B due to lack of certified resources and JORC- or a NI 43-101-compliant certification code. This prospect will remain an occurrence until it is proven to contain a certified resource. For instance, Milo, Montviel Core Zone, Morro dos Seis Lagos, Ngualla, Niobec, Hoidas Lake and Main Khao all have a certified resource or compliant code, and are therefore classified as deposits.

Figure 59: Excerpt of Rating system, categories BB-B.

106 Application of the DBMS

The statuses CCC – C (Figure 60) are characteristic for occurrences which are in de- velopmental phases before the certification of a resource by a statutory mining code. The status CCC characterizes occurrences for which data and information on REE grade is known through first drilling. For example, the occurrences Pea Ridge and Pearsol Creek fulfil these requirements. However, the occurrences Gardiner Range and Cummins Range yield REE grade information through geological sampling of overburden, and thus hold the status CC. Finally, the status C describes occurrences for which only information on their locality is provided, e.g. Kalkfeld Complex or Eliott Lake.

Figure 60: Excerpt of Rating system, categories CCC-C.

107 Application of the DBMS

In summary, the Rating System of the DBMS rates deposits and occurrences according to their development stage and their potential regarding REE production. It enables comparisons between prospects of all statuses. Moreover, it is automatically updated if new data is implemented into the DBMS.

7.1.2 Clustering Groups

Clustering Groups are a comparison tool within the DBMS, allowing the user to build groups of REE occurrences and deposits with respect to ores, tonnage and grades. The DBMS contains three Clustering Groups that generate a comparison feature of classes of REE prospects and evaluates them by sorting. Furthermore, the system allows the creation of specific Clustering Groups. Moreover, the Clustering Groups contain the most important information for industrial use, on which the cluster is based. This system helps to analyse future potential prospects and is a tool for industrial use with the ability to help mitigate problems in security of supply.

The Eudialyte, Bastnasite and Monazite Clustering Groups include the attributes tonnage (TREO), CREO values and uranium and thorium contents in ppm. These attributes are specific criteria of these Clustering Groups.

7.1.2.1 Eudialyte Clustering Group

The Eudialyte Clustering Group was chosen since it can be regarded as an unconventional deposit type as well as an indicator for green mining due to very low grades of U and Th. This is an important consideration, as most industrial companies are focused on reducing the environmental impact of toxic elements, thus developing and main- taining a green image. Figure 61 depicts all of the Eudialyte-bearing deposits which have potential to become a future REE supplier. No data was available concerning TREO, CREO, or uranium and thorium values for the deposits Motzfeldt (Greenland) and Saima (China). There are only nine deposits for which relevant information on the four parameters is provided. Of these, Norra Kärr contains only 126,700 tons of TREO and is one of the

108 Application of the DBMS minor deposits. However, it yields the highest CREO value with 165.91 as well as the lowest values of uranium (18 ppm) and thorium (26 ppm). The two deposits Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez – both part of the Ilimaussaq Complex – are the major deposits regarding tonnage of TREO. Kvanefjeld contains 6,546,000 tons and the Tanbreez deposit 28,058,000 tons of TREO. Moreover, Tanbreez has a CREO value of 75.26, approximately two times higher than that of Kvanefjeld (37.7 CREO). However, the deposits contain very different levels of toxic elements. Kvanefjeld has high uranium values of 289 ppm and thorium values of 853 ppm. In contrast to that, Tanbreez yields lower uranium values of 28 ppm and thorium values of 94 ppm. Thus, Tanbreez has the higher amount of TREO and CREO as well as lower values of toxic elements than Kvanefjeld. Another deposit of interest is Kipawa Zeus. Considering TREO, Kipawa is the smallest deposit within the Eudialyte Clustering Groups. It yields 107,000 tons of TREO, but has CREO value of 100.25 as well as a low uranium value of 22 ppm, although the thorium value is much higher, at 193 ppm. Kipawa Zeus has a similar low uranium value to Norra Kärr, with a marginal difference of 4 ppm but more than seven times the thorium level. The deposit Lovozero yields the highest uranium and thorium values at 300 and 4,000 ppm, respectively. It also has the lowest CREO value (15.09). However, no data regarding TREO is available for this deposit. The deposits Strange Lake and Nechalacho have high TREO values, 2,098,247 and 4,297,807 tons, respectively. However, Strange Lake has a high CREO value, 117.52, whereas Nechalacho has a CREO value of only 60.64. Both yield average uranium and thorium values. Using this logic, the Ranking System (Table 10) uses all of the above mentioned criteria to evaluate deposits.

109 Application of the DBMS

Figure 61: Excerpt of Eudialyte Clustering Group

Table 10 depicts the single rank allocation and the calculated overall ranking for the deposits concerning the attributive parameters. The deposits Norra Kärr and Tanbreez take first and second place in the overall ranking. Norra Kärr ranks best for CREO, as well as for uranium and thorium values. However, Tanbreez ranks best for TREO and second best for thorium values. Following in the third position of the overall ranking, Kipawa Zeus places second best with respect to uranium values. The Strange Lake deposit ranks in the fourth position overall, with the second best value regarding CREO. Further, the deposit Nechalacho ranks fifth in the overall ranking and third for TREO and thorium values. In the sixth overall position is Kvanefjeld, with the second highest values for TREO. Finally, the deposits Songwe Hill, Lovozero, Khibina, Saima and Motzfeldt are ranked from seventh to tenth due to either low values or non-available data.

110 Application of the DBMS

Table 10: Ranking Eudialyte- Clustering Group

Overall Rank Rank Rank Ura- Rank Tho- Rank- Deposits Country TREO (t) CREO nium (ppm) rium (ppm) ing Igaliko Complex - Green- Motzfeldt Center land 8 10 7 7 10 Ilimaussaq Complex Green- Kvanefjeld land 2 7 5 5 6 Khibina Russia 8 8 7 7 9 Kipawa Zeus Canada 7 3 2 4 3 Lovozero Russia 8 9 6 6 8 Nechalacho Thor Lake Canada 3 5 7 3 5 Norra Kärr Sweden 6 1 1 1 1 Saima China 8 10 7 7 10 Songwe Hill Malawi 5 6 7 7 7 Strange Lake Canada 4 2 4 7 4 Green- Tanbreez land 1 4 3 2 2

In summary, evaluating the Eudialyte Clustering Group shows that the deposits Norra Kärr, Tanbreez and Kipawa Zeus present the best opportunities concerning potential green REE production.

7.1.2.2 Bastnasite Clustering Group

Bastnasite and Monazite are important conventional mineral types, since most deposits and occurrences contain both ores as a main component within the ore body. Fur- ther investigation of these mineral types gives an overview of producing deposits and potentially producing deposits (occurrences).

Figure 62 depicts all Bastnasite-bearing deposits which are in production or have the potential to become a producing REE supplier. The deposits Fen (Norway) and Nam Xe North (Vietnam) lack information on TREO, CREO or uranium and thorium values. The deposit Bayan Obo contains approximately 48,000,000 tons of TREO and is the major deposit concerning REE production. However, it yields a very low CREO value of 32.42, as well as very low uranium values (25 ppm) and average thorium values (400 ppm).

111 Application of the DBMS

In contrast to that, the deposits Bear Lodge and Mountain Pass contain 1,553,000and 2,072,000 tons of TREO, respectively. Moreover, Bear Lodge yields a CREO value of 35.97, which is slightly higher than the CREO value of Bayan Obo. Compared to Bayan Obo, Mountain Pass has a CREO of 20.18, which is approximately 40 % lower. Con- cerning uranium, Mountain Pass yields the lowest value, 20 ppm. Bear Lodge has a nearly five times higher uranium value of 122 ppm. The thorium value of Bear Lodge (422 ppm) almost matches the value of Bayan Obo. However, Mountain Pass contains approximately 50 % less thorium. The Bokan Mountains deposit is one of the minor deposits with respect to TREO tonnage. It has 30,000 tons of TREO, but its CREO value (122.47) is four times higher than that of Bayan Obo and Bear Lodge and six times higher than that of Mountain Pass. Additionally, it contains an average uranium value of 66 ppm and the lowest thorium value (81 ppm) of all deposits in the Bastnasite Clustering Group. Further minor deposits with respect to TREO are Clay-Howells and Lofdal-Bergville. They contain 62,000 and 10,000 tons of TREO. The CREO values of the deposits differ extremely. Clay-Howells has a CREO value of 38.53, which almost matches that of Bayan Obo and Bear Lodge, whereas Lofdal-Bergville has the highest CREO value (704.26) within the Bastnasite Clustering Group. Both have no available data concerning uranium and thorium values. The deposits of Kangankunde and Lavergne-Springer also yield minor values of TREO. Kangankunde contains 107,000 tons of TREO and Lavergne-Springer has a TREO value of 197,000 tons. Both have smaller CREO values of 23.96 and 32.82. No data regarding uranium and thorium values is available for either deposit.

112 Application of the DBMS

Figure 62: Excerpt of Bastnasite Clustering Group

Table 11 depicts the single rank allocation and the calculated overall ranking for the Bastnasite Clustering Group. The deposits Bayan Obo, Bokan Mountains and Moun- tain Pass rank first and second (tied), respectively in the overall ranking. Bayan Obo ranks best in TREO tonnage, second in uranium and third in thorium values. However, Bokan Mountains ranks best in thorium values, whereas Mountain Pass ranks first in uranium and second in thorium values. Bokan Mountains has a much better CREO value than Bayan Obo, whereby Mountain Pass has a lower CREO value than the other deposits. The Bear Lodge deposit ranks fourth in the overall ranking. Furthermore, it comes in third position in TREO tonnage and fourth position in CREO, uranium and thorium values. The deposits Clay-Howells, Lofdal-Bergville and Lavergne-Springer are ranked fifth, although Lofdal-Bergville ranks first in CREO value. Other deposits, Kangankunde, Lovozero, Fen and Nam Xe North are ranked from eighth to tenth due to either poor- values compared to the other deposits or non-available data.

113 Application of the DBMS

Table 11: Ranking Bastnasite- Clustering Group

Rank TREO Rank Ura- Rank Tho- Overall Deposits Country (t) Rank CREO nium (ppm) rium (ppm) Ranking Bayan Obo China 1 6 2 3 1 Bear Lodge USA 3 4 4 4 4 Bokan Moun- tains USA 7 2 3 1 2 Clay-Howells Canada 6 3 6 6 5 Fen Norway 9 10 6 6 10 Kangankunde Malawi 5 7 6 6 8 Lavergne- Springer Canada 4 5 6 6 5 Lofdal-Bergville Namibia 8 1 6 6 5 Lovozero Russia 9 9 5 5 9 Mountain Pass USA 2 8 1 2 2 Nam Xe North Vietnam 9 10 6 6 10

In summary, Bayan Obo can be regarded as the superior deposit within the Bastnasite Clustering Group. Mountain Pass and Bokan Mountain share the second position in the ranking. They can both be regarded as future potential producers. However, due to the fact that Mountain Pass already produced for several decades until the mid- 1990s as well as for a short period until early 2015, it is more likely for this deposit to go into production, e.g. because of preexisting infrastructure.

7.1.2.3 Monazite Clustering Group

Monazite is the most common mineral in all worldwide REE deposits and occurrences. Therefore, building a Monazite Clustering Group is essential to this evaluation system.

Figure 63 depicts all Monazite-bearing REE deposits. The deposits in Haikang and Nanyang (China) have no information due to lack of available data. The deposits Bayan Obo, Mountain Pass and Bear Lodge are special instances, since they contain both Monazite and Bastnasite as main minerals.

114 Application of the DBMS

Another special case is the IAC deposit Guangdong Southeast, which also contains Monazite as a main mineral. However, besides a CREO value, no further information is available. The deposits Araxa, Buckton, Canakli I, Hastings, Kutessay II, both Mount Weld deposits, Ngualla and Steenkampskraal are typical Monazite-bearing REE deposits. The deposit Araxa contains 1,190,000 tons of TREO and has a CREO value of 26.11, whereas the deposit Buckton yields a TREO value of 878,000 and 75.08 in CREO. Thus, Araxa contains approximately 300,000 more tons of TREO, but Buckton yields three times the CREO value. No information on uranium and thorium values is available for either deposit. The deposits Canakli I, Hastings and Kutessay II are minor deposits with respect to tonnage of TREO, containing 42,826, 76,020 and 47,000 tons of TREO, respesctively. The CREO values of the three deposits vary with respect to to one another. Canakli I only yields a CREO value of 36.83, whereas Kutessay II contains 128.65 and Hastings yields 884.86. The Mount Weld CLD and Mount Weld Duncan contain 1,454,000 and 435,000 tons of TREO. They also differ with respect to CREO yield, containing 34.89 and 46.88 respectively. Mount Weld Duncan is a minor deposit of the Mount Weld CLD Complex, thus, the uranium and thorium are equal at 30 ppm and 500 ppm. The Ngualla (Tanzania) and Steenkampskraal (South Africa) deposits are also special cases regarding their uranium and thorium values. Ngualla yields the lowest uranium and thorium contents of all deposits within this Clustering Group, 18 ppm and 43 ppm, respectively. In comparison, the Steenkampskraal deposit yields the highest thorium values, 22,600 ppm, and high uranium values of 185 ppm. The deposits also differ in their TREO tonnage. Ngualla contains 1,748,000 tons and Steenkampskraal only has 93,000 tons of TREO. There are a couple of additional deposits in this Clustering Group which list partial data on TREO, CREO and the toxic elements, but all of them lack i a complete data set and have missing values in at least two of the four parameters. The only exception is the deposit of Dong Pao (Vietnam), which has a very low CREO value of 18.68 and uranium and thorium values of 124 and 145 ppm.

115 Application of the DBMS

Figure 63: Excerpt of Monazite- Clustering Group

Table 12 depicts the single rank allocation and the calculated overall ranking for the Monazite Clustering Group. The Ngualla deposit ranks first, whereas Bayan Obo and Mountain Pass rank second and third. Ngualla ranks first in both uranium and thorium values, as well as third in TREO. Bayan Obo still ranks first in TREO values, as well as third in uranium and fourth in thorium

116 Application of the DBMS values, but fourteenth in CREO. The Mountain Pass deposit ranks second in TREO and in uranium and third in thorium values, but seventeenth in CREO. The Bear Lodge and Mount Weld Duncan deposits both rank fourth in the overall ranking. Bear Lodge ranks fourth in TREO, fifth in thorium and sixth in uranium but twelfth in CREO, whereas Mount Weld Duncan ranks ninth in TREO, ties for fourth/fifth place in uranium and sixth/seventh place (cf. Mount Weld CLD) in thorium and ranks seventh in CREO. The main deposit of the Mount Weld Complex - Mount Weld CLD - places sixth in the overall ranking. However, it ranks fifth in TREO, ties for fourth/fifth (cf. Mount Weld Duncan) place in uranium and sixth/seventh in thorium, and comes in down at thir- teenth place in CREO. The Buckton deposit also takes the sixth position in the overall ranking. It is 7th in TREO and fifth in CREO, but there is no data on uranium and thorium values, so it is assigned the lowest place. The Hastings, Grande Vallee, Guangdong Southeast, Kutessay II, Steenkampskraal, Chongzuo and Araxa deposits are ranked from 8th – 14th in the overall ranking. These deposits have either no available data for important parameters or are ranked low or average in one or more parameters. However, the Guangdong Southeast deposit has the highest CREO value and thus, is ranked first within this category. No reliable data is provided with respect to the parameters of TREO, uranium and thorium values. De- posits ranked from 15th – 19th have poor values in one parameter or lack data regarding the attributive parameters.

117 Application of the DBMS

Table 12: Ranking Monazite-Clustering Groups

Rank TREO Rank Ura- Rank Tho- Overall Deposits Country (t) Rank CREO nium (ppm) rium (ppm) Ranking Araxa Brazil 6 16 9 9 14 Bayan Obo China 1 14 3 4 2 Bear Lodge USA 4 12 6 5 4 Buckton Canada 7 5 9 9 6 Canakli I Turkey 13 10 9 9 15 Capel North Capel Australia 14 11 9 9 18 Chongzuo China 14 3 9 9 12 Dong Pao Vietnam 14 18 7 2 17 Grande-Vallee Canada 8 6 9 9 9 Guangdong South- east China 14 1 9 9 10 Haikang China 14 19 9 9 19 Hastings Australia 11 2 9 9 8 Kutessay-II Kyrgyzstan 12 4 9 9 11 Mount Weld CLD Australia 5 13 4.5 6.5 6 Mount Weld Duncan Australia 9 7 4.5 6.5 4 Deposit Mountain Pass USA 2 17 2 3 3 Nanshanhai China 14 19 9 9 19 Nanyang China 14 9 9 9 15 Ngualla Tanzania 3 15 1 1 1 Republic of Steenkampskraal 10 8 8 8 12 South Africa

In summary, the Ngualla deposit can be regarded as the superior deposit in the Mon- azite Clustering Group. Thus, it has significant potential for future production. Never- theless, the Bayan Obo deposit, although it ranks second, remains the biggest player in the REE sector due to its high production rate and correspondingly large market share.

118 Application of the DBMS

7.2 Evaluation of REE deposits

7.2.1 Ranking

Another opportunity for a more user-specific evaluation of deposits is implemented into the DBMS in the form of a Ranking System. This feature of the DBMS compares and evaluates deposits according to their mineral content (lanthanum to yttrium) and their tonnage with respect to REE and Basket Prices (both FOB and China Domestic). Fur- thermore, it calculates the Tonnage (TREO) from the mineral content of each element and ranks the deposits in TREO per oxide.

It also ranks the Material Grade according to an overall ranking of all elements. Lan- thanum, cerium and samarium are digressively calculated, meaning a high tonnage or material grade of those elements results in a worse. This is also the case for CREO calculations. Lanthanum and cerium are calculated digressively because of their high abundance in REE deposits.

Figure 64 depicts the typical ascending ranking structure for deposits, in this case regarding their dysprosium values. In Figure 64, it can be seen that the deposit Guang- dong Southeast ranks first in Dy2O3 values, while the Hastings and Longnan 1deposits place second and third. Guangdong Southeast also achieves first position in lanthanum, thulium, lutetium and holmium. Further, Hastings ranks first in erbium, whereas Longnan 1 is first in gadolinium. The Browns Range deposit is ranked fourth in dysprosium, and Lahat Mine and Lofdal- Bergville rank fifth and sixth in this category. However, Lahat Mine is ranked first in lanthanum, while Lofdal-Bergville is first in europium value. The Longnan 3 deposit yields seventh position in dysprosium and first in yttrium. Longnan 2 and Longnan are ranked eighth and ninth in this category. Kutessay-II deposit, which ranks first in terbium, takes tenth place in the dysprosium category. The eleventh deposit regarding dysprosium values is Round Top, which has the highest value first for ytterbium.

119 Application of the DBMS

th Figure 64: Ranking in case of Dy2O3 content, Rank first to 12 .

Figure 65 depicts the deposits from Rank 29 (Grande-Vallee) to 41 (Xiluvo) in terms of dysprosium values. The three deposits of Xunwu 1 and 2 and Xunwun are ranked thirty-third, although Xunwu 1 is first in praseodymium and tied for first first in neodymium. The deposit Xunwu 2 is tied for first rank in neodymium and first in samarium, while the deposit of Xunwun also shares first rank for neodymium.

120 Application of the DBMS

Figure 65: Ranking by Dy2O3 content, Rank 29 to 41.

As may be expected, the overall ranking provides a more general view than the single ranking of dysprosium oxide. Within the overall ranking structure, all 15 elements are calculated according to their single ranking for each of deposit. The Changting, Chongzuo and Xinfen 2 deposits rank first, second and third in the overall ranking because of their above average rankings in all 15 elements. In contrast to Guangdong Southeast, Longnan 1, 2 and 3, Browns Range and Lofdal- Bergville, the top three deposits in the overall ranking have much higher positions concerning neodymium, praseodymium, samarium and europium oxide (Figure 66). All three overall top-ranked deposits have only two rankings in the top three, but never fall below rank 33. In contrast to that, the deposits Guangdong Southeast, Longnan 1, 2 and 3,Browns Range and Lofdal-Bergville have ranks in the high 60’s and 70’s, particularly in neodymium and praseodymium oxide (Figure 66). They also tend to be low-ranking in the case of samarium and europium oxide, with the notable exception of Lofdal-Bergville with its first rank in europium.

121 Application of the DBMS

Figure 66: Overall Ranking of Material Grade

In the case of Economy Ranking, data of all three statuses of Mineral Resources (In- ferred=INF, Indicated=IND and Measured=MEA), TREO total and Basket Price are used to analyse and evaluate REE deposits regarding their potential. Therefore, REE deposits are analysed according to their available data. If deposits have no available data in one or more parameters, they are assigned last place in ranking in the respec- tive column.

Figure 67 depicts the overall ranking for the category Economy. Here, it can be seen that the highest ranking deposits have high TREO and average Basket Price values. In this case, the Nechalacho Thor Lake deposit is first in the overall ranking, fifth in TREO IND, second in TREO MEA, third in TREO Total and 29th in Basket Price. The Strange Lake deposit is second in the overall ranking and ranks sixth in TREO IND, seventh 7th in TREO MEA and Total and 26th in Basket Price. The Norra Kärr deposit holds the third position in the overall ranking with fifth in TREO INF, 12th in TREO IND, 14th in TREO MEA, 17th in TREO Total and 22nd in Basket Price. The Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanfjeld deposit is first in TREO IND and TREO total, fourth in TREO MEA and only 56th in Basket Price. The Ngualla deposit and Mount Weld CLD share similar results. Ngualla ranks second in TREO INF, third in TREO IND, fifth in

122 Application of the DBMS

TREO MEA and fourth in TREO Total, but only 62nd in Basket Price. Similarly, Mount Weld CLD ranks first in TREO INF, eighth in TREO IND, 26th in TREO MEA and ninth in TREO Total but only 49th in Basket Price. Thus, Ngualla ranks sixth and Mount Weld CLD shares tenth place in the overall ranking.

Figure 67: TREO Ranking.

The system can provide both overall and elemental rankings. Table 13 depicts the overall rankings from first to 20th and all single rankings from lanthanum- to ytterbium oxide. The Nechalacho Thor Lake deposit places first in the overall ranking, as well as in samarium, gadolinium and terbium oxide. It also holds second rankings in neodymium, europium, dysprosium and holmium oxide. Further, it is third in praseodymium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium and lutetium oxide. The Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld deposit takes first position in all LREE except samarium, as well as in lutetium oxide. Additionally, it ranks second in samarium-, gadolinium, terbium, erbium, thulium- and ytterbium oxide. It is also third in dysprosium and 123 Application of the DBMS holmium oxide, but only sixth in europium oxide. Due to these relatively high values, the Kvanefjeld deposit ranks second in the overall ranking. The third in the overall ranking is the deposit of Strange Lake. It places first in dysprosium to ytterbium oxide, second in lutetium and third in gadolinium and terbium oxide. In the LREE and europium oxide, it attains ratings in the sixth position or lower. The major deposits outside China, Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass, come in 14th and 19th, respectively. As described, the Ranking system for TREO per single element directly calculates and evaluates the deposits with the highest values in all single categories. The system also gives information regarding whether the deposit is a good LREE/ HREE source. Nev- ertheless, this particular systematization only takes deposits with available TREO data into account. The Chinese deposits with no available data on TREO cannot be evaluated using this method.

124 Application of the DBMS

Table 13: Overall Ranking of TREO and single element TREO Ranking, Overall Ranking 1-20.

Deposits Rank Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Rank- Overall -ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing ing Ranking La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Nechala- cho Thor 6 5 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 Lake Ili- maussaq Complex 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 Kvanefjel d Strange 9 9 10 10 6 12 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 Lake Zone 3 5 6 6 6 7 10 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Eldor* 2 2 2 3 3 1 4 4 5 6 8 8 8 8 5 Norra 21 19 17 16 16 15 13 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 Kärr Dubbo 14 13 13 13 13 21 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 7 Charley 19 16 16 17 17 14 17 16 13 10 10 11 9 9 8 Creek Montviel Core 4 4 4 5 5 4 7 9 11 13 15 12 18 31 9 Zone Mount Weld 16 15 15 14 15 9 14 13 12 11 13 14 15 18 10 Duncan Deposit Ngualla 3 3 5 4 4 3 5 6 10 12 11 33 16 31 11 Hastings 38 37 37 37 28 34 19 17 9 8 7 7 7 7 12 Nolan's 11 10 9 9 9 8 12 15 14 15 18 19 19 17 13 Bore Mount Weld 8 8 8 7 8 5 8 11 15 16 19 17 21 31 14 CLD Kipawa 31 30 29 27 22 26 20 21 19 14 12 13 11 11 15 Zeus Bear 12 11 11 11 10 7 11 14 16 18 21 23 24 19 16 Lodge Sand- 10 38 38 38 38 37 10 10 8 9 9 10 10 10 17 kopsdrift Buckton 29 29 26 26 23 20 22 24 22 20 16 15 13 14 18 Mountain 7 7 7 8 11 13 18 12 26 19 26 9 25 13 19 Pass Foxtrot 27 25 25 22 21 30 23 23 21 21 17 16 14 15 20 Kutes- 34 35 33 35 25 33 24 19 18 22 14 20 12 12 20 say-II

In summary, the ranking system, which uses criteria based on presence of all 15 elements, TREO tonnage and Basket Price is a helpful tool in mitigating problems regarding supply uncertainties, as it contributes significantly to the knowledge regarding mineral distribution. Furthermore, the Ranking system reflects a pre-evaluation system for the Use-Value Analysis, providing a first overview on requested mineral distribution and TREO data.

125 Application of the DBMS

7.2.2 Use-Value Analysis

The Use-Value Analysis is the dynamic evaluation system in the DBMS. In this chapter, REE deposits are analysed according to the attributes Material Grade, Economy and Mining.

Test cases are generated by the evaluation system of the Use-Value Analysis. These case studies are created by changing percentage values in three stages (I. – III.). The Goal Criteria as well as I. and II. Sub-Goal Criteria can be changed by altering both stages feature (cf. Figure 55) and percentage matrix (cf. Figure 52). In the case of the Goal Criteria, there are three opportunities (Material Grade, Economy and Mining) to change the percentage value. Additionally, one can adjust Mineral Contents, Deleteri- ous Elements, TREO Tonnage, Basket Prices and REE Production in the section I. Sub-Goal Criterion. In the third stage, the II. Sub-Goal Criterion, percentages are calculated by diversifying the Percentage Matrix.

Use Case I functions as a basic scenario for the Use-Value Analysis. Table 14 illustrates the first case; the Goal Criteria Material Grade, Economy and Mining are equal in percentage, therefore sharing the same importance, with a value of 33.33 %. All attributes of the I. Sub-Goal Criterion are also equal at 50 %. Finally, attributes of the third stage are weighted according to their general importance.

The elements oxides La2O3, CeO2 and Sm2O3 have a digressive value due to their non- criticality (cf. 2.3.2) and high abundance in any deposit (cf. 3.4.1), which result in low Basket Prices (cf. 4.1.3). All other REE elements, neodymium, praseodymium, HREE and yttrium are assigned the same percentage proportions. The ratio of thorium to uranium is set at 2:1 (66.67 & vs. 33.33 %) because of the more problematic handling of thorium for processing and separating (cf. 3.1). The attributes TERO (t) INF to MEA and Total are weighted by their level of precision (cf. 3.3.1). Furthermore, the features of the Basket Price are weighted equally due to their important positions. The attribute Actual Production has a higher value in percentage than Historical Production. Never- theless, Historical Production is still important for to potential analysis of deposits (cf. 3.4.1, Mountain Pass).

126 Application of the DBMS

Table 14: Use Case I, basic scenario for UVA.

Use Case I (Basic Scenario) Stage I : equally weighted in percentage; Stage II : equally weighted; Stage III: La, Ce, Sm < Nd, Pr, HREE+Y Goal Criteria I. Sub-Goal Criteria II. Sub-Goal Criteria Stage I Stage II Stage III La2O3 0.95% CeO2 0.95%

Pr6O11 8.10%

Nd2O3 8.10%

Sm2O3 0.95%

Eu2O3 8.10%

Gd2O3 8.10%

Mineral Content 50% Tb4O7 8.10%

Material Grade 33.33% Dy2O3 8.10%

Ho2O3 8.10%

Er2O3 8.10%

Tm2O3 8.10%

Yb2O3 8.10%

Lu2O3 8.10%

Y2O3 8.10% Deleterious Ele- Uranium Grade 33.33% 50% ments Thorium Grade 66.67% TREO (t) INF 12.50% TREO (t) IND 25.00% TREO Tonnage 50% TREO (t) MEA 31.25% Economy 33.33% TREO (t) Total 31.25% Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) 50.00% Basket Prices 50% Basket Price ($/kg) (China Domes- 50.00% tic) Actual Production 66.67% Mining 33.33% Production 100% Historical Production 33.33%

Figure 68 depicts the result of the first calculation of Use Case I in the Use-Value Anal- ysis of the DBMS. It shows an excerpt of the best ten deposits (a complete list of results is given in Appendix 10.1) with respect to the above-mentioned attributes. The result of the calculation is that the deposit Bayan Obo (China) has the highest score with

127 Application of the DBMS

6.1095 points, approximately 2.1 points above the score of the second deposit, Moun- tain Pass (4.0167 points). This large difference highlights the superior position of Bayan Obo under the circumstances used in this basic use case. Also among the best ten deposits in the results are the Chinese IAC deposits; Chang- ting ranks third (3.7865 points), Longnan 1 takes the fourth position with 3.7410 points, Guangdong Southeast ranks sixth with 3.6658 points, Chongzuo takes eighth position with 3.6101points and Xinfen 1 ranks tenth with 3.5441 points. The potential Heavy REE deposit Lofdal-Bergville is ranked fifth with a result of 3.6775 points, whereas the deposits at Browns Range (3.6376 points) and Hastings (3.5597 points) rank in the seventh and ninth positions, respectively (Figure 68). Other prospects of interest are the deposits Xinfen and Xinfen 2, which are ranked 13th with 3.4851 points and 17th with 3.4203 points (cf. Appendix 10.7). Further, the three South Chinese deposits Longnan, Longnan 2 and 3 are ranked 15th (3.4437 points), 16th (3.4225 points) and 18th (3.3798 points) (cf. Appendix 10.7). The IAC deposits at Xunwu – Xunwun, Xunwu 1 and 2 – take 21st, 22nd and 23rd position, with point scores in the range of 3.2682 – 3.2524 points (cf. Appendix 10.7). The Nechalacho Thor Lake deposit ranks 14th with 3.4625 points, while Ilimaussaq Complex is in 19th place with 3.3468 points (cf. Appendix 10.7). The other potential deposit, Ngualla, ranks 20th with 3.2970 points (cf. Appendix 10.7). However, the producing deposit Mount Weld CLD only attains 24th place in this use case. It scores 3.1615 points, only half the points awarded to Bayan Obo. The potential HREE deposits atStrange Lake and Norra Kärr, as well as the producing IAC deposit Longnan 4 are placed 25th, 27th and 31st, respectively. The potential deposit Dubbo and the producing deposit at Maoniuping achieve still a worse rank, at 61st (2.2035 points) and 69th (1.9928 points) place, respectively.

128 Application of the DBMS

Figure 68: Top ten results of the first calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case I).

The above presented basic use case reflects more or less the current market structure (cf. 4.1) as well as the situation of producing and potential producing deposits (cf. 3.4). However, this case study fails to adequately explain the situation for the deposits Mount Weld CLD, Strange Lake, Norra Kärr, Longnan 4 and Maoniuping, which are assigned a low rank in the calculation (cf. Appendix 10.7). This is due to the higher thorium content, as well as TREO tonnage and smaller Basket Prices (cf. DBMS Ma- terial Grade and Economy).

Use Case II evaluates the deposits according to their Material Grade, Critical REE content and Basket Price values. Table 15 depicts the second use case; the Goal Cri- teria Material Grade is weighted with 60 %, whereas Economy and Mining share the same importance with a value of 20 %. The attribute Mineral Content in the I. Sub-Goal Criterion takes a value of 75 %, while the weighting of the criteria Toxic Elements decrease to 25 %. The Basket Price attribute gains more importance in this scenario, and is assigned a value 75 %. The Production feature maintains the same weighting (cf.

129 Application of the DBMS explanation in Use Case I). Finally, the attributes of Mineral Content in the third stage are weighted according to their Critical REE importance.

The oxides La2O3, CeO2 and Sm2O3 maintain similar low values due to their non-criticality (cf. 2.3.2) and high abundance in any deposit (cf. 3.4.1), leading to low Basket Prices (cf. 4.1.3). Critical REE, praseodymium, neodymium, europium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium (cf. 2.3) are given the highest weighting. All other HREE are weighted with the same percentage. The ratio of thorium to uranium is set to the same proportion as in Use Case I as well as the attributes of TREO (t) INF to MEA and Total (cf. explanation in Use Case I). All further attributes retain the same percentage from Case Study I.

130 Application of the DBMS

Table 15: Use Case II, Material Grade and CREE scenario for UVA.

Use Case II (Material Grade; Critical REE and Basket Price) Stage I : Material Grade higher weighted; Stage II : Mineral Content higher weighted; Basket Prices higher weighted; Stage III: Critical elements are higher weighted: La, Ce, Sm < HREE < Critical Elements (Nd, Pr, Eu, Dy, Tb, Y) Goal Criteria I. Sub-Goal Criteria II. Sub-Goal Criteria Stage I Stage II Stage III La2O3 1.00% CeO2 1.00%

Pr6O11 11.50%

Nd2O3 11.50%

Sm2O3 1.00%

Eu2O3 11.50%

Gd2O3 6.00%

Mineral Content 75% Tb4O7 11.50%

Material Grade 60% Dy2O3 11.50%

Ho2O3 5.50%

Er2O3 5.50%

Tm2O3 5.50%

Yb2O3 5.50%

Lu2O3 5.50%

Y2O3 6.00% Deleterious Ele- Uranium Grade 33.33% 25% ments Thorium Grade 66.67% TREO (t) INF 12.50% TREO (t) IND 25.00% TREO Tonnage 25% TREO (t) MEA 31.25% Economy 20% TREO (t) Total 31.25% Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) 50.00% Basket Prices 75% Basket Price ($/kg) (China Domes- 50.00% tic) Actual Production 66.67% Mining 20% Production 100% Historical Production 33.33%

The results of Use Case II are listed in Figure 69. In this scenario, which focuses more on Material Grade and less on Economy and Mining, the deposits with high HREE content achieve the highest rank. The best-ranked deposit is the IAC deposit Guangdong Southeast with 5.6143 points. The Changting deposit is second with 5.5857 points, followed by the best non-Chinese

131 Application of the DBMS deposit Lofdal (third, 5.5479 points). In fourth position is the Chinese deposit Longnan 1. The other HREE deposits, Browns Range and Hastings, take the fifth (5.3783 points) and sixth (5.2862 points) positions in this scenario. TheIAC deposits Chongzuo, Xinfen 1, Xinfen and Xinfen 2 rank from seventh to tenth, respectively, with scores of 5.2719, 5.1542, 5.1318 and 5.0981 points, respectively. There is only a 0.55-point difference between the first and tenth ranked deposit. Other notable deposits in this Use Case scenario are Longnan 2 with 4.9293 points (14th position), followed by the deposit Longnan with 4.9239 points. The Bayan Obo deposit is 16th with 4.7984 points, followed by the three IAC deposits Xunwu 1 (17th), Xunwun (18th) and Xunwu 2 (19th), with 4.6595 4.6483 and 4.6359 points, respectively. The potential deposit Norra Kärr achieves 21st position with 4.2503 points, and the IAC deposit Longnan 4 is in the 23rd position with 4.1655 points. Nechalacho Thor Lake and Strange Lake have more average scores (4.0566 and 4.0202 points) in this Use Case scenario, taking positions 25 and 26. The producing deposit Mount Weld CLD again ranks 44th with 3.2884 points. The two potential deposits, Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld (3.2059 points) and Ngualla (3.1156 points) rank 48th and 51st. The other (formerly) producing deposit outside China, Mountain Pass, ranks lower than all worldwide producing deposits except Maoniuping. It scores 3.0944 points in this Use Case , placing 53rd. Additionally, the deposit at Dubbo ranks 60th with 2.9608 points, the lowest score of all potential deposits. Maoniuping ranks 71st with only 2.5511 points, which is the lowest score of any producing deposit.

132 Application of the DBMS

Figure 69: Top ten results of the second calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case II).

Use Case II represents the best deposits concerning Critical REE and Basket Price. Consequently, this use case reflects the current market structure (cf. 4.1), with the exception of the two RoW deposits. Nevertheless, it shows the high potential of these deposits, competing with the producing high-class IAC deposits of Southern China.

Use Case III (Table 16) represents an economic scenario driven by both Economy and Mining Goal Criteria. Therefore, the Goal Criteria Material Grade is set to 0 % to put the focus solely on Economy and Mining. This results in a percentage of 0% being assigned to both Mineral Content and Toxic Elements in the second stage. The attribute TREO Tonnage is also excluded in this scenario. The attributes Basket Prices and Production are both given 100 %. Basket Prices are equal with 50 % weighting, while Actual Production is assigned the top weighting of 100 %.

133 Application of the DBMS

Table 16: Use Case III, Economy, Basket Prices and Production.

Use Case III (Economy - Basket Prices - Production) Stage I : Economy = Mining > Material Grade; Stage II : Basket Prices & Production = 100%; other = 0%; Stage III: Basket Price FOB & China = 50%; Production = 100 % Goal Criteria I. Sub-Goal Criteria II. Sub-Goal Criteria Stage I Stage II Stage III La2O3 0.00% CeO2 0.00%

Pr6O11 0.00%

Nd2O3 0.00%

Sm2O3 0.00%

Eu2O3 0.00%

Gd2O3 0.00%

Mineral Content 0% Tb4O7 0.00%

Material Grade 0% Dy2O3 0.00%

Ho2O3 0.00%

Er2O3 0.00%

Tm2O3 0.00%

Yb2O3 0.00%

Lu2O3 0.00%

Y2O3 0.00% Deleterious Uranium Grade 0.00% 0% Elements Thorium Grade 0.00% TREO (t) INF 0.00% TREO (t) IND 0.00% TREO Tonnage 0% TREO (t) MEA 0.00% Economy 50% TREO (t) Total 0.00% Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) 50.00% Basket Prices 100% Basket Price ($/kg) (China Domes- 50.00% tic) Actual Production 100.00% Mining 50% Production 100% Historical Production 0.00%

The results of Figure 70 show the result of combining the Basket Price and Production attributes. This use case shows a slightly different result than Use Case I, except in the case of Mountain Pass and Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanfjeld. Once again, Bayan Obo (6.3897 points) tops this list, leading the next competitor by 1.535 points. In rank 2 to 8 are the typical HREE deposits Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and the Chinese IAC deposits Changting, Longnan 1, Chongzuo, Guangdong

134 Application of the DBMS

Southeast, and Xinfen 1. The LREE deposit at Guangdong (4.2561 points) and the HREE deposit Kutessay II (4.2337 points) take ranks 9 and 10. All other Chinese IAC deposits are ranked from 12th to 19th, except Longnan 4, which is ranked 26th with 2.7368 points. The deposit Xinfen is ranked 12th with 4.1669 points, followed by Longnan 2 with 4.0207 points. Xinfen 2 is ranked 14th with 3.9957 points and with a gap of 0.05 points, the deposit Longnan 3 is in 15th position with 3.9415 points. Longnan is ranked 16th with 3.8459. Another 0.12 points behind Longnan, is the deposit Xunwu 1, which is ranked 17th (3.7289 points). Xunwun and Xunwu 1 are ranked 18th and 19th with 3.7023 and 3.6744 points. The potential deposit Norra Kärr is ranked 22nd in this use case due to its high Basket Price value. The high potential HREE deposits Nechalacho Thor Lake and Strange Lake are in 31st and 32nd rank in this Use Case with 2.5551 and 2.5431 points. Fur- thermore, the high potential and currently producing deposit Mount Weld CLD takes position 36. The position of Mount Weld CLD reflects its low Basket Price value in comparison to that of the highest ranking deposit, Bayan Obo, as well as the other high potential HREE and IAC deposits. The potential deposit at Dubbo is ranked 44th with 1.7976 points. Further, the potential deposit Ngualla places 60th with 1.3114 points, whereas the high potential deposit Ili- maussaq Complex Kvanefjeld - in case of TREO – takes the 62nd position with only 1.2792 points. The (formerly) producing deposit Mountain Pass is missing in the rank order 1-10, and is in fact ranked 64th with only 1.1604 points, due to the low Basket Price. The producing Chinese LREE deposit Maoniuping is only 69th with 0.8963 points due to a very small Basket Price value and missing production data.

135 Application of the DBMS

Figure 70: Top ten results of the third calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case III).

Thus, Basket Prices have a high impact on the results even when the importance of the Production attribute is increased. Moreover, as opposed to to Use Case III and I, Basket Prices have a higher impact on the results than Material Grade. However, considering potential, this use case reflects a very good comparison of producing deposits, as well as both high potential LREE and HREE deposits.

The following Use Case IV is related to the S-FB (cf.1) and focuses on the three elements praseodymium, neodymium and dysprosium, which are very important and of highest interest, particularly for production of permanent magnets.

Use Case IV focuses on the components Material Grade and, with a lesser weighting, Economy (Table 17). The Goal Criteria Mining is completely neglected, and therefore weighted with 0 percent, as the Sub-Goal Criterion Production. The Sub-Goal Criteria Mineral Content and Toxic Elements are both weighted at 50 %, while TREO Tonnage is given the highest weighting, 100 %. The weighting of Basket Prices decrease to 0 %. Pr-, Nd- and Dy-oxide are weighted higher than all other materials in Mineral Content.

136 Application of the DBMS

The toxic Elements uranium and thorium are equally set at 50 %. The TREO attributes remain the same as in the previous scenarios.

Table 17: Use Case IV, Pr-, Nd- and Dy-oxide, Radioactive Elements and TREO

Use Case IV (Pr-, Nd- and Dy-oxide - Deleterious E. - TREO) Stage I : Material Grade > Economy, Production = 0% Stage II : Mineral Content & Delet. Elements = 50%; Uranium & Thorium = 50% Stage III:TREO = 100% Goal Criteria I. Sub-Goal Criteria II. Sub-Goal Criteria Stage I Stage II Stage III La2O3 0.95% CeO2 0.95%

Pr6O11 12.38%

Nd2O3 12.38%

Sm2O3 0.95%

Eu2O3 6.67%

Gd2O3 6.67%

Mineral Content 50% Tb4O7 6.67%

Material Grade 75% Dy2O3 12.38%

Ho2O3 6.67%

Er2O3 6.67%

Tm2O3 6.67%

Yb2O3 6.67%

Lu2O3 6.67% Y2O3 6.67% Deleterious Ele- Uranium Grade 50.00% 50% ments Thorium Grade 50.00% TREO (t) INF 13,33% TREO (t) IND 20.00% TREO Tonnage 100% TREO (t) MEA 40.00% Economy 25% TREO (t) Total 26.67% Basket Price ($/kg) (FOB) 0.00% Basket Prices 0% Basket Price ($/kg) (China Domes- 0.00% tic) Actual Production 0.00% Mining 0% Production 0% Historical Production 0.00%

137 Application of the DBMS

Figure 71 shows the results of Use Case IV. The ranking order is very different than those calculated using other scenarios, introducing several new deposits to the top-ten list. In this ranking, the deposit Nechalacho is ranked first with 6.4615 points and the deposit Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld takes second position with 6.3625 points. Moreover, the deposit Eldor (Canada) takes the fourth position with 6.3512 points and Round Top (USA) ranks tenth with 5.9309 points. The other top ten deposits are the typical Chinese IAC deposits Guangdong Southeast, Longnan 1 and Changting. Guangdong Southeast is ranked third with 6.3542 points, Longnan 1 seventh with 6.0405 points and Changting ninth with 6.0018 points. HREE deposits Hastings, Lofdal-Bergville and Browns Range are located fifth, sixth and eighth within the small score range from 6.1362 to 6.0253 points. The potential deposits Ngualla and Strange Lake are calculated as 11th and 12th,with 5.9171 and 5.8834 points, respectively. The first group of Chinese IAC deposits are ranked 13th to 19th. The deposit Chongzuo ranks 13th with 5.8773 points. The deposits Longnan 3 (5.8630 points) and Longnan 2 (5.8618 points) are ranked 14th and 15th. The three deposits Xinfen, Xinfen 2 and 1 take 17th to 19th rank, within the point range from 5.8101 to 5.8058. Further, the potential deposit Norra Kärr is placed 22nd with 5.6331 points. From 25th to 28th come the second group of the Chinese IAC deposits. Xunwu 1 has 5.5941 points, Xunwun scores 5.5903 points and Xunwu 2 is assigned 5.5859 points. The deposit Longnan 4 scores 5.4522 points. The producing deposit Mount Weld CLD also is given n an average ranking in this Use Case. It is 44th with 5.0178 points, and the second highest producing deposit outside China, Mountain Pass, is ranked lower, at 61st place with 4.7958 points. The producing Chinese deposits of Maoniuping and Bayan Obo rank 70th and 73rd, scoring only 4.5856 and 4.4302 points, respectively.

138 Application of the DBMS

Figure 71: Top ten results of the fourth calculation of the DBMS Use-Value-Analysis (Use Case IV).

The Toxic Elements criteria has a big impact on the results of this use case. This scenario also highlights the highest graded deposits concerning praseodymium, neodymium and dysprosium (cf. DBMS), combined with the lowest uranium and thorium graded values. This use case represents a completely different scenario than Use Case I – III, focusing on deposits with high future potential for green mining and permanent magnet production. A particular focus is set on the topic of green mining. The deposits Nechalacho Thor Lake, Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld and Eldor, which rank highest in this calculation, are the deposits with the highest potential for green mining in the RoW, whereas Guangdong Southeast is the most promising deposit in China.

The results of all four Use Cases reveal that Bayan Obo and the Chinese IAC deposits are the best deposits worldwide. The potential HREE deposits Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hastings are shown to be promising HREE producers in the future.

139 Application of the DBMS

Particularly high-scoring in all case studies are the IAC deposits Changting and Longnan, as well as the Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hastings deposits. The Mountain Pass deposits only receives a high ranking on one scenario (Use Case I), and Mount Weld CLD is never given more than an average rating. Thus Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass show no satisfactory results in the Use-Value Analysis. How- ever, the high ranking of Mountain Pass in Use Case I indicates its potential for future production. In Use Case IV, potential REE deposits Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld, Nechalacho Thor Lake and Eldor receive the highest ranks due to their low content of toxic elements. Nechalacho Thor Lake and Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanfjeld are highly Eudialyte- enriched deposits and show a high potential for green mining.

In summary, the Use-Value Analysis of the DBMS yields extremely different results in all four presented scenarios (Table 18). Excluding from Use Case IV, Bayan Obo and the Chinese IAC deposits had the best results of the 77 deposits evaluated. Thus, economically, they are the best deposits worldwide. Additionally, potential HREE deposits Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hastings reveal high capabilities for producing CREE, and thus, a potential for future production. However, the deposits Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass (USA) yield unsatisfactory results in all four scenarios. This is also the case for producing LREE deposit Maoniup- ing, for which requested data is not available for all attributes. The deposits Nechala- cho Thor Lake, Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld and Eldor, however, show immense potential for green mining due to very low values of toxic elements.

140 Application of the DBMS

Table 18: Results of Use Cases I – IV and total result including rank.

Use case Use case Use case Use case Use Cases Use Cases scenario I scenario II scenario III scenario IV Total Total Deposit SUM Criteria SUM Criteria SUM Criteria SUM Criteria SUM Criteria Rank Order Bayan Obo 6.1095 4.7984 6.3897 4.4302 21.7278 1 Changting 3.7865 5.5857 4.8548 6.0018 20.2288 2 Guangdong 3.6658 5.6143 4.3907 6.3542 20.025 3 Southeast Longnan 1 3.741 5.4527 4.6714 6.0405 19.9056 4 Lofdal- 3.6775 5.5479 4.5321 6.0586 19.8161 5 Bergville Browns 3.6376 5.3783 4.4366 6.0253 19.4778 6 Range Chongzuo 3.6101 5.2719 4.4655 5.8773 19.2248 7 Hastings 3.5597 5.2862 4.1783 6.1362 19.1604 8 Xinfen 1 3.5441 5.1541 4.3256 5.8058 18.8296 9 Xinfen 3.4851 5.1318 4.1669 5.8101 18.5939 10 Guangdong 3.5033 5.051 4.2561 5.7208 18.5312 11 Longnan 2 3.4437 4.9293 4.0207 5.8618 18.2555 12 Longnan 3 3.4225 5.0281 3.9415 5.863 18.2551 13 Kutessay-II 3.5245 4.9499 4.2337 5.6763 18.3844 14 Xinfen 2 3.4203 5.0981 3.9957 5.8086 18.3227 15 Longnan 3.3798 4.9239 3.8459 5.8328 17.9824 16 Xunwu 1 3.2682 4.6595 3.7289 5.5941 17.2507 17 Xunwun 3.2606 4.6483 3.7023 5.5903 17.2015 18 Xunwu 2 3.2524 4.6359 3.6744 5.5859 17.1486 19 Nechalacho 3.4625 4.0566 2.5551 6.4615 16.5357 20 Thor Lake Norra Kärr 3.0887 4.2503 2.9083 5.6331 15.8804 22 Strange Lake 3.1423 4.0202 2.5431 5.8834 15.589 23 Longnan 4 2.8909 4.1655 2.7368 5.4522 15.2454 26 Ilimaussaq Complex 3.3468 3.2059 1.2792 6.4615 14.2934 31 Kvanefjeld Ngualla 3.297 3.1156 1.3154 5.9171 13.6451 36 Mount Weld 3.1615 3.2884 2.0971 5.0178 13.5648 38 CLD Mountain 4.0167 3.0944 1.1604 4.7958 13.0673 46 Pass Dubbo 2.2035 2.9608 1.7976 3.9773 10.9392 61 Maoniuping 1.9928 2.5511 0.8963 4.5856 10.0258 69

141 Conclusion

8 Conclusion

The final chapter discusses the main results of this dissertation, with a particular em- phasis on the DBMS. Additionally, a brief outlook on further developments, including challenges and opportunities within the REE sector, is given. Finally, a concluding summary completes this dissertation.

8.1 Discussion

It is essential to create a DBMS for REE resources and prospects, since the REE sector is dominated by Chinese REE producing companies. The main producers are the Chinese deposits Bayan Obo, Maoniuping, Dalucao, Weishan and the IAC deposits of Southern China.

The herein presented DBMS system includes search, sort, compare and evaluation systems. These can quickly create an overview of potential and currently producing deposits and occurrences. The evaluation systems implemented in the DBMS are Rat- ing, Clustering, Ranking and a Use-Value Analysis. However, all systems evaluate the existing prospects for possible future production. The DBMS provides the opportunity to analyse a complete dataset of all prospects using the implemented rating system. The rating system includes all occurrences and deposits worldwide, and rates them according to attributes such as market and statuary mining codes, e.g. JORC, NI 43-101, and SAMREC. These attributes, e.g. certified resources and reserves, infrastructure and environmental issues, are highly relevant with regard to the assessment of the whole REE sector. This system functions as a sorting tool, and thus as a pre-evaluation system. For instance, the Bayan Obo deposit has certified resources and reserves, existing infrastructures within the form of processing and separation plants in Baotou and the highest production rate of all REE deposits worldwide, producing 50,000 tons per year. Because of this, Bayan Obo is the only deposit which is given the highest Rating, an AAA status. Other deposits, such as Maoniuping, Dalucao, Weishan and the IAC deposits Longnan, Xinfen, Xunwu and Guangdong are given AA status due to their lower

142 Conclusion production rates. Furthermore, the Mountain Pass (USA) and Mount Weld CLD (Aus- tralia) deposits are assigned A status because of their unsteady production and strug- gle with capital expenditures, as well as difficulties in reducing operational costs.

The Rating system includes a complete dataset of all implemented deposits and occurrences. Thus, it is a useful tool to analyse the complete REE sector concerning producing and potential REE-bearing prospects. Moreover, it gives information regarding status, as well as an information portfolio for all prospects in the REE sector.

The evaluation system Clustering is used to subdivide the REE sector into special categories, each with a specific focal point. The system includes three different Clustering Groups, separated by mineralogy and economic geology. In the first Clustering Group, Eudialyte, the potential deposit Norra Kärr (Sweden) ranks first overall, taking first position in CREO and lowest uranium and thorium values. The deposit Tanbreez takes the second position, followed by Kipawa Zeus. The Clustering Group Eudialyte reflects the industrial need for unconventional deposits that have low amounts of toxic elements as well as high amounts of CREO. This need occurs due to interest in green mining and separation and thus, the reduction of toxic elements, which results in a cleaner process chain in separating REE. In the second Clustering Group, Bastnasite, the Bayan Obo deposit ranks first overall, scoring first rank in TREO, as well as second in uranium content. The Bokan Mountains and Mountain Pass deposits share second rank in this Cluster because of their high ranks in all three parameters (cf. chapter 7.1.2.2, Table 11). Specifically, Bokan Moun- tains takes first position in thorium and second in CREO values, as well as third in uranium, whereas Mountain Pass ranks first in uranium and second in both TREO and thorium content (cf. chapter 7.1.2.2, Table 11). This result is based on a typical per- ception regarding one of the primarily processed ores within the REE sector. It depicts REE producing deposits and potential deposits with respect to quantity of resource and toxic elements. In the third Clustering Group, Monazite, the most common mineral, and therefore the most processed ore in the REE sector, is regarded. Within this category, the potential deposit Ngualla is ranked first in overall ranking with first rank in both uranium and thorium content and third in TREO. It is followed by the Bayan Obo deposit. Bayan Obo is ranked first in TREO and third in uranium values. The Mountain Pass deposit

143 Conclusion ranks third overall, and second both in TREO and uranium content as well as a third rank in thorium. Thus, the Clustering Group of Monazite also reflects the current situation of the REE sector. It displays the potential of deposits with high TREO and low values of toxic elements, e.g. Ngualla. On the other hand, it highlights the importance of current REE producers like Bayan Obo and Mountain Pass. In summary, the Clustering evaluation systems optimize the sorting and evaluation of specific groups of interest with respect to minerals, mined ores and resources. Addi- tionally, this evaluation system can be expanded to include other parameters, thus building specific categories of interest, such as economy, owner information and mining. This leads to an even higher complexity of the evaluation system, but only works if data of high quality and reliability are available.

The third evaluation system is Ranking, which functions as a pre-evaluation for the Use-Value Analysis. It is a calculation tool that computes TREO values combined with Material Grade values of single elements and gives the Ranking based on TREO per oxide. The results generated by this calculation are important for an analysis of REE deposits and resources for future supply. Three different Ranking Systems analyse the Material Grade, the TREO in tonnage and the combined TREO per oxide. Most oxides are weighted equally. However, lanthanum, cerium and samarium are weighted digressively, since high contents of these oxides lead to downgrading. This is a consequence of their high abundance and thus, their lower prices. It is noticeable that the overall ranking for Material Grade is dominated by the Southern Chinese IAC deposits (1st to 12th position). The deposit Changting is 1st, Chongzuo second and Xinfen 2 third in overall ranking according to Material Grade. Longnan 1 and Xinfen are tied for fourth place overall, based on their total combined results. The deposits Xinfen 1, Longnan 3 and Guangdong Southeast are sixth, seventh and eighth. The only non-Chinese deposit in the top 10 is Browns Range, with top 5 rankings in gadolinium to lutetium, as well as holmium. However, Browns Range also scores worse rankings in praseodymium, neodymium and europium, although all values are within the top 50. The 10th to 12th positions in Material Grade rankings are taken by the deposits Longnan, Lofdal-Bergville and Longnan 2. Thus, the overall ranking of Material Grade almost parallels the current REE market situation for producing and potential REE deposits, with the notable exceptions of Mountain Pass and Mount Weld CLD.

144 Conclusion

The Economy Ranking feature evaluates deposits based on their TREO and Basket Price. The quantity of deposits evaluated by this feature is reduced due to lack of data for Chinese deposits. Therefore, only the producing deposits Mountain Pass and Mount Weld CLD, as well as potential deposits outside China, are analysed. Therefore, the Economy-based ranking yields a very different result than the ranking described above. It favors the deposits with the highest amount in tonnage TREO and medium to low Basket Prices, a situation caused by high amounts of LREE and low amounts of HREE. The Nechalacho Thor Lake, Strange Lake and Norra Kärr deposits are ranked in the top 3, due to their high ranks in TREO as well as medium Basket Price ranking. The potential deposits Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanfjeld and Ngualla are positioned fourth and sixth, whereas the producing deposits of Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass are ranked 10th and 13th due to smaller values in tonnage of TREO and low Basket Price rankings. This ranking feature parallels the actual situation in the REE sector. However, it does not provide any information regarding feasibility of potential projects; it only displays the resource potential of all listed deposits.

The last feature in the ranking system combines the parameters of TREO (tonnage) and mineral distribution of single REO. The correlation between TREO and each single REO reveals a slightly different view of TREO than the Economy Ranking. The deposits Nechalacho Thor Lake and Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld are ranked first and second in this feature, far ahead of the third, the deposit of Strange Lake. They achieve the top three results in almost all TREO rankings, except in lanthanum and cerium for Nechalacho Thor Lake and europium for Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld. In comparison with the top two deposits, Strange Lake only reaches top 3 rankings in the HREE segment, from gadolinium to lutetium. The two producing deposits Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass rank 14th and 19th due to top 10 rankings in LREE, as well as average rankings in HREE. In summary, the Ranking evaluation system yields different results within the category of Material Grade, Economy and TREO. This discrepancy is caused by the missing data from Chinese deposits regarding TREO (tonnage). Nevertheless, it demonstrates the potential in resources of deposits like Nechalacho Thor Lake, Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld, Strange Lake and Norra Kärr. Also, it displays the current resource status

145 Conclusion of Mount Weld CLD and Mountain Pass. However, no potential deposits are in production and they are unlikely to go into production in the near future due to lack of investment, higher costs or incomplete finalized feasibility.

The Use-Value Analysis is the main evaluation system in the DBMS. It evaluates deposits according to selected parameters in the categories Material Grade, Economy and Mining. These parameters include mineral content, toxic elements, TREO tonnage, Basket Price and production volume. Within the Use-Value Analysis, different case studies can be created, based on different views of the REE sector.

For instance, in an equally weighted scenario (Use Case I), the deposit Bayan Obo takes the first position and the deposit Mountain Pass is second. Thus, it displays the current situation in the REE sector quite well. Producing deposits are high-ranked. Nevertheless, potential deposits, such as high HREE deposits, e.g. Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range, and Hastings, also are ranked highly. Southern Chinese IAC deposits also attain some of the highest ranks, despite that fact that they do not have available production data. Nevertheless, the other factors are strong enough to keep their scores high.

The 2nd Use Case concentrates on Critical REE. Thus, the result favors the deposits with the highest amount of Critical REE. The IAC deposits of Southern China, e.g. Guangdong Southeast, Longnan 1 and Xinfen, are located in the top ten of this Use- Value Analysis. On the other hand, high potential HREE deposits, e.g. Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hastings, are also ranked in the top 10. Therefore, Use Case II highlights both the supremacy of the Southern Chinese IAC deposits with respect to Critical REE and the high potential of the three above mentioned deposits.

Use Case III evenly mixes the Goal Criteria Economy and Mining. Once again, the deposit Bayan Obo achieves the highest score. Further high ranks are assigned to the Chinese IAC deposits and the potential deposits Lofdal-Bergville and Browns Range. Thus, this Use Case reflects the current economic situation in the REE sector and, in the case of Lofdal-Bergville and Browns Range, the potential for future production.

Use Case IV assigns rankings based on the combined feature of Material Grade, toxic elements and TREO (tonnage). This scenario reveals a different result than the other three. In this case, deposits with high amounts of TREO and low content of toxic elements are ranked higher.

146 Conclusion

Moreover, there is no supremacy of one deposit, as was the case in the other Use Cases. All high-ranked deposits score within a very small point range (5.9309 – 6.4615). The top ten ranking deposits include LREE deposits with low values in toxic elements, e.g. Nechalacho Thor Lake and Ilimaussaq Complex Kvanefjeld, high grade HREE deposits, e.g Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hasting, high grade LREE deposits, e.g. Eldor, Round Top and IAC deposits, e.g. Guangdong Southeast, Longnan 1 and Changting. Thus, this Use Case includes all potential deposits with low values in deleterious elements, high-grade Critical REE deposits and high TREO (tonnage) deposits.

In summary, the DBMS can identify potential Critical REE deposits, potential deposits with low values in uranium and thorium and high-grade HREE deposits. Moreover, it can compare these potential deposits with currently producing deposits, e.g. Bayan Obo, Mountain Pass and Mount Weld CLD and evaluate these deposits against each other. Results indicate that other than Mountain Pass and Mount Weld CLD, only non-Chi- nese deposits with high amounts of Critical REE might go into production in the near future. In particular, the deposits Lofdal-Bergville, Browns Range and Hastings are flagged as high-potential because of their high abundance of critical HREE. However, worldwide there are no deposits containing high amounts of both LREE and HREE. Thus, no deposit can serve the market with all critical elements. Prices for REE decreased over the last four years and are still decreasing, except for the Critical REE, for which prices reached a phase of stagnation in 2015. Therefore, a focus on CREE could be an approach to identify potential producing REE companies. Thus, focussing on either critical LREE or HREE would lead to a cost reduction in terms of mining, separation, processing and therefore production. In future scenarios, a possible division in the REE sector might be between NCREE and CREE deposits, rather than between LREE and HREE deposits. The rising importance of CREE also changes the view on the demand side, pointing to an increasing focus on CREE on the demand side as well. Nevertheless, as is illustrated in this dissertation, possible producers of REE are struggling due to low prices and high costs. For the near future, until 2020, there do not seem to be likely potential producers outside China.

147 Conclusion

However, the question remains, whether there is a market for a “single-element-producer” or if the existing market is open to such a producer. There are also other ques- tions to be answered, e.g. the required volume of REE on the demand side, if and to which amount the suppliers can reduce costs and the potential effects of the regulation of the market by China’s policy. It is also interesting to speculate how Chinese policy regarding HREE production and internal consumption will develop in the future. In the near future, China might stop exporting and become an importer of Heavy REE due to its increasing internal consumption. Nevertheless, highly volatile prices and the monopolistic status of China will certainly play a key role in future market and price analyses. There is an urgent need to rethink the policies of REE-demanding industrial companies in terms of process and recovery, as well as purchase of REE. Currently, there are two possible ways, recycling and replacement, to reduce REE consumption. Both systems should enable companies to reduce their dependence on REE suppliers. Due to modern recycling techniques and higher recovery rates, it is likely that in the future, more REE will be recycled out of specific products. Particularly, in the high-tech industrial sector, including the production of permanent magnets, wind turbines, electric motors of vehicles, LED’s, LCD’S and smartphones, there are several opportunities to increase the recycling rate for REE.

Currently, the industry faces many problems due to difficult metallurgical and chemical extraction processes resulting in high processing costs and extraction difficulties. The technique of replacement is a form to reduce the use of REE in specific products. Now- adays, several companies try to implement ferrites into permanent magnets, partially or wholly replacing REE. In addition, there are companies that have completely removed REE from their production chain for electrical motors (Access Science Editors, 2014). Both solutions may lead to a more independent status concerning the dependence on Chinese REE production and a more positive outlook on supply security.

148 Conclusion

8.2 Concluding Summary

This dissertation analyses current REE prospects concerning geological, mineralogical, economical, mining and environment-technical attributes by creating a DBMS. An- other part of this dissertation are the analyses of the CREE and REE market structure. These features are essential for analysing the REE sector and its prospects. Moreover, they prove the necessity of developing the DBMS.

The analysis of CREE is an important aspect, especially for future production and supply and demand issues. In this analysis, REE prospects are evaluated according to the six CREE; neodymium, praseodymium, europium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium. This is important due to the expectation of insufficient supply of these elements in the future. As the demand for CREE increases over time due to technical development, the security of supply increases as well. The analysis of the market structure deals with the aspects of pricing, price development and supply and demand. The market for REE is a complex network of supply and demand. The diverse trading systems are characterised by a high grade of non-transparency. Furthermore, it is a very small market with a small number of participants, particularly on the supplier side. The channels of trade and pricing are very non-transparent. It can be concluded that the REE market is monopolistic, as 85 % of the market share is state-owned by China. The Chinese government regulates the market via the implementation of export quotas. In 2011, prices increased to a high level due to decreasing export quotas, a political incident between China and Japan and stockpiling of REE by distributors. In some cases, the increase was more than 1000 % for both China Do- mestic and FOB prices. However, in the following periods, prices decreased, quickly reaching similar levels as in the periods before. Nevertheless, this enormous peak highlighted the dependence on China for REE. Moreover, it demonstrated to REE-consuming industries that they need to find alternative REE suppliers or other methods, e.g. recycling, to meet their demand.

The main part of developing the DBMS is based on information databases, which contain information on 1190 prospects with known REE enrichment. The data are, how-

149 Conclusion ever, of varying accuracy and reliability, depending on the degree of exploration undertaken to date. Grade and tonnage information is available for approximately 250 deposits, while more detailed geologic and economic parameters, such as material grade, defined resources (TREO tonnage) and reserves, CREE and Basket Price are known for 79 localities. In addition, the database contains entries of the abundances of toxic elements such as thorium and uranium. The system contains economic datasets of REE producing companies as well as potential prospects. It allows the user to search for both REE deposits and occurrences in two specific search systems, whose elements may be combined. The system also provides tools to define parameters that allow parallel comparison of up to five REE prospects. Furthermore, an export system that enables a complete systematic export in both Excel and PDF files is implemented. The DBMS consists of four evaluation systems that evaluate prospects according to specific attributes. The 1st evaluation system (Rating) rates occurrences and deposits using an attributive rating system. This involves a static system with nine rating levels, based on specific information on the status of the prospects. Moreover, it includes a Clustering tool that allows the creation of individual REE cluster groups. This includes three ore cluster groups (Monazite, Bastnasite and Eudialyte). The DBMS also contains a Ranking system that ranks deposits according to specific attributes, such as mineral distribution of all REE, TREO tonnage and a combination of the two values. Moreover, it provides an overall ranking that combines all analysed attributes. Another tool is the Use-Value Analysis, which the creation of various use cases based on weighting input for specific criteria. This feature builds scenarios with different ad- justment opportunities for material grade, economy and production. The Use-Value Analysis combines twenty-five specific parameters and calculates them according to user-defined, weighted arguments. The results extracted out of this system mimic various market scenarios. In this dissertation, four case studies dealing with different scenarios are presented. These are: (1) a general scenario, which weights all criteria equally, (2) a CREE scenario, (3) a production scenario and (4), a scenario focusing on environmental issues and element-specific attributes. Evaluating the results of these scenarios reveals that often, this tool reflects the actual statuses of prospects. Thus, it is likely that this tool

150 Conclusion can also be used to help in determining which prospects might be significant for future production.

This Database Management System is interesting for several industrial sectors. In particular, within the areas of Supply Chain and Business Intelligence, the DBMS could offer solutions concerning deposit search and compare systems, as well as deposit evaluation systematics. There are still many opportunities to extend the DBMS, especially regarding REE market structures and mining sectors. Moreover, an extension of the DBMS concerning price and production predictions, as well as a forecast system for supply and demand scenarios, would be useful. Another important issue is that the dataset should include more reliable data on Chi- nese REE deposits. In particular, it would be very useful to implement the most recent information on prices. The ideal solution would be to connect the DBMS to a live system with regular price updates. However, the current DBMS is already a very useful tool for industries depending on REE supply and may be helpful in mitigating problems resulting from supply uncertainty.

151 Literature

9 Literature

Access Science Editors, 2014. Access Science. [Online] Available at: http://www.accessscience.com/content/rare-earth-elements-recycling-or- replacement/BR0113142 [Accessed 15th December 2015].

Arafura Resources, 2003. Arafura Resources NL Prospectus, South Perth: Arafura Resources.

Arafura Resources, 2012. Arafura Resources NL Prospectus, South Perth: Arafura Resources.

Barros, L., 1997. www.scielo.br/. [Online] Available at: www.scielo.br/pdf/gp/v4n2/a04v4n2.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

British Geological Survey (BGS), 2011. Rare Earth Elements, Nottingham, United Kingdom: British Geological Survey.

British Geological Survey, 2011. Rare Earth Elements, Nottingham, United Kingdom: British Geological Survey.

Chakhmouradian, A. & Wall, F., 2012. Rare earth elements: Minerals, mines, magnets (and more). Elements 8, pp. 333-340.

Chan, V., 2011. Credit Suisse. [Online] Available at: http://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com [Accessed 12th February 2013].

China Ministry of Commerce, 2013. Technology Metals Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/2013/07/the-second-round-of- chinese-rare-earth-export-quota-allocations-for-2013/ [Accessed 15th September 2013].

Connelly, N., Damhus, T., Hartshorn, R. & Hutton, A., 2005. Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry: IUPAC Recommendations 2005. RSC Publishing, p. 366.

Dacha Strategic Metals Inc., 2012. A Unique Investment Vehicle for Strategic Materials, Toronto: Dacha Srtategic Metals.

Darby, S., 2010. Nomura International Ltd.. [Online] Available at: http://www.nomuraholdings.com/news/nr/ [Accessed 12th December 2012].

Dennis, C., Curtis, L. & Ahmad, A., 2012. The Rare Earths Race - Identifying the Formula One Cars, Toronto: Dundee Capital Markets - Dundee Security Ltd..

152 Literature

Dominy, S., Noppe, M. & Annels, A., 2002. Errors and uncertainty in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation: The importance of Getting it Right. Explor. Mining Geol., Volume Nos. 1-4, pp., pp. 77-98.

Elsner, H., 2012. SE Lagerstätten weltweit - Bewertung durch die DERA. Karslruhe - Cronimet: s.n.

European Commission, 2014. Press Release Database. [Online] Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-377_en.htm [Accessed 5th January 2016].

Factforge, 2013. Factforge. [Online] Available at: http://factforge.net/resource/dbpedia/Overburden [Accessed 7th September 2013].

Feess, E., 2004. Mikroökonomie - Eine spieltheoretisch- und anwendungsorientierte Einführung. 3. ed. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag.

Frontier Rare Earths, 2015. www.frontierrareearths.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.frontierrareearths.com/rare-earth-uses/ [Accessed 15th December 2015].

Gagliardi, M., 2012. Rare Earths: Worldwide Markets, Applications, Technologies, s.l.: BCC Research.

Gambogi, J., 2016. USGS. [Online] Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs- 2016-raree.pdf [Accessed 4th February 2016].

Gocht, W., 1983. Wirtschaftgeologie und Rohstoffpolitik. Untersuchung, Erschliessung, Bewertung, Verteilung und Nutzung mineralischer Rohsotffe. 2 Hrsg. Berlin: Springer.

Grasso, V., 2013. Rare Earth Elements in National Defense: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress, Washington: Congressional Research Service.

Guilbert, J. & Park Jr., C., 1986. The geology of ore deposits. 4th Hrsg. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Hartman, H. L., 1996. SME Mining Engineering Handbook. 1 ed. s.l.:Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.

Hatch, G., 2012. Technology Metals Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/2012/12/rare-earth-terminology-a- quick-refresher-on-the-basics/ [Accessed 11th May 2013].

153 Literature

Hatch, G., 2012. Technology Metals Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/metrics-indices/tmr-advanced-rare- earth-projects-index/ [Accessed 15th June 2012].

Hatch, G., 2015. Technology Metals Research. [Online] Available at: http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/metrics-indices/tmr-advanced-rare- earth-projects-index/ [Accessed 15th August 2015].

Haxel, G., Hedrick, J. & Orris, G., 2002. USGS. [Online] Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/ [Accessed 13th March 2012].

Hedrick, J., 2000. Minerals Yearbook: Volume I - Metals and Minerals. I ed. Reston: US Geological Survey.

Hitzmann, M., Oreskes, N. & Einaudi, M., 1992. Geological characteristics and tectonic setting of proterozoic iron oxide deposits. Precambrain Research, Issue 58, pp. 241- 287.

Hoover, 2013. http://www.mindat.org. [Online] Available at: http://www.mindat.org/glossary/life_of_mine [Accessed 15th May 2013].

Hu, F.-X.et al., 2011. La(Fe,Si)13-based materials prepared bycoarse rare earth product during purification. Delft: DDMC.

Investopedia, 2012. http://www.investopedia.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gnp.asp [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

Investopedia, 2012. http://www.investopedia.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stocksymbol.asp [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

ISIN, 2012. http://www.isin.org. [Online] Available at: http://www.isin.org/isin/ [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

Jamasmie, C., 2015. www.mining.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.mining.com/molycorp-shuts-down-mountain-pass-rare-earth- plant/ [Accessed 15th October 2015].

Jamasmie, C., 2015. www.mining.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.mining.com/china-scraps-decade-old-rare-earths-export- quotas-44322/ [Accessed 15th February 2015].

154 Literature

JORC, 2004. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves - The JORC Code - 2004 Edition, Australia: The Joint Ore Reserve Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia.

JORC, 2012. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves - The JORC Code - 2004 Edition, Australia: The Joint Ore Reserve Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia.

Jordens, A., Cheng, Y. & Waters, K., 2013. A review of the beneficiation of rare earth element bearing minerals. Minerals Engineering, February, pp. 97-114.

Kingsnorth, 2012. Rare Earths Supply Security: Dream or Possibility. Freiberg, s.n., p. 39.

Krishnamurthy, N. & Gupta, C., 2015. Extractive Metallurgy of Rare Earths. 2nd Hrsg. CRCnetbase: CRC Press.

Kynicky, J., Smith, M. & Xu, C., 2012. Diversity of RE deposits: the key example of China. Elements, October, Issue 8, pp. 361-367.

Liu, Y. et al., 2015. Mineralogical and geochemical studies of brecciated ores in the Dulacao REE deposit, Sichuan Province, SW China. Ore Geology Reviews, March.

Los Alamos National Security, 2016. Los Alamos National Laboratory. [Online] Available at: http://periodic.lanl.gov/index.shtml [Accessed 5th January 2016].

Lynas Corp., 2013. Lynas Corporation. [Online] Available at: http://www.lynascorp.com/Pages/what-are-their-prices.aspx [Accessed 20th May 2013].

Lynas Corp., 2014. Lynas Corp.. [Online] Available at: http://lynascorp.com/Pages/advanced-materials-plant-kuantan- malaysia.aspx [Accessed 15th December 2014].

Lynas Corp., 2014. Lynas Corporation. [Online] Available at: http://lynascorp.com/Pages/advanced-materials-plant-kuantan- malaysia.aspx [Accessed 15th December 2014].

Lynas Corp., 2015. Lynas Corporation. [Online] Available at: https://www.lynascorp.com/Pages/Mt-Weld-Concentration-Plant.aspx [Accessed 13th September 2015].

Metal-Pages, 2008. Metal-Pages. [Online] Available at: http://www.metal-pages.com/news/story/30557/shandong-weishan-to-

155 Literature become-a-new-rare-earth-base-in-china/ [Accessed 15th July 2015].

Metal-Pages, 2015. Metal-Pages, Argus Media Company. [Online] Available at: http://www.metal-pages.com/metalprices/rareearths/ [Accessed 31th July 2015].

Microsoft, 2013. Microsoft. [Online] Available at: https://products.office.com/de-de/access [Accessed 2012]. mining-onlineexpos, 2013. http://mining.onlineexpos.com. [Online] Available at: http://mining.onlineexpos.com/cgi-bin/glossary [Accessed 15th September 2013].

MinTails, 2015. Acid Mine Drainage. [Online] Available at: http://www.mintails.co.za/acid-mine-drainage [Accessed 7th December 2015].

Molycorp Inc., 2012. Molycorp Incorporated. [Online] Available at: http://molycorp.com [Accessed 17th September 2012].

Molycorp Inc., 2015. Molycorp Incorporated. [Online] Available at: http://www.molycorp.com/rare-earth-production-rises-in-q4-at- molycorps-mountain-pass-facility/ [Accessed 15th May 2015].

Molycorp Inc., 2015. Molycorp Incorporated. [Online] Available at: http://www.molycorp.com/about-us/our-facilities/molycorp-mountain- pass/ [Accessed 15th August 2015].

Moreno, L., 2011. Jacobs Security Inc.. [Online] Available at: http://www.jacobsecurities.com/ [Accessed 15th December 2012].

Nickel, E., 1995. The definition of a mineral. The Canadian Mineralogist, pp. 689-690.

Radon, J. et al., 2012. Columbia|SIPA. [Online] Available at: https://sipa.columbia.edu/academics/capstone-workshops/politics-and- economics-of-the-rare-earths-industry [Accessed 6th October 2013].

Rare Earth Technology Alliance, 2015. http://www.rareearthtechalliance.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.rareearthtechalliance.com/What-are-Rare-Earths [Accessed 15th December 2015].

156 Literature

Rothsay, 2014. http://www.rothsay.ca. [Online] Available at: http://www.rothsay.ca/about/glossary/ [Accessed 15th January 2014].

Russell, J. & Cohn, R., 2012. Royalties. 1 ed. s.l.:Book on Demand.

Science Daily, 2012. http://www.sciencedaily.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/gross_domestic_product.htm [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

Shen, H., 2012a. Pro Edge Wire. [Online] Available at: http://www.proedgewire.com/rare-earth-intel/analyzing-chinas-heavy- rare-earth-element-reserves-part-1-ion-absorbed-clays-illegal-mining/ [Accessed 15th January 2013].

Shen, H., 2012b. Pro Edge Wire. [Online] Available at: http://www.proedgewire.com/rare-earth-intel/analyzing-chinas-heavy- rare-earth-element-reserves-part-ii-why-china-will-not-become-a-net-importer-of-rareearths/ [Accessed 15th January 2013].

Shen, H., 2014. investorintel.com. [Online] Available at: http://investorintel.com/technology-metals-intel/chinas-rare-earths- imports-will-increase/ [Accessed 13th December 2014].

Shiraishi, A., 2010. The rare earths revolution:, Zürich: ETH Zürich.

SKS Business, 2012. http://www.sksbusinessservices.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.sksbusinessservices.com/knowledge-centre/small-cap [Accessed 2nd December 2012].

Stylianos-Stavvas, P., 1995. Atlas of the texural patterns of ore minerals and metallogenic processes. 1 Hrsg. New York: de Gruyter, Berlin.

Sullivan, A. & Sheffrin, S., 2003. Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: s.n.

Tasman Metals Ltd., 2015. Tasman Metals. [Online] Available at: http://www.tasmanmetals.com/s/OresMinerals.asp [Accessed 23rd November 2015].

Tse, P.-K., 2011. USGS. [Online] Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1042/ [Accessed 13th December 2015].

U.S. Department of Energy, 2010. Critical Metals Strategy, Washington: U.S. Department of Energy.

157 Literature

USGS, 2012. United States Geological Survey. [Online] Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs- 2012-raree.pdf [Accessed 1st March 2012].

USGS, 2013. United States Geological Survey. [Online] Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs- 2013-raree.pdf [Accessed 17th February 2013].

USGS, 2014. United States Geological Survey. [Online] Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs- 2014-raree.pdf [Accessed 11th March 2014].

USGS, 2015. United States Geological Survey (USGS). [Online] Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/mcs- 2015-raree.pdf [Accessed 12th February 2015].

Verplanck, P., Van Gosen, B., Seal, R. & McCafferty, A., 2014. USGS. [Online] Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5070/j/pdf/sir2010-5070J.pdf [Accessed 3rd April 2015].

Wang, D. et al., 2008. A special orogenic-type rare earth element deposit in Maoniuping, Sichuan, China. Geology and Geochemistry. Resource Geology, pp. 177- 188.

Worstall, T., 2014. Forbes. [Online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/03/why-lynas-corp-is- struggling-the-great-rare-earth-shortage-is-truly-over/#28dbd5d882c0 [Accessed 10th February 2015].

Xiaoping, D., 1992. The Middle East has oil. China has rare earths [Interview] 1992.

Zhi Li, L. & Yang, X., 2014. China's RE ore deposits and beneficiation techniques. Milos, ERES 2014: 1st European RE resources conference.

158 Appendix

10 Appendix

10.1 Appendix I

Deposits Dundee CREO CREO S- CREO/NCREO CREO/NCREO Screen FB w/o Y Araxa 26.11 20.25 24.12 18.59 17.25 Bayan Obo 32.52 24.70 32.00 22.46 22.33 Bear Lodge 35.97 28.97 33.06 25.50 23.89 Bokan Mountains 122.47 114.14 54.33 81.19 34.50 Browns Range 835.66 825.74 153.84 232.59 46.16 Buckton 75.08 67.17 42.58 53.44 29.20 Canakli I 36.83 30.45 28.44 26.95 20.40 Capel North Capel 36.61 29.46 33.05 25.97 22.95 Changting 266.17 241.74 136.38 122.35 60.55 Charley Creek 61.98 54.50 37.53 44.72 26.05 Chongzuo 245.45 221.72 131.31 122.34 62.65 Clay-Howells 38.53 32.14 29.74 28.35 22.01 Cummings Range 31.66 25.15 28.50 22.73 20.31 Dong Pao 18.68 13.83 17.83 13.05 12.25 Dubbo 64.50 57.36 35.76 47.82 24.43 Eco Ridge 36.87 30.31 29.17 26.55 20.30 Eldor* 33.28 26.61 30.20 23.88 21.84 Elliot Lake 33.46 27.19 27.66 24.08 19.34 Foxtrot 62.64 54.93 39.27 45.10 26.64 Glenover 52.47 43.15 46.54 36.25 32.77 Grande-Vallee 63.12 55.89 41.47 45.27 27.74 Green Cove 44.15 35.98 38.24 28.22 24.12 Springs Guangdong 196.60 171.93 114.60 100.02 55.11 Guangdong SE 2052.78 2,036.11 366.67 255.40 48.78 Hastings 884.86 873.11 172.58 201.93 41.06 Ilimaussaq 37.70 31.65 26.19 28.21 18.33 Kvanefjeld Kangankunde 23.96 18.06 23.64 16.77 16.77 Karonge 26.55 20.62 25.90 19.05 18.81 Khibina 36.26 30.69 25.68 28.37 20.56 Kipawa Zeus 100.25 92.13 46.67 67.71 29.87 Kutessay-II 128.65 118.22 49.95 77.10 28.98 La Paz 64.77 56.88 41.25 46.14 28.78 Lahat Mine 1681.40 1,669.77 241.86 763.83 114.89 Lavergne-Springer 32.82 26.33 28.99 23.70 20.92 Lofdal-Bergville 704.26 697.52 112.67 238.33 43.13

159 Appendix

Longnan 1544.22 1,516.02 282.15 298.01 55.22 Longnan 1 2519.19 2,486.20 501.01 280.87 59.11 Longnan 2 822.65 799.12 185.10 268.74 57.40 Longnan 3 2400.61 2,367.58 367.89 341.36 54.89 Longnan 4 2057.49 2,024.46 301.22 324.83 49.07 Lovozero 15.09 10.64 14.85 10.06 10.06 Maoniuping 23.27 17.48 22.39 16.14 15.56 Milo 41.47 35.62 27.33 31.01 19.97 Montviel Core 30.57 23.65 29.38 21.48 20.86 Zone Mount Weld CLD 34.89 27.67 32.96 24.63 23.68 Mount Weld Dun- 46.88 39.48 37.23 33.98 27.05 can Deposit Mountain Pass 20.18 14.96 19.87 14.04 13.92 Mrima Hill 35.96 29.60 28.62 26.34 20.73 Nanyang 38.20 31.96 33.33 27.01 23.92 Nechalacho Thor 60.64 52.04 45.44 41.99 30.92 Lake Ngualla 29.44 23.05 28.25 21.01 20.43 Niobec 34.00 26.69 33.30 23.93 23.93 Nisikkatch-Hoidas 42.82 33.91 40.10 29.43 27.92 Lake Nolans Bore 42.23 33.49 39.54 29.40 27.65 Norra Kärr 165.91 157.12 56.62 104.54 33.87 North Stradbroke 41.75 33.88 36.40 29.26 26.06 Olserum 98.87 90.28 49.50 66.50 31.49 Round Top 310.39 299.95 69.21 124.37 25.87 Sandkopsdrif 20.46 20.28 3.82 18.67 3.98 Sarfartoq 35.88 27.84 34.65 24.84 24.35 Songwe Hill 38.02 31.13 31.66 27.47 22.79 Sorensen 35.35 29.68 23.52 26.73 16.44 Steenkampskraal 43.20 35.45 36.49 30.57 25.16 Storkwitz 27.78 21.12 25.61 19.13 17.68 Strange Lake 117.52 109.91 45.52 78.69 28.39 Tanbreez 75.26 68.93 35.89 54.27 24.36 Tantalus-Diana 57.32 50.03 36.45 41.72 25.21 Two Tom 35.46 28.73 30.29 25.34 21.30 Wigu Hill 14.31 10.16 14.01 9.68 9.54 Xiluvo 40.58 33.33 34.06 29.30 24.20 Xinfen 211.48 189.25 111.13 105.98 53.11 Xinfen 1 205.62 184.27 111.03 107.43 55.35 Xinfen 2 218.34 195.07 111.26 104.48 50.70 Xunwu 1 121.45 103.59 94.84 71.09 54.44 Xunwu 2 135.41 116.13 105.59 75.90 58.12 Xunwun 128.04 109.50 99.92 73.41 56.22 Zone 3 35.28 29.64 22.88 26.76 15.92

160 Appendix

10.2 Appendix II – Basket Price China Domestic of REE deposits

Basket Price China in US-Dollar ($) per kilogram (kg) and year Deposit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Araxa 4.98 6.68 9.31 8.92 5.75 10.58 48.25 29.24 18.48 17.14 Bayan Obo 5.55 8.09 11.35 10.13 5.95 11.53 51.58 30.87 20.14 18.74 Bear Lodge 6.64 8.84 12.12 11.47 7.40 13.36 60.83 36.48 23.40 22.15 Bokan Moun- 10.36 14.24 17.74 17.30 11.03 19.82 88.74 54.04 31.36 28.82 tains Browns Range 15.77 20.77 23.84 24.79 16.18 27.23 120.25 73.92 40.08 35.63 Buckton 9.23 12.10 15.63 15.28 9.92 17.32 77.44 46.78 28.41 26.44 Canakli I 6.56 8.62 11.57 11.20 7.27 12.97 58.81 35.49 22.14 20.72 Capel North 4.40 6.69 9.77 8.76 5.37 11.05 50.01 30.25 19.28 18.49 Capel Changting 14.38 19.34 24.46 23.85 15.13 26.68 119.12 72.30 43.50 40.82 Charley Creek 8.61 11.36 14.69 14.27 9.27 16.35 73.82 44.61 27.11 25.23 Chongzuo 13.17 18.07 23.31 22.31 13.86 24.86 109.72 66.46 40.56 38.42 Clay-Howells 8.24 11.05 14.28 13.65 8.44 14.82 66.85 40.26 25.06 23.36 Cummings Range 5.09 6.90 9.81 9.29 6.03 11.33 51.67 31.17 19.83 18.79 Dong Pao 3.04 4.33 6.27 6.11 3.82 7.46 33.50 20.51 12.90 12.05 Dubbo 6.59 9.34 12.35 11.80 7.33 13.76 60.17 36.62 22.08 20.67 Eco Ridge 5.60 8.06 10.92 10.19 6.28 12.07 54.48 33.07 20.49 19.28 Eldor* 5.93 7.97 11.10 10.46 6.70 12.30 56.03 33.68 21.52 20.37 Elliot Lake 5.12 7.41 10.18 9.47 5.81 11.27 50.68 30.75 19.19 18.09 Foxtrot 7.04 10.09 13.37 12.53 7.75 14.69 65.62 39.82 24.19 22.71 Glenover 8.50 11.23 15.47 14.26 9.23 16.62 76.21 45.42 29.30 27.96 Grande-Vallee 5.07 7.58 10.72 9.91 6.34 12.78 57.55 34.98 21.22 20.02 Green Cove 5.69 8.41 11.69 10.43 6.34 13.03 56.66 34.20 21.72 20.75 Springs Guangdong 12.15 16.51 21.64 20.82 13.02 23.51 102.81 62.39 38.78 37.12 Guangdong SE 15.18 20.39 23.37 24.28 15.81 27.03 119.87 73.92 39.58 35.13 Hastings 14.29 19.39 22.23 22.97 14.96 25.77 116.36 71.81 38.46 34.17 Ilimaussaq 5.29 7.46 10.08 9.71 6.03 11.35 50.47 30.76 18.88 17.67 Kvanefjeld Kangankunde 4.32 6.06 8.63 8.12 5.06 9.66 43.81 26.51 17.00 16.11 Khibina 9.59 12.91 16.20 15.35 8.85 14.82 64.39 38.54 24.38 22.66 Kipawa Zeus 9.52 12.91 16.24 15.90 10.18 18.12 80.88 49.21 28.90 26.66 Kutessay-II 14.41 20.27 23.75 23.28 14.16 24.94 114.09 70.08 39.80 36.20 La Paz 9.44 12.31 15.93 15.42 10.07 17.58 79.77 48.04 29.41 27.40 Lahat Mine 12.76 17.01 19.46 20.63 13.59 23.09 100.47 62.23 32.77 28.97 Lavergne- 5.77 7.70 10.71 10.19 6.57 12.03 54.73 32.95 20.96 19.80 Springer Lofdal-Bergville 16.81 21.05 24.06 25.65 17.28 27.77 123.07 75.38 41.17 36.48 Longnan 14.29 18.93 22.11 22.91 14.64 24.71 103.96 63.98 35.02 31.45 Longnan 1 16.07 21.58 24.90 25.62 16.49 28.23 123.95 76.29 41.44 36.98

161 Appendix

Longnan 2 13.68 18.45 22.14 22.78 14.56 25.17 105.84 65.23 36.02 32.74 Longnan 3 15.07 19.46 22.52 23.70 15.39 25.38 106.47 65.49 35.68 31.87 Longnan 4 12.28 16.13 18.77 19.45 12.07 19.98 79.33 48.78 26.84 24.12 Lovozero 3.64 4.91 6.65 6.56 4.25 7.86 36.14 22.08 13.60 12.46 Maoniuping 4.08 5.61 8.02 7.66 4.93 9.38 42.79 25.97 16.50 15.57 Milo 7.82 10.00 12.89 12.79 8.37 14.33 64.82 39.14 23.94 22.11 Montviel Core 5.03 6.96 10.00 9.23 5.83 11.07 50.38 30.29 19.65 18.79 Zone Mount Weld CLD 6.07 8.15 11.51 10.68 6.84 12.61 57.48 34.42 22.29 21.24 Mount Weld 8.29 10.85 14.46 13.90 9.03 15.96 73.05 43.91 27.47 25.77 Duncan Deposit Mountain Pass 3.78 5.30 7.52 7.27 4.52 8.62 38.93 23.72 15.02 14.10 Mrima Hill 6.70 8.73 11.73 11.42 7.43 13.17 59.86 36.11 22.58 21.13 Nanyang 7.07 10.51 13.81 12.47 7.06 13.53 60.35 36.35 22.76 21.39 Nechalacho Thor 8.13 11.40 15.21 14.07 8.79 16.48 74.76 45.04 27.94 26.37 Lake Ngualla 5.14 7.04 10.01 9.35 5.91 11.09 50.40 30.30 19.53 18.55 Niobec 5.69 7.86 11.23 10.28 6.50 12.30 56.27 33.73 21.87 20.93 Nisikkatch- 6.51 8.95 12.76 11.55 7.29 13.71 62.35 37.27 24.41 23.55 Hoidas Lake Nolan's Bore 5.86 8.30 12.04 10.71 6.66 12.91 58.62 35.04 23.01 22.29 Norra Kärr 10.62 14.09 17.37 17.41 11.22 19.39 84.13 51.29 29.56 27.06 North Strad- 8.18 10.69 14.39 13.55 8.70 15.35 69.89 41.81 26.77 25.33 broke Olserum 9.21 13.05 16.51 15.76 9.75 18.01 80.09 48.75 28.73 26.65 Round Top 9.90 13.31 15.80 16.28 10.60 18.26 79.24 48.87 26.74 24.12 Sandkopsdrif 6.83 8.93 12.08 11.63 7.56 13.46 61.24 36.86 23.19 21.78 Sarfartoq 5.66 7.87 11.33 10.23 6.43 12.27 55.81 33.41 21.89 21.11 Songwe Hill 6.75 8.92 12.14 11.58 7.51 13.49 61.58 37.05 23.37 22.01 Sorensen 5.09 7.01 9.43 9.24 5.83 10.79 47.68 29.09 17.80 16.58 Steenkampskraal 5.46 8.22 11.55 10.33 6.22 12.54 56.45 34.11 21.58 20.64 Storkwitz 5.12 6.99 9.75 9.20 5.78 10.79 48.52 29.31 18.83 17.89 Strange Lake 9.10 12.55 15.58 15.37 9.77 17.54 77.42 47.35 27.16 24.89 Tanbreez 8.13 11.10 14.03 13.80 8.78 15.76 69.98 42.63 24.99 22.96 Tantalus-Diana 7.24 9.99 13.21 12.61 7.95 14.63 65.43 39.65 24.20 22.66 Two Tom 5.53 7.78 10.79 10.03 6.27 11.94 53.83 32.51 20.55 19.46 Wigu Hill 3.30 4.35 5.99 6.29 4.07 7.42 33.53 20.66 12.70 11.58 Xiluvo 6.03 8.09 11.34 10.68 7.07 13.15 60.58 36.47 22.98 21.75 Xinfen 12.78 17.17 21.94 21.35 13.39 23.62 103.62 62.88 38.41 36.32 Xinfen 1 12.91 17.68 22.71 21.94 13.58 24.26 106.75 64.82 39.58 37.48 Xinfen 2 12.59 16.59 21.09 20.69 13.16 22.91 100.21 60.77 37.15 35.08 Xunwu 1 9.91 14.48 20.23 18.49 10.79 20.79 90.37 54.46 35.43 34.57 Xunwu 2 9.78 14.33 20.04 18.09 10.61 20.52 89.60 53.87 35.04 34.19 Xunwun 9.85 14.41 20.14 18.29 10.70 20.66 89.99 54.17 35.24 34.39 Zone 3 5.03 6.88 9.25 9.13 5.78 10.63 46.81 28.59 17.47 16.26

162 Appendix

10.3 Appendix III – Basket Price FOB of REE deposits

Basket Price FOB in US-Dollar ($) per kilogram (kg) and year Deposit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Araxa 3.86 5.37 9.21 12.00 8.88 31.06 141.24 52.45 26.23 24.33 Bayan Obo 4.35 6.47 10.98 13.30 9.05 31.80 143.54 54.32 28.65 25.88 Bear Lodge 5.15 7.00 11.71 14.87 11.04 34.21 158.53 66.60 34.46 31.21 Bokan Moun- 6.64 10.99 16.32 21.72 16.68 41.83 211.36 117.01 57.00 48.27 tains Browns Range 9.08 15.71 21.20 30.46 24.61 50.98 272.71 177.32 82.68 66.83 Buckton 6.34 9.44 14.57 19.29 14.85 38.88 189.49 96.81 47.85 41.39 Canakli I 4.85 6.84 11.15 14.62 11.03 33.87 158.13 67.60 34.07 30.32 Capel North 3.34 5.37 9.67 11.84 8.35 31.13 143.57 54.46 28.60 26.48 Capel Changting 9.65 14.95 22.24 29.07 22.16 49.93 254.71 152.53 76.56 66.06 Charley Creek 6.01 8.89 13.79 18.15 13.91 37.77 182.96 90.39 44.93 39.03 Chongzuo 8.76 13.97 21.19 27.25 20.37 47.67 240.10 140.18 70.66 61.53 Clay-Howells 6.18 8.74 13.49 17.39 12.63 36.30 169.63 76.66 38.70 34.20 Cummings 3.89 5.53 9.67 12.42 9.25 31.82 146.33 56.47 29.13 26.59 Range Dong Pao 2.37 3.55 6.55 8.83 6.35 27.16 120.04 35.94 17.89 16.61 Dubbo 4.28 7.28 11.74 15.41 11.44 34.54 165.68 77.17 37.88 33.14 Eco Ridge 4.13 6.41 10.63 13.53 9.72 32.62 152.11 62.50 31.79 28.60 Eldor* 4.57 6.37 10.78 13.72 10.12 32.98 151.87 61.07 31.55 28.67 Elliot Lake 3.83 5.92 10.00 12.71 9.07 31.66 146.23 57.48 29.27 26.51 Foxtrot 4.81 7.91 12.65 16.19 11.87 35.54 170.97 80.37 40.27 35.44 Glenover 6.53 8.90 14.58 17.96 13.40 37.89 179.23 83.53 43.85 39.60 Grande-Vallee 3.33 5.97 10.38 13.17 9.88 32.77 158.15 70.14 35.26 31.26 Green Cove 4.35 6.74 11.74 14.18 9.95 33.15 157.30 67.99 35.31 32.37 Springs Guangdong 8.26 12.81 19.97 25.67 19.20 45.88 229.19 130.92 66.78 59.06 Guangdong SE 8.44 15.37 20.68 29.81 24.14 50.34 271.81 177.98 82.86 66.76 Hastings 8.08 14.65 19.62 28.10 22.69 48.12 259.45 167.89 78.73 63.56 Ilimaussaq 3.72 5.91 9.82 12.96 9.49 31.87 147.97 60.04 29.86 26.63 Kvanefjeld Kangankunde 3.40 4.89 8.62 11.07 7.93 29.92 134.14 46.12 23.84 22.11 Khibina 7.16 10.18 15.03 19.28 13.26 36.81 167.02 75.12 37.09 32.61 Kipawa Zeus 6.17 9.99 15.00 20.05 15.41 39.56 197.09 105.65 51.50 43.87 Kutessay-II 9.70 15.69 21.44 28.53 21.02 48.53 248.08 146.84 72.06 60.53 La Paz 6.72 9.64 14.88 19.44 14.93 39.25 190.69 96.25 48.20 41.92 Lahat Mine 6.45 12.71 17.15 25.55 21.14 44.88 242.05 157.18 71.72 57.29 Lavergne- 4.40 6.15 10.43 13.42 9.98 32.69 150.53 60.18 30.91 28.02 Springer Lofdal-Bergville 9.78 15.89 21.24 31.31 26.06 51.91 276.54 181.26 83.88 67.37

163 Appendix

Longnan 7.70 14.26 19.74 28.45 22.76 48.04 254.08 164.21 75.27 61.07 Longnan 1 9.22 16.35 22.21 31.52 25.15 52.25 280.74 183.98 86.01 69.78 Longnan 2 7.05 13.87 19.78 28.40 22.76 50.62 265.64 166.27 76.55 62.65 Longnan 3 8.06 14.63 20.03 29.40 23.92 49.15 260.76 170.73 77.63 62.57 Longnan 4 6.42 12.13 16.82 24.37 19.16 40.04 208.84 135.59 60.75 49.15 Lovozero 2.87 4.01 6.91 9.42 6.94 27.95 124.48 39.05 19.15 17.35 Maoniuping 3.19 4.55 8.11 10.60 7.79 29.59 133.41 45.85 23.43 21.60 Milo 5.65 7.88 12.24 16.44 12.62 35.57 168.32 77.42 38.24 33.27 Montviel Core 3.92 5.59 9.81 12.29 8.90 31.43 142.75 53.28 27.90 25.85 Zone Mount Weld 4.73 6.53 11.14 13.94 10.24 33.23 152.84 61.72 32.23 29.51 CLD Mount Weld 6.20 8.57 13.68 17.63 13.33 37.46 177.95 82.97 42.44 37.61 Duncan De- posit Mountain Pass 2.97 4.31 7.66 10.14 7.26 28.79 128.03 41.28 20.95 19.39 Mrima Hill 5.00 6.93 11.30 14.85 11.23 34.19 159.46 68.20 34.48 30.70 Nanyang 5.42 8.36 13.14 16.03 10.68 33.79 156.47 67.32 34.73 31.24 Nechalacho 5.94 8.99 14.38 17.91 13.08 37.64 181.27 86.96 44.70 39.72 Thor Lake Ngualla 4.01 5.66 9.83 12.44 9.03 31.51 143.19 53.65 27.89 25.66 Niobec 4.47 6.30 10.90 13.47 9.74 32.84 150.55 59.23 31.30 28.88 Nisikkatch- 5.05 7.14 12.22 14.88 10.79 34.35 158.88 66.68 35.42 32.71 Hoidas Lake Nolans Bore 4.52 6.63 11.57 13.91 9.94 33.34 153.46 62.11 33.17 30.85 Norra Kärr 6.35 10.78 15.83 21.86 17.21 41.23 208.82 119.30 56.42 47.13 North Strad- 6.28 8.49 13.66 17.24 12.80 36.78 172.10 77.68 40.12 36.05 broke Olserum 6.02 10.12 15.32 19.94 14.83 39.44 195.96 103.64 51.04 43.85 Round Top 5.24 10.04 14.10 20.36 16.49 37.98 198.18 119.95 55.31 45.08 Sandkopsdrif 5.12 7.10 11.61 15.07 11.36 34.46 160.84 69.26 35.22 31.46 Sarfartoq 4.42 6.30 10.97 13.41 9.64 32.73 149.75 58.85 31.29 29.10 Songwe Hill 5.09 7.09 11.66 15.01 11.26 34.44 160.79 69.01 35.29 31.64 Sorensen 3.55 5.55 9.26 12.47 9.27 31.31 144.87 57.76 28.33 25.16 Steenkampskra 4.07 6.55 11.21 13.65 9.55 32.94 153.68 63.16 32.98 30.19 al Storkwitz 3.95 5.61 9.62 12.34 8.94 31.21 141.60 53.01 27.34 25.18 Strange Lake 5.52 9.65 14.32 19.48 15.05 38.80 194.97 105.93 50.70 42.69 Tanbreez 5.27 8.61 13.12 17.67 13.49 36.79 180.56 91.35 44.27 37.77 Tantalus-Diana 5.02 7.84 12.51 16.25 12.12 35.57 170.30 79.64 39.79 34.97 Two Tom 4.18 6.22 10.55 13.32 9.63 32.47 150.24 60.42 31.00 28.16 Wigu Hill 2.59 3.57 6.35 9.10 6.75 27.61 121.86 36.47 17.69 16.10 Xiluvo 4.51 6.44 10.97 13.98 10.64 33.88 159.23 67.41 34.78 31.33 Xinfen 8.59 13.29 20.08 26.20 19.75 45.60 229.17 133.89 67.25 58.56 Xinfen 1 8.66 13.69 20.74 26.87 20.01 47.09 235.98 136.43 68.79 60.03 Xinfen 2 8.48 12.83 19.35 25.45 19.44 44.02 221.94 131.06 65.55 56.97

164 Appendix

Xunwu 1 7.21 11.39 18.87 22.83 15.80 42.98 206.02 105.18 55.97 51.33 Xunwu 2 7.14 11.28 18.66 22.33 15.47 41.83 201.74 104.48 55.53 50.81 Xunwun 7.18 11.34 18.77 22.58 15.64 42.41 203.89 104.83 55.75 51.08 Zone 3 3.47 5.45 9.09 12.34 9.21 31.15 143.94 57.19 27.91 24.76

165 Appendix

10.4 Appendix IV – Material Grades of REE deposits

Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Araxa 28.05% 49.40% 4.54% 13.85% 1.49% 0.34% 0.68% 0.07% 0.29% 0.04% 0.08% 0.01% 0.04% 0.00% 1.13% Bayan Obo 23.79% 50.11% 5.78% 17.80% 0.90% 0.20% 0.69% 0.08% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% Bear Lodge 26.41% 43.74% 4.91% 17.87% 2.90% 0.63% 1.53% 0.13% 0.41% 0.05% 0.08% 0.01% 0.05% 0.01% 1.28% Bokan 11.45% 27.81% 3.27% 13.81% 3.60% 0.33% 3.76% 0.65% 4.25% 0.92% 2.32% 0.33% 1.57% 0.16% 25.77% Mountains Browns 2.47% 6.00% 0.84% 3.77% 2.19% 0.44% 5.70% 1.25% 8.42% 1.84% 5.32% 0.74% 4.37% 0.60% 56.06% Range Buckton 19.00% 32.85% 4.10% 15.68% 3.08% 0.66% 2.61% 0.39% 2.30% 0.47% 1.33% 0.20% 1.33% 0.20% 15.80% Canakli I 25.25% 44.47% 4.45% 14.49% 2.01% 0.50% 1.43% 0.19% 0.89% 0.16% 0.45% 0.07% 0.43% 0.06% 5.16%

165 Capel North 23.90% 46.00% 5.00% 17.40% 2.53% 0.05% 1.49% 0.04% 0.70% 0.05% 0.20% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 2.40% Capel

Changting 20.93% 1.83% 5.56% 20.45% 5.00% 0.93% 5.63% 0.82% 5.03% 0.94% 2.37% 0.30% 2.11% 0.30% 27.79% Charley 18.07% 38.63% 4.24% 14.93% 2.82% 0.59% 2.39% 0.37% 2.11% 0.41% 1.20% 0.16% 1.03% 0.15% 12.90% Creek Chongzuo 19.49% 5.33% 5.89% 22.43% 4.64% 0.72% 4.58% 0.76% 4.27% 0.89% 2.05% 0.30% 1.48% 0.33% 26.85% Clay-How- 25.10% 43.62% 4.39% 15.09% 2.33% 0.55% 1.51% 0.55% 0.96% 0.14% 0.41% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 4.94% ells Cummings 26.88% 46.77% 4.80% 15.70% 1.87% 0.36% 1.13% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.97% Range Dong Pao 32.04% 50.40% 4.00% 10.70% 0.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.70% Dubbo 19.55% 36.85% 4.03% 14.12% 2.17% 0.08% 2.17% 0.31% 2.02% 0.39% 1.16% 0.16% 1.01% 0.16% 15.82% Eco Ridge 23.94% 45.28% 4.54% 14.56% 2.51% 0.13% 1.68% 0.26% 1.09% 0.19% 0.45% 0.06% 0.32% 0.06% 4.94% Eldor* 25.97% 46.48% 4.83% 16.63% 2.06% 0.47% 1.12% 0.11% 0.42% 0.06% 0.12% 0.01% 0.07% 0.01% 1.65%

Appendix

Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Elliot Lake 25.03% 46.36% 4.48% 14.47% 2.41% 0.11% 1.50% 0.21% 0.80% 0.12% 0.33% 0.05% 0.26% 0.05% 3.82% Foxtrot 18.08% 38.50% 4.36% 15.77% 2.85% 0.14% 2.24% 0.36% 2.09% 0.40% 1.14% 0.16% 1.03% 0.16% 12.72% Glenover 16.84% 44.83% 5.75% 22.18% 3.53% 0.89% 2.03% 0.21% 0.77% 0.11% 0.19% 0.02% 0.09% 0.01% 2.56% Grande-Val- 17.59% 38.18% 4.03% 17.08% 3.51% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 2.02% 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 12.07% lee Green Cove 17.50% 43.70% 5.00% 17.50% 4.90% 0.16% 6.60% 0.26% 0.90% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% 3.20% Springs Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Guangdong 27.10% 1.40% 7.03% 22.03% 4.95% 0.80% 6.03% 0.57% 3.60% 0.00% 2.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.00% Guangdong 1.20% 2.40% 0.60% 3.50% 2.20% 0.20% 5.00% 1.20% 9.10% 2.60% 5.60% 1.30% 6.00% 1.80% 59.30% Southeast

166 Hastings 1.62% 6.04% 0.90% 3.47% 2.19% 0.14% 3.57% 1.14% 8.85% 2.05% 8.23% 1.05% 6.61% 0.86% 53.28%

Ilimaussaq 27.50% 42.00% 4.20% 12.90% 1.60% 0.10% 1.10% 0.20% 1.10% 0.20% 0.60% 0.10% 0.50% 0.20% 7.70% Kvanefjeld

Kan- 29.77% 49.73% 4.69% 14.02% 1.05% 0.19% 0.36% 0.07% 0.08% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% gankunde Karonge 30.30% 47.30% 4.60% 15.40% 1.30% 0.30% 0.50% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% Khibina 25.78% 46.22% 4.01% 14.38% 1.64% 0.51% 0.10% 1.03% 0.10% 0.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.08% Kipawa Zeus 14.48% 29.34% 3.56% 13.40% 3.02% 0.38% 2.92% 0.54% 3.49% 0.78% 2.41% 0.38% 2.41% 0.32% 22.56% Kutessay-II 16.82% 20.00% 3.84% 8.31% 4.17% 0.23% 3.65% 1.58% 6.24% 0.58% 3.30% 0.25% 3.34% 0.51% 27.17% La Paz 17.20% 38.32% 4.38% 16.44% 3.12% 0.78% 2.72% 0.40% 2.08% 0.42% 1.13% 0.15% 0.89% 0.12% 11.88% Lahat Mine 1.20% 3.10% 0.50% 1.60% 1.10% 0.00% 3.50% 0.90% 8.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 61.00% Lavergne- 26.70% 46.08% 4.73% 15.90% 1.89% 0.45% 1.07% 0.09% 0.47% 0.09% 0.17% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 2.25% Springer

Appendix

Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Lofdal- 3.57% 6.53% 0.68% 2.63% 1.11% 0.94% 4.33% 1.11% 8.07% 1.78% 5.27% 0.77% 4.84% 0.68% 57.70% Bergville Longnan 3.66% 1.27% 1.39% 5.25% 2.91% 0.20% 5.60% 1.13% 7.27% 1.55% 4.31% 0.62% 3.33% 0.44% 60.89% Longnan 1 2.48% 0.49% 0.98% 5.07% 3.91% 0.30% 6.62% 1.34% 8.83% 1.60% 5.10% 0.66% 3.94% 0.51% 58.30% Longnan 2 7.80% 2.40% 2.40% 9.00% 3.00% 0.03% 4.40% 0.90% 7.48% 1.60% 4.26% 0.66% 3.34% 0.47% 64.10% Longnan 3 2.18% 1.09% 1.08% 3.47% 2.37% 0.37% 5.69% 1.13% 7.48% 1.60% 4.26% 0.60% 3.34% 0.47% 64.97% Longnan 4 2.18% 1.09% 1.08% 3.47% 2.34% 0.10% 5.69% 1.13% 5.30% 1.40% 3.60% 0.00% 2.70% 0.30% 56.20% Lovozero 28.00% 57.50% 3.80% 8.80% 1.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maoniuping 29.20% 50.30% 4.60% 13.00% 1.50% 0.20% 0.50% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% Milo 24.31% 42.14% 3.89% 12.97% 1.95% 0.65% 1.62% 0.32% 1.30% 0.32% 0.81% 0.16% 0.97% 0.16% 8.43%

167 Montviel 25.57% 49.20% 5.18% 16.63% 1.71% 0.33% 0.57% 0.05% 0.16% 0.02% 0.04% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.51% Core Z. Mount Weld 23.88% 47.54% 5.16% 18.13% 2.44% 0.53% 1.09% 0.09% 0.25% 0.03% 0.06% 0.01% 0.03% 0.00% 0.76% CLD Mount Weld Duncan De- 24.86% 39.37% 4.75% 17.89% 2.83% 0.77% 1.99% 0.26% 1.27% 0.19% 0.41% 0.04% 0.18% 0.02% 5.17% posit Mountain 33.20% 49.10% 4.30% 12.00% 0.80% 0.10% 0.20% 0.06% 0.05% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.10% Pass Mrima Hill 27.39% 43.05% 4.48% 14.84% 2.02% 0.56% 1.41% 0.17% 0.84% 0.14% 0.35% 0.04% 0.24% 0.03% 4.44% Nanyang 23.00% 42.70% 4.10% 17.00% 3.00% 0.10% 2.00% 0.70% 0.80% 0.12% 0.30% 0.00% 2.40% 0.14% 2.40% Nechalacho 17.29% 39.55% 4.89% 19.10% 3.77% 0.44% 3.06% 0.40% 1.84% 0.31% 0.75% 0.11% 0.60% 0.11% 7.80% Thor Lake Ngualla 27.10% 48.20% 4.81% 16.30% 1.67% 0.35% 0.76% 0.07% 0.16% 0.02% 0.06% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.48% Niobec 24.49% 47.86% 5.29% 18.52% 2.07% 0.43% 0.98% 0.08% 0.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Appendix

Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Nisikkatch- 20.44% 46.61% 5.97% 20.57% 2.71% 0.54% 1.24% 0.11% 0.35% 0.00% 0.24% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 1.17% Hoidas Lake Nolans Bore 19.13% 48.72% 5.93% 20.58% 2.30% 0.39% 0.99% 0.08% 0.32% 0.05% 0.09% 0.01% 0.06% 0.01% 1.35% Norra Kärr 10.01% 22.52% 2.86% 11.31% 2.98% 0.37% 3.16% 0.63% 4.25% 0.93% 2.87% 0.45% 2.74% 0.37% 34.55% North Strad- 21.50% 45.80% 5.30% 18.60% 3.10% 0.80% 1.80% 0.30% 0.60% 0.10% 0.20% 0.00% 0.10% 0.01% 2.50% broke Olserum 13.53% 30.71% 3.80% 14.62% 3.38% 0.16% 3.48% 0.65% 3.48% 0.72% 2.02% 0.32% 1.78% 0.32% 21.03% Round Top 3.74% 14.74% 1.93% 5.25% 1.89% 0.03% 1.87% 0.64% 5.61% 1.42% 5.87% 1.29% 10.23% 1.59% 43.90% Sandkopsdrif 25.37% 0.44% 0.05% 0.16% 0.02% 0.01% 1.42% 0.17% 0.78% 0.13% 0.32% 0.04% 0.22% 0.03% 4.12% Sarfartoq 21.58% 49.91% 5.75% 18.82% 1.85% 0.41% 1.02% 0.08% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% Songwe Hill 24.63% 44.60% 4.77% 16.36% 2.38% 0.57% 1.35% 0.16% 0.79% 0.13% 0.30% 0.04% 0.22% 0.03% 3.67%

168 Sorensen 27.78% 43.28% 4.03% 11.71% 1.46% 0.13% 1.07% 0.16% 0.97% 0.18% 0.52% 0.07% 0.45% 0.05% 8.12%

Steenkampskraal 20.76% 45.28% 5.12% 17.98% 2.87% 0.07% 1.95% 0.22% 1.00% 0.14% 0.29% 0.03% 0.13% 0.01% 4.14%

Storkwitz 27.38% 48.67% 5.07% 14.19% 1.35% 0.30% 1.12% 0.13% 0.22% 0.07% 0.14% 0.01% 0.12% 0.01% 1.22% Strange Lake 12.09% 27.98% 3.05% 11.17% 2.60% 0.13% 2.65% 0.57% 4.02% 0.90% 2.88% 0.45% 2.95% 0.42% 28.15% Tanbreez 17.77% 33.25% 3.23% 12.21% 2.34% 0.25% 2.57% 0.46% 2.87% 0.64% 2.39% 0.30% 2.04% 0.28% 19.38%

Tantalus-Diana 20.84% 38.00% 4.29% 15.32% 2.57% 0.31% 2.08% 0.32% 1.84% 0.38% 1.10% 0.16% 0.98% 0.16% 11.65%

Two Tom 24.37% 46.02% 4.74% 15.90% 2.71% 0.25% 1.61% 0.17% 0.68% 0.09% 0.17% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 3.22% Wigu Hill 38.34% 48.58% 3.61% 8.54% 0.49% 0.11% 0.14% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.13% Xiluvo 21.68% 46.31% 4.93% 17.24% 2.46% 0.49% 1.48% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.94% Xinfen 23.57% 2.57% 5.81% 19.33% 4.52% 0.82% 5.38% 0.73% 3.91% 0.77% 2.24% 0.24% 1.37% 0.21% 24.68% Xinfen 1 26.20% 1.90% 6.00% 21.10% 4.50% 0.71% 4.80% 0.77% 4.10% 0.80% 2.00% 0.20% 1.60% 0.20% 25.10% Xinfen 2 20.93% 3.23% 5.62% 17.55% 4.54% 0.93% 5.96% 0.68% 3.71% 0.74% 2.48% 0.27% 1.13% 0.21% 24.26%

Appendix

Deposits La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Xunwu 1 38.00% 3.50% 7.41% 30.18% 5.32% 0.51% 4.21% 0.46% 1.77% 0.27% 0.88% 0.13% 0.62% 0.13% 10.07% Xunwu 2 29.84% 7.18% 7.14% 30.18% 6.32% 0.51% 4.21% 0.46% 1.77% 0.27% 0.80% 0.13% 0.62% 0.13% 10.07% Xunwun 33.92% 5.34% 7.28% 30.18% 5.82% 0.51% 4.21% 0.46% 1.77% 0.27% 0.84% 0.13% 0.62% 0.13% 10.07% Zone 3 28.33% 42.88% 4.01% 11.31% 1.36% 0.12% 0.98% 0.16% 0.97% 0.18% 0.53% 0.08% 0.48% 0.06% 8.55%

169168

Appendix

10.5 Appendix V – China Domestic & FOB Prices in US-$/kg

La-ox- Ce-ox- Pr-ox- Nd-ox- Sm-ox- Eu-ox- Tb-ox- Dy-ox- Y-ox- Year ide ide ide ide ide ide ide ide ide 2005 2 2 11 10 2 358 401 55 7 2006 2 2 18 19 2 309 589 90 6 2007 2 2 31 33 2 347 643 97 8 2008 5 2 22 24 2 420 576 100 11 2009 3 2 11 12 2 352 254 80 7 2010 4 4 28 29 2 410 389 166 8 2011 16 20 105 132 12 2025 1597 994 0 2012 11 12 71 75 10 1178 949 621 0 2013 5 5 73 51 6 741 584 314 0 2014 3 3 95 51 3 657 527 274 0 2015 2 2 60 46 2 253 563 257 26

La- Ce- Pr-ox- Nd-ox- Sm- Eu-ox- Tb-ox- Gd- Dy- Y-ox- Year oxide oxide ide ide oxide ide ide oxide oxide ide 2002 2.3 2.3 3.9 4.4 3 240 170 0 20 0 2003 1.5 1.7 4.2 4.4 2.7 235.4 170 0 14.6 0 2004 1.6 1.6 8 5.8 2.7 310.5 398 0 30.3 0 2005 1.6 1.4 8.3 7.4 2.6 277 311 0 41 0 2006 1.8 1.5 14 15 2.4 239 460 0 69 4 2007 3.1 2.5 28 29 3.3 297 554 8.8 83 6.9 2008 7.8 4.4 27 27 4.5 470 657 9.8 112 15 2009 5.9 4.2 15 15 4.5 467 352 6.6 104 14 2010 25 23 49 49 17 558 542 23.5 232 29 2011 104.9 102.5 196.3 234 103.5 2924 2387 149 1471 136 2012 22 22 112 114 59 2332 1873 90 980 85 2013 7 7 94 70 14 1126 936 47 534 25 2014 6 5 122 66 9 898 786 46 435 17 2015 3.2 2.8 76.11 53.7 2.9 372.1 660.1 0 311.3 8.2

171

Appendix

10.6 Appendix VI – Ranking System

Material Grade

Overall Overall

Deposits Ranking Deposits Ranking

Changting 1 Nanyang 39

Chongzuo 2 Sandkopsdrif 40

Xinfen 2 3 Grande-Vallee 41

Longnan 1 4 Steenkampskraal 42

Xinfen 4 Eco Ridge 43

Xinfen 1 6 Clay-Howells 44

Longnan 3 7 Songwe Hill 45

Guangdong Southeast 8 Canakli I 46

Browns Range 9 Mrima Hill 47

Longnan 10 Lahat Mine 48

Lofdal-Bergville 11 Bear Lodge 49

Longnan 2 12 Nisikkatch-Hoidas Lake 50

Hastings 13 51 Ilimaussaq Kvanefjeld

Kutessay-II 14 Xiluvo 52

Norra Kärr 15 Elliot Lake 53

Bokan Mountains 16 Two Tom 55

Xunwu 1 17 Sorensen 56

Kipawa Zeus 18 Mount Weld CLD 57

Xunwun 19 Zone 3 58

Xunwu 2 20 Eldor* 59

Longnan 4 21 Capel North Capel 60

172

Appendix

Olserum 22 Lavergne-Springer 61

Round Top 23 Khibina 62

Strange Lake 24 Sarfartoq 63

Buckton 25 Niobec 64

Guangdong 26 Storkwitz 65

La Paz 27 Cummings Range 66

Nechalacho Thor Lake 28 Montviel Core Zone 67

Charley Creek 29 Ngualla 68

Tanbreez 30 Bayan Obo 69

Foxtrot 31 Araxa 70

Tantalus-Diana 32 Karonge 71

Glenover 33 Maoniuping 72

Dubbo 34 Kangankunde 73

Mount Weld Duncan Deposit 34 Mountain Pass 74

Milo 36 Lovozero 75

Green Cove Springs 37 Wigu Hill 76

North Stradbroke 38 Dong Pao 77

Economy

Overall Overall

Deposits Ranking Deposits Ranking

Longnan 1 1 Buckton 39

Lofdal-Bergville 2 Foxtrot 40

Browns Range 3 Sandkopsdrif 40

Guangdong Southeast 4 Two Tom 42

Changting 5 Nisikkatch-Hoidas Lake 43

173

Appendix

Longnan 2 6 Lavergne-Springer 44

Longnan 3 7 La Paz 45

Chongzuo 8 Sarfartoq 46

Nechalacho Thor Lake 9 Bokan Mountains 47

Longnan 10 Milo 47

Strange Lake 11 Glenover 49

Xinfen 1 12 Clay-Howells 50

Guangdong 13 Eco Ridge 51

Norra Kärr 14 Tanbreez 52

Xinfen 14 Araxa 53

Eldor* 16 North Stradbroke 53

Lahat Mine 17 Xiluvo 55

Ngualla 18 Cummings Range 56

Ilimaussaq Kvanefjeld 19 Kangankunde 57

Xinfen 2 20 Steenkampskraal 57

Xunwu 1 21 Canakli I 59

Bear Lodge 22 Wigu Hill 60

Xunwun 23 Khibina 61

Montviel Core Zone 24 Green Cove Springs 62

Mount Weld CLD 25 Grande-Vallee 63

Dubbo 26 Nanyang 64

Xunwu 2 26 Mrima Hill 65

Mount Weld Duncan Deposit 28 Storkwitz 66

Mountain Pass 29 Elliot Lake 67

Longnan 4 30 Capel North Capel 68

Charley Creek 31 Bayan Obo 69

174

Appendix

Hastings 32 Sorensen 70

Round Top 33 Maoniuping 71

Kutessay-II 34 Lovozero 72

Niobec 35 Dong Pao 73

Zone 3 36 Karonge 74

Olserum 37 Songwe Hill 74

Kipawa Zeus 38 Tantalus-Diana 74

175

Appendix

10.7 Appendix VI – Results of Use-Value-Analysis.

176

Appendix

177

Appendix

178

Appendix

179

Appendix

180

Appendix

181

Appendix

182

Appendix

183

Appendix

184

Appendix

185

Appendix

186

Appendix

187