Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Rare Earth Elements and Exotic Metals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maxncompany who wrote (3119)	8/21/2009 9:03:10 AM
From: LoneClone	Respond to of 24623

Not as far as I know. Most of the deposits seem to be close to or on the surface anyway, but maybe that's because it's the only place they can be found using currently available techniques. LC

To: maxncompany who wrote (3119)	8/21/2009 11:02:55 AM
From: LoneClone	Respond to of 24623

I posted your question to Clint at The Charter House, and got this answer: Scott: You are correct that many REE deposits are close to surface, but this is not always the case. For example, Thor Lake, if developed, would be below surface (their Basel Zone). In the past, beach sands were a large provider of REEs -- and these are, of course, at surface. Also, if you look at the Chinese sites, they are mostly at surface -- so the costs associated with competing with them dictates that you have to have an extremely rich deposit if you have to dig underground for it (because underground mining is more expensive). But , as with Thor Lake, there are some underground prospects on a worldwide basis. Thanks for the question! Clint Cox contact@theanchorhouse.com