Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd

Page 1 – Copyright © 2012 RM Research – www.rmresearch.com.au - Please read the disclaimer for terms.

A number of key milestones have been met or are imminent this year including a

significantly expanded resource based on drilling at Zone 2 (recently completed) and

Zone 3 (imminent), the completion of Pre-Feasibility (“PFS”), environmental (“EIS”) and

social impact assessment (“SIA”) studies in late CY 2012 and a Definitive Study in early

CY 2013, Greenland Mineral and Energy Limited (ASX: GGG) appears to be finally

building some momentum. The Company also expects to lodge an exploitation license

application for Kvanefjeld in the near term.

The critical issues appearing to fall GGG’s way include:

Important technical breakthroughs are being made on the metallurgy and an

optimised process flow sheet is imminent;

The JORC resource has been increased to a level (512Mlb U3O8, 9.22mt REE),

giving further support to a world class deposit capable of producing uranium and

rare earth elements (“REE’s”) for many decades to come;

The two principal products from Kvanefjeld, uranium and REE, have market

structures undergoing significant change with most analysts forecasting buoyant

pricing over the next several years;

GGG is moving to 100% ownership of the Kvanefjeld Project in the process

bringing the legal dispute with Westrip/Rimbal to an end, clearing the way for a

strategic investor to step in and help finance the project;

The Greenland government appears to be warming to the idea of uranium

mining, certainly as a by-product of REE mining and it is expected that an

exploitation license will be issued in the near term.

The ability of GGG to secure the exploitation license will hinge on the quality of the EIS

and SIA reports and their relevant conclusions.

With a contained metal content of over 9mt TREO and 500mlb U3O8 (defined over 2

deposits totalling 860mt) the project is no longer a question of size – the resource will

sustain many decades of mining - but rather the focus now shifts to how to economically

extract the REE and uranium.

The DFS, based on a finalised process flow sheet and tested in a pilot plant in 2H 2012, is

likely to put technical and project execution questions to rest. With moderated capital

costs, improving markets in uranium and REE’s, the timing appears to be right for GGG.

The technical studies and pre-development activity undertaken by GGG during 2012 will

be critical in determining the future of their flagship project and potentially set the timeline

to development. With some key milestones out of the way and critical penultimate ones

due for completion in the next 12 months, RM Research believes it is now time for

investors to get set in this exciting company.

Our short term price target is A$0.90 with a medium term target of A$1.80 to A$6.36 as

the project moves closer to the development phase and more emphasis is placed on cash

flow based methods of valuation. RM Research believes the exploration target could be

in the range of 2-10bt at similar grades which may approach, over time, the giant Olympic

Dam Deposit of BHP Billiton Limited (ASX: BHP) of 8.3bt Measured, Inferred and

Indicated Resources @ 0.88% Cu, 0.31g/t Au and 280ppm U3O8.

Capital Structure

Sector Materials

Share Price (A$) 0.46

Fully Paid Ordinary Shares (m) 416

Perf Opt (exA$1.75 exp 8/13) (m) 7.0

Perf Opt ($1.5/$1.85,$2.5 5/14) (m) 16.45

Empl Opt (ex $0.25, 3/13)(m) 0.75

Market Cap (undil) (A$m) 191.4

Share Price Year H-L (A$) 1.41-0.41

Approx Cash (A$m) 10.0

Directors & Management

Michael Hutchinson Chairman

Roderick McIllree Managing Director

Dr John Mair Exec Director

Jeremy Whybrow Exploration Director

Simon Cato Exec Director

Tony Ho Non-Exec Director

Major Shareholders

Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 16.8%

JP Morgan Noms Aust Ltd 14.9%

HSBC Cust Noms (Aust) Ltd 10.0%

GCM Nominees Pty Limited 8.4%

Roderick Claude McIllree 2.7%

Analyst

Guy T Le Page

+61 8 9488-0800

Share Price Performance

Greenland Minerals and Energy LtdResource upgrade…on track to rival worlds’ largest Uranium +/- REE deposits...momentum building

16thApril 2012

ASX Code: GGG

Speculative Buy

Medium term target A$1.80-A$6.36

Page 2 – Copyright © 2012 RM Research - www.rmresearch.com.au

16 April 2012

INVESTMENT CASE

WORLD CLASS REE + URANIUM RESOURCE KEEPS EXPANDING: Indisputably the

Kvanefjeld project is world class. Indeed it is probably more accurate to describe the project

as covering the Ilmaussaq Complex, encompassing Kvanefjeld, Zone 2, Zone 3 and

Steenstrupfjeld. Mineralisation can be traced on a regional scale for 6 kilometres between

Kvanefjeld and Zone 2 with broad spaced drilling indicating good continuity.

LEVERAGE TO URANIUM PRICE:

Our cash flow analysis suggests a

15% lift in uranium prices would

drive NPV10 calculations past A$4b.

We believe that over time GGG will

be valued more on cash flow

methods which are bound to drive

the valuation and share price

higher.

PEER ANALYSIS POINTS TO

MISPRICING: GGG appears

undervalued compared to peers

and we believe a value uplift is

imminent as the project moves

closer to development and key

milestones are met.

Recent takeover premiums for

advanced uranium plays have been

a significant higher multiples.

IMPROVING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN GREENLAND: Recent regulatory changes,

most significantly the inclusion of uranium in a prospecting license, point to a softening of

attitudes towards uranium mining in Greenland.

OPTIMAL FLOW SHEET NOT FAR OFF: GGG appear to be close to selecting their preferred

development scenario and designing the optimal flow sheet that will be the subject of pilot

testing. Recent beneficiation test work has been encouraging.

STRONG DEMAND FOR REE & URANIUM: REE’s and uranium are strategic minerals

whose importance is only set to increase, particularly in countries concerned about security of

supply. GGG can leverage off the trends occurring in emerging markets (hunger for energy)

and mature markets (need for advanced electronics).

IMPROVING ECONOMIC BENCHMARKS: RM Research anticipates improved economic

fundamentals as a result of process flow sheet optimisation where significant capital savings

should be achieved and there is scope to greatly improve REE recoveries.

CONSOLIDATED PROJECT OWNERSHIP: The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the legal

activity and dispute stemming from the Westrip/Rimbal JV is about to come to an end and

result in a consolidated project ownership - a likely catalyst for a re-rating of GGG.

Stage # of companies 43-101/JORC

EV/lb U3O8

Producer 6 $6.85

Developer 4 $5.11

Feasibility 11 $0.87

Pre-feasibility 8 $1.52

Exploration 31 $1.03

All Categories 60 $1.86

Good resource continuity

points to significant

resource upside

Kvanefjeld represents

excellent leverage to

increasing uranium

prices

Demand fundamentals

for uranium and REE

improving

RM Research believes

that the critical issue of

political risk in

Greenland is

progressively being

resolved in the

company’s favour with a

very positive medium

term outlook...

Consolidated project

ownership should see a

re-rating of Greenland

Minerals and Energy

Page 3 – Copyright © 2012 RM Research – www.rmresearch.com.au

16 April 2012

COMPANY OVERVIEW

Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd (“Greenland Minerals and Energy”, “GGG” or “the

Company”) (ASX: GGG) is an exploration and development company focusing on the

Kvanefjeld specialty metals deposit in southern Greenland. The deposit contains potentially

economic rare earth elements, uranium and zinc.

The Company's 61% interest in Kvanefjeld is held through a joint venture with Westrip

Holdings Limited, a UK domiciled private company holding 39%. While there have been

various legal issues between the joint venture partners in the past, a recent agreement has

sought to settle the litigation and allow GGG to move to 100% ownership.

Kvanefjeld is one deposit within a larger geological unit called the Ilmaussaq Complex located

not far from the southern tip of Greenland near the town of Narsaq.

While Kvanefjeld is GGG’s principal project and the site of the main JORC compliant

resource, the wider project area includes Zone 2 (also with JORC resource), Zone 3 and

Steenstrupfjeld.

The Company has been operating in Greenland since 2007, and although Greenland's "zero-

tolerance" policy to uranium has been widely known, political developments and changing

attitudes have slowly been turning the Governments policy on uranium to GGG's favour.

GREENLAND With a population of a little over 50,000, Greenland does not often feature on the newswires

but its gradual political separation from Denmark has been occurring at a steady pace. The

key factor today is that Greenland now controls its own mineral rights which are seen as an

important future funding source to substitute the current subsidies from Denmark.

Greenland is essentially an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark (the latter

handling foreign affairs and defense) holding the right to exploit its mineral and hydrocarbon

resources and diversify an economy currently dominated by the fishery industry and grants

provided by the Danish Government.

FIGURE 1: Aerial

overview of the Ilmaussaq

Complex in Southern

Greenland, centre of

Greenland Minerals and

Energy's activities

(source: Greenland

Minerals and Energy

Presentation, April 2011).

FIGURE 2: The Northern

portion of Ilmaussaq

Complex illustrating the

project area and the 4

current zones of interest

(source: Greenland

Minerals and Energy


The broader project area

encompasses over 56

square kilometres

Greenland is now

determining its own

future with regard to

mineral rights


16 April 2012

As an indication of how far the Greenland government and regulators have come in recent

times, GGG's exploration licenses were recently modified to include uranium. While not

guaranteed at this stage, this step provides the framework in which the Company can now

apply for an exploitation license to produce uranium as a by-product of a multi-commodity

operation at some stage in the future.

The Company is now preparing an EIA and SIA in parallel with its Definitive Feasibility Study

(“DFS”). These documents will be important to help the process of bringing the community

and political stakeholders further down the road to mine development.

RESOURCES AND RESERVES

Kvanefjeld Only Tonnes and Grade Contained Metal U3O8

150ppm cut-off Tonnes

Mt TREO ppm

U3O8

ppm Zn

ppm TREO

Mt U3O8

mlb Zn Mt

Indicated 437 10929 274 2212 4.77 263 0.97 Inferred 182 9763 216 2134 1.78 86 0.39

Totals 619 10585 257 2189 6.55 350 1.36

Zone 2 Only Tonnes and Grade Contained Metal U3O8


Mt TREO ppm

U3O8

ppm Zn

ppm TREO

Mt U3O8

mlb Zn Mt

Inferred 242 11022 304 2602 2.67 162 0.63

Global Resource Tonnes and Grade Contained Metal U3O8


Mt TREO ppm

U3O8

ppm Zn

ppm TREO

Mt U3O8

mlb Zn Mt

Indicated 437 10929 274 2212 4.77 263 0.97 Inferred 424 10480 266 2401 4.45 249 1.02 Totals 861 10708 270 2305 9.22 512 1.98

Note: TREO refers to Total Rare Earth Oxide and includes the rare earth elements in the lanthanide series plus yttrium.

Uranium is used as a cut-off due to the greater coverage of historical spectral assays across the deposit.

EXPLORATION OVERVIEW

Kvanefjeld

Location and Access

The Kvanefjeld project is situated about 10 kilometres from the town of Narsaq which in turn is

approximately 45 kilometres from the Narsarsuaq international airport. This area is on the

southern tip of Greenland with access to the north Atlantic shipping lanes and is well placed

between the US east coast and Europe.

Due to inclement weather during winter, GGG undertakes its drilling activities during the

northern hemisphere summer (May-August) although technically, there should be no reason

why a modern mining operation could not operate year round.

Tenure

GGG holds six granted tenements covering a large strategic area around the project area.

License 2010/02 is the critical one covering the Kvanefjeld Project and the three satellite

targets, Zone 1, 2 and 3.

Kvanefjeld is

strategically located

between US and Europe

TABLE 1: JORC

Resources at Kvanefjeld

only (source: Greenland

Minerals & Energy,

January 2012).

The Company has defined

a resource in excess of

800 million tonnes

containing over 500mlb

of uranium and 9.22mt of

rare earths.


16 April 2012

Geology & Mineralisation

Kvanefjeld is located within the Ilmaussaq Complex, comprising a suite of layered intrusives

defined by several stages of magma, from syenite to peralkaline granite, each with its own

chemistry. The mineralization at Kvanefjeld is hosted in a rock type called lujavrite with the

layered intrusive sequence having been subject to variable amounts of erosion. At Kvanefjeld

the mineralized units have been exposed as the roof of the magma chamber has been

stripped away by erosion. In other areas of the Complex, the lujavrite rock typically occurs at

depth.

Mineralisation occurs as “steenstrupine”, a rare form of sodic phosphor-silicate mineral

hosting most of the rare earths and uranium. Lesser amounts of REE’s and uranium are

hosted in vitusite, a phosphate mineral. Zinc is hosted in sphalerite.

FIGURE 3: Greenland

Minerals and Energy

tenement map (source:


Energy ASX Release,

May 2011).

FIGURE 4: Geological

map of southern

Greenland (source:


Energy Presentation,

April 2011).


16 April 2012

Previous Exploration

Discovered in 1956, Kvanefjeld has had several phases of exploration, the earliest of which

was under the direction of the Danish Atomic Energy Agency and the Danish Geological

Survey. More than 11,000 metres of drilling, two 500 metres of adits, metallurgical testing and

a PFS were completed during this period up to 1980.

Prior to GGG taking over the project in 2007, several companies worked on the deposit but

only more limited channel sampling appears to have taken place.

Recent Exploration

Since 2007 GGG have picked up the pace significantly. Major drill programs were completed

in 2007 and 2008 and another geotech/metallurgical drill program was completed in 2009.

Altogether RM Research estimates that more than 37,000 metres of drilling have been

completed by GGG since 2007.

Metallurgy

Work completed by GGG leading up to the prefeasibility in 2010 demonstrated that due to the

alkaline nature of the layered intrusive host, conventional treatment of ore using sulphuric acid

were likely to be uneconomic due to very high acid consumption levels. The complex and

unique nature of the mineralization pointed to the possibility of carbonate pressure leaching

for uranium (and a separate acid leach circuit for the REE’s) as a way to process the ore –

although recoveries achieved varied significantly depending on the ore type and were quite

low for REE’s.

Recent testwork by GGG has resulted in two important improvements:

1. Kvanefjeld REE-U ore has been beneficiated using a froth flotation method,

subsequently demonstrated at pilot scale (GGG ASX Announcement, October 2011)

achieving an upgrade ratio of approximately 6.7:1 (or about 15% or the original mass);

2. Mineral concentrate (post beneficiation) has been subject to conventional acid leach

and solvent extraction techniques and achieves leach extracts of 90-95% for uranium

and heavy REE’s under atmospheric conditions.

These significant advances open the way for GGG to develop a more conventional process

flowsheet (Figure 5) and significantly reduce the technical risk of the project. RM Research

expects these developments to lead to lower CAPEX and improved recoveries in the revised

PFS due for completion in CY 2012.

Kvanefjeld was

discovered in 1956

RM Research estimates

that over 37,000 metres

of drilling have been

undertaken by

Greenland Minerals

and Energy

Two recent major

metallurgical

breakthroughs

FIGURE 5: Conceptual

flow sheet representation

of potential new

Kvanefjeld process

(source: Greenland

Minerals and Energy

ASX Release, February

2012).


16 April 2012

Conceptually, it is envisaged that flotation will first produce a zinc concentrate, then a uranium

and REE rich mineral concentrate that is subsequently leached with conventional acid

solutions under normal atmospheric conditions. Uranium is then recovered using solvent

extraction. REE’s are precipitated after an impurity removal step. It is RM Research’s’

understanding that light REE’s will report to a tailings/stockpile and that the heavy REE and

uranium will be optimized to maximize returns. The light REE’s could potentially be processed

in the future according to demand and supportive pricing.

Infrastructure

The project area is adjacent to deep water fjords that should allow direct year round access by

ship from the north Atlantic. An international airport is located about 35 kilometres away and

elevated lakes in the district have been assessed for hydroelectric power (Figure 6).

Notwithstanding this, GGG has included substantial infrastructure costs in their interim PFS

CAPEX estimate of US$432 million, including the cost of a new port.

Zone 2, Zone 3 and Steenstrupfjeld

Recent Exploration

GGG has recently picked up the pace in exploring satellite deposits having announced during

the course of 2010-11 the discovery of Zone 2, Zone 3 and Steenstrupfjeld (Figure 7). These

satellite deposits are now the subject of further resource drilling programs with the maiden

resource of 242 Mt @ 304ppm U3O8, 1.1%TREO, 0.26% Zinc for 162mlb U3O8 and 2.67Mt

TREO, adding 46% and 39% respectively to the metal inventory.

FIGURE 6: Kvanefjeld

and surrounding

prospects showing

possible hydro-plant

location (source:


Energy Presentation,

April 2011).

FIGURE 7: Recent drill

coverage of satellite

deposits (source:


Energy Quarterly Report,

January 2012).


16 April 2012

Recent results from Zone 2 include:

Hole S018 66m @ 474ppm U3O8, 1.55% TREO, 0.34% Zn



It appears that the upper mineralized horizon at Zone 2 (Figure 8) is of a higher grade tenor with a true thickness of between 50-100 metres-something that has been confirmed by recent resource definition work (119mt @ 400ppm U3O8, 1.2%TREO).

For Zone 3, initial results have also been encouraging including the following recently reported intercepts:

Hole NO23 101m @ 435ppm U3O8, 1.56% TREO, 0.30% Zn

Hole N009 68m @ 410ppm U3O8, 1.35% TREO, 0.31% Zn

Hole N011 67m @ 401ppm U3O8, 1.49% TREO, 0.33% Zn

The mineralogy and tenor appear to be similar to Kvanefjeld and Zone 2 underlying the possibility of one continuous super-system. A maiden JORC resource for Zone 3 is imminent.

Resource Potential

Conceptually it is

believed that the

layered igneous

intrusive complex is

continuous or semi-

continuous between

Kvanefjeld and Zone

2 (Figure 9), and

possibly the other

satellite areas. If this

turns out to be the

case, then the scale

of the deposit is truly

world class, possibly

underpinning

production at the site

for many decades.

FIGURE 8: Zone 2 cross

section illustrating the

higher grade upper lens

characterised by uranium

grades >350ppm (source:


Energy Quarterly Report,

January 2012).

FIGURE 9: Schematic

geological representation

of the possible contiguous

nature of the mineralised

lujavrite rock between

Kvanefjeld and Zone 2.

(source: Greenland

Minerals and Energy



16 April 2012

Given that a 861mt resource containing 9.2mt of TREO and 512mlb of uranium has so far

been defined at Kvanefjeld, regional continuity of the lujavrite sequence suggests that the

ultimate resource (albeit significant component of which will likely be exploited by underground

operations) may approach 5bt containing more than 50mt of TREO and 3b lb uranium, or

roughly a deposit that is 10 times the size of what is defined to date.

PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY (2010) AMEC Minproc completed an interim PFS on Kvanefjeld in December 2009. The study tapped

the expertise of Coffey Mining, Hellman & Schofield (resource definition and mine plans),

ANSTO, SGS, CSIRO (metallurgy) and others. This study drew heavily on the historical PFS

completed in 1983.

Key outcomes from the PFS included:

Mine studies indicated a large open pit with low strip ratio was possible, with LOM

ore mined at 239Mt @314ppm U3O8 and ~1%TREO;

The use of carbonate pressure leaching (CPL) to extract both uranium and REE’s

and a 10.8Mtpa plant and associated infrastructure was proposed;

Mine life was estimated at over 23 years based on the JORC resource at the time

(457Mt @ 279ppm U3O8 and ~1% TREO);

CAPEX was estimated at US$2.31 billion with the CPL plant achieving recoveries of

83.8% for U3O8 and 34% for REE’s;

OPEX was estimated at US$29.61/lb U3O8and US$3.36/kg REO.

Assuming a uranium price of US$80/lb and US$13.50/kg REO, GGG estimated a pre-tax

ungeared internal rate of return of 24%, pre-tax NPV10 of US$2.2 billion and a 5-6 year

payback period.

Given recent developments in optimization of the process flowsheet (see Metallurgy), the

substantially expanded resource size, the identification of higher grade upper layers in the

intrusive complex and the recent work towards concluding the final prefeasibility study, RM

Research expects substantially improved economic metrics to be announced in 2012.

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF REVISED FEASIBILITY RM Research has conducted a high-level review of the original financial model results against

revised expectations on the new feasibility. Based on the 2010 PFS the after-tax NPV10 and

IRR of the Kvanefjeld project was estimated at approximately US$1,300m and 19%

respectively. Table 2 outlines the principal high-level assumptions that are behind this

estimate, alongside revised estimates of the new proposed process flow sheet.

2010 Pre-feasibility

(GGG Reports)

2012 Feasibility

(RM Research Est.)

Comment/ Rationale

Capex, US$m 2,310 1,500 35% lower

Opex, US$/lb U3O8 29.61 32 See note below.

Opex US$/kg REO 3.36 9.0 Escalation

Uranium Price, US$/lb 80 70 JP Morgan l/t

REO Price, US$/kg 13 80 Mt Weld proxy

Uranium Production p.a. 8.6mlb 10mlb ~15% uplift

REE Production p.a. 43.7kt REO 8kt HREO Focus now HREO

Mine Life, years 23 31 35% increase

After-tax NPV10%US$m 1,282 3,483

After-tax IRR, % 19% 35%

The above assumes a 35% CAPEX saving due to greatly simplified process plant and a mine

life increased in proportion to recent resource expansion (35%). Also assumed is a much

higher proportion of more valuable REO content to the final product and for the purposes of

this exercise RM Research has assumed a product value that approaches that of Lynas

While the interim PFS

indicated positive

economics it was based

on a complex

metallurgical circuit

with sub-optimal REE

recoveries.

The final PFS is expected

to describe a very

different development

proposal and greatly

improved economic

outcomes.

TABLE 2: High-level

comparison of economic

parameters and outcomes

for the Kvanefjeld Project

(source: Greenland

Minerals and Energy

PFS, January 2010 and

RM Research internal

modelling April 2012).


16 April 2012

Corporation Limited (ASX: LYG) Mt Weld Project, or approximately US$80/kg. Also

assumed is an approximate 15% uplift on prior annual production levels (producing ~10mlb

U3O8, 8kt HREO per annum).

Operating costs for uranium have been lifted to the low-30’s as there are very few uranium

projects internationally that operate below this level (low cost in situ leach operations in

Kazakhstan or high grade deposits in Canada being the exception).

Using this very simplistic approach, it is easy to see significant economic improvements at

Kvanefjeld off the back of;

An improved process flow sheet;

A 172% increase in after-tax NPV to US$3.5b, and

An after tax IRR lifting to the mid 30’s.

These are all compelling financial metrics for equity investors to take note of.

RARE EARTHS MARKET OUTLOOK First, what are Rare Earth Elements?

They are a unique group of chemical elements that have specific properties exploited in

electronics, optics, magnetics and catalytic functions. Sometimes referred to as the

Lanthanide Series, REE’s also include scandium (Sc) and yttrium (Y). Because of their special

properties the REE’s have a wide variety of niche uses such as:

Refining or catalysing fuels;

Special magnets or electronic componentry;

Metal alloys and ceramics;

Glass with special applications.

The REE’s are often associated with the “new economy” or renewable energy due to their

special role in advanced electronic and magnets used in those applications.

The REE’s are often characterised as either “light REE” (atomic number of 60 or less) or

“heavy REE” (atomic number of 61 or more). In general the heavy REE are more valuable on

an equivalent weight basis, however this rule of thumb needs to be used with some caution.

Each REE deposit has a unique metal association and it will be the combination of elements

that will determine the value of product.

Importantly in the context of this paper the value of the REE’s has been increasing

significantly in recent times with Dysprosium, Europium and Terbium attracting the highest

prices:

REE Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011

La 6 7 6 75 145 160 125

Ce 4 5 4 77 150 170 135

Pr 31 14 26 117 215 280 270

Nd 31 14 27 125 255 320 265

Eu 435 435 490 725 1,850 6,000 4,000

Dy 105 92 140 405 980 2,850 2,300

Tb 70 360 405 690 2,750 4,000 3,200

Y 14 15 11 95 160 180 160

Gd 6 7 44 150 320 225 225

Sm 5 3 14 72 125 130 110

Plenty of scope for

improving financial

metrics at Kvanefjeld

REE have a wide variety

of uses…

…often associated with

the “new economy”

TABLE 3: recent price

increases for key REE’s

(source: Metal prices from

DJ Carmichael REE

Sector Review, 11

October 2011).


16 April 2012

Like many commodity

markets, China features

prominantly dominating

the REE market both in

terms of supply (it is

responsible for more than

95% of world supply) and

demand (it consumes

about 60% of world

supply). Looking out to

2015, this dominant

position is expected to be

eroded, especially with respect to the light REE’s. Critically however, China is expected to

dominant supply of the heavy REE such as dysprosium for some time to come.

China has recently tightened up export quotas, forced the price of REE’s up and increased

concerns in the West about security of supply, especially for defence applications. Some

REE’s are predicted to be more critical than others. For example dysprosium, neodymium and

terbium are all expected to be restricted (and expensive) into the medium term.

Medium Term (5-15 years)

4

Neodymium

Dysprosium

(high)

3

Gallium Indium

Europium

Terbium

Lithium Ytrium

Tellurium

2

Cerium

Cobalt

Lanthium

Praseodymium

1

(Low)

Samarium

1

2

3

4

(Low)

(high)

Supply Risk

So what will underpin REE prices going forward?

Under the China quota system, it is predicted that the Rest of the World will need to contribute

supply to bridge the gap. Given the capital intensive nature of REE developments and the

high regulatory barriers in most countries hosting REE deposits, typical supply response and

development timelines are very long-10 years being not uncommon. It would not be surprising

to see a supply lag response and more volatile pricing reflecting this.

RARE EARTHS SUPPLY

GROUP 2010 2015

China ROW China ROW

Light 94% 6% 67% 33%

(La, Ce, Pr & Nd)

Mediums 97% 3% 89% 11%

(Sm, Eu & Gd)

Heavies 100% 0% 96% 4%

(Tb, Dy, Er & Y)

TABLE 4: Market

structure: China vs Rest

of the World “ROW”

(source: IMCOA from DJ

Carmichael REE Sector

Review 11 October 2011).

FIGURE 9: US

Department of Energy

Projections on relative

supply risk in relation to

clean energy programs

(source: USDOE from DJ

Carmichael REE sector

Review 11 October 2011).

Supply response times in

REE tend to be very long

Imp

ort

an

ce

to

cle

an

en

erg

y


16 April 2012

RM Research forecasts volatile but elevated REE pricing reflecting supply constraints and

steadily growing industrial demand, especially for the manufacture of sophisticated portable

computing devices, hybrid cars and the renewable energy expansion plans in Western

countries.

URANIUM MARKET OUTLOOK

The uranium industry has been undergoing resurgence since around 2002. Sometimes

referred to by industry promoters as the “Nuclear Renaissance”, interest in uranium and

nuclear power has been driven by:

(1) Increasing energy demand, especially from the major emerging economies of China

and India;

(2) Concerns about global warming in the Western developed nations, and

(3) Concerns about energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, in particular in

regard to access to Russian gas or Middle Eastern oil.

Of course this “Renaissance” was interrupted by the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan in

March 2011. Although no lives were lost due to radiation releases (and the expectation is

none ever will), the public perception of the event was very negative and this has resulted in

several countries with strong Green political parties or anti-nuclear movements to re-evaluate

their use of nuclear power.

But pronouncements of the death of nuclear power in our view are premature. Internationally,

a lot has been going on despite the Fukushima incident with 62 reactors under construction

(adding to a fleet of 433 currently operating, although Japan has yet to re-start the majority of

its reactors) and the total number of reactors either planned or proposed actually increasing

by 15% since Fukushima.

Forecast Date Reactors Under

Construction

Reactors Planned or

Proposed

Forecast New

Reactors

December 2009 53 435 488

December 2011 62 499 561

Change +17% +15% +15%

There are a number of “big ticket” items that collectively or even individually could have a

major effect on prices:

Japanese Inventory is building: Japanese reactors are forced to shut down for

maintenance every 13 months. To re-start they need prefecture (or local

government) approval which, post-Fukushima, has not been forthcoming. This

means that Japan’s reactor fleet has been progressively switching off since

Fukushima and they are now down to 2 of 51 reactors still in service.

FIGURE 10: Forecast

supply and demand graph

to 2015 (source: IMCOA

from DJ Carmichael REE

Sector Review 11 October

2011).

Internationally, a lot has

been going on regarding

reactor development

since the Fukushima

incident

TABLE 5: Forecast

reactor construction

pipeline (source: WNA).


16 April 2012

New mine supply is being constrained: Very few new uranium projects are

currently proceeding as planned pre-Fukushima. At best, several companies are on

a go-slow while others have gone on hold and/or changed their commodity of

interest. Uranium, being a highly regulated industry, will not be quick to respond and

when prices turn for the better new production options will be extremely limited.

Some major projects have been deferred indefinitely (Trekkopje/AREVA

Corporation, Yeelirrie/BHP Billiton).

Olympic Dam expansion overestimated: The contribution of uranium from the

Olympic Dam expansion is being massively over-estimated by some analysts. One

industry analyst for example has BHP Billiton reaching its full expansion capacity of

19,000t U3O8 in 2016 – even before the pre-strip is finished! BHP Billiton has made

it clear that the Stage 1 expansion is a copper-gold investment decision and any

future expansion of uranium production will be a separate investment decision.

The Russia-US “Megatons for Megawatt’s” program is coming to an end: In

November 2013 the equivalent of 24mlb of uranium will come off the market as the

HEU deal comes to an end. This is the equivalent of shutting down the world’s

largest uranium “mine” in under two years’ time. While some analysts believe the

material will still find its way onto the market, Russia has made it clear in public

comments that it considers the HEU to be strategic material and no longer for sale.

Kazak Production Expansion starting to “tail off”: Kazakhstan has completed a

remarkable uranium production expansion over the last 10 years, from producing

around 9mlb of uranium in 2002-03 to around 17mlb in 2007 then 50mlb in 2011. In

recent press and industry publications Kazataprom has indicated that production will

be moderated for 2012 with growth either flat or possibly even slightly negative.

China’s true intentions? The 2020 target of 80GWe has come and gone and come

again. China is the main driver behind the new reactor build pipeline, building 26 of

the 62 currently under construction. Conservative estimates put their 2020 target at

60GWe and even with the Fukushima “pause” this target is still intact. Recent

announcements from state organisations in China have pointed to a restoration of the

80GWe target. If true, this will be very positive for the miners.

The key to uranium pricing going forward will be the interplay of all of the above factors. Will

the Japanese re-start their reactors? If so, when will they? How much uranium production is

ODEX really going to contribute this decade? Has the market fully factored in the HEU deal

falling away and the amount of new primary mine supply to fill the gap?

RM Research believes that the industry transition from a market dominated by inventory

overhang (and active selling) to one requiring a new primary mine supply response funded by

the international capital markets (requiring an equity return) will unfold in a volatile manner.

One factor of this market often overlooked by analysts is its relative inelasticity. Uranium is

not substitutable in most nuclear reactors. The closest thing to a substitute product is

electricity which is used to concentrate U235

(measured in Separative Work Units or SWU) and

in times of high uranium prices more SWU is used to extract more U235

. But of course the

limiting factor on this is the price of electricity. The cost of uranium fuel in a typical nuclear

reactor constitutes only around 5% of their operating cost so plant operators are more

concerned with keeping their very expensive nuclear units online that they are about uranium

prices – they will pay what they need to!

So what are they likely to pay?

Today uranium trades for around US$51/lb on the spot market and US$60-US$63/lb on the

long term market. About 80% of Uranium is transacted on the long term market and is the

most critical price for the majority of producers, especially the majors. The spot market tends

to drive sentiment and is the market of financial investors, utility traders, hedge funds and

smaller producers who cannot secure contracted terms (small US operations for example).

Until one of the “big ticket” items above changes expect uranium to trade flat and remain at

current levels.

No decision on uranium

expansion has yet been

made at Olympic Dam

Kazak production is

beginning to drop…flat

to declining outlook

China remains a driving

force in the growth of

nuclear reactors

…we anticipate supply

side pressure is likely to

set the scene for price

volatility

Short term outlook for

uranium remains flat


16 April 2012

JP Morgan Forecast

Analysis by JP Morgan concludes that the average incentive price for the start of new uranium

production is US$80/lb. In this context term uranium prices were forecast as follows (US$/lb):

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

US$68 US$75 US$90 US$80 US$75 US$70 US$65 US$65 US$65

FIGURE 11: Spot and

long term uranium prices

since Fukushima (source:

Bloomberg/JP Morgan

Report 10 January 2012).

TABLE 6: Forecast term

uranium pricing (source:

JP Morgan Report 10

January 2012).


16 April 2012

PEER COMPARISON AND ESTIMATE OF VALUE

Peer Comparison

Looking at uranium benchmarks first, GGG has an Enterprise Value per pound of U3O8

(ignoring the value of REE and using the global resource base of 512mlb) of A$0.36/lb. In the

uranium space the following broad metrics apply (Table 7):

Stage # of companies 43-101/JORC

EV/lb U3O8

Producer 6 $6.85

Developer 4 $5.11

Feasibility 11 $0.87

Pre-feasibility 8 $1.52

Exploration 31 $1.03

All Categories 60 $1.86

Although this table illustrates the typical dip that companies experience as they enter the

Feasibility stage, GGG is somewhere in between this and pre-feasibility. In any event, the

metrics would suggest that GGG’s multiple is somewhat low, especially when you consider

there is no allowance for value from the REE’s in this analysis.

The other feature of this table is the significant uplift by moving into the development phase

and ultimately production. This is when billion dollar market caps may be possible. In the near

term, we would expect GGG to trade toward an EV/lb U3O8 A$1.50lb, or a A$525 million

market capitalisation, the equivalent of A$1.28/share.

TABLE 7: EV/lb U3O8

averaged by development

stage (source: Versant

Partners Report 17

February 2012).

FIGURE 12: EV/lb

multiples for producers

(Uranium Energy Corp,

Cameco, Uranium One,

Denison), developers,

(Uranerz, Alliance and Ur-

Energy) and various

companies in feasibility

studies (source: RM

Research internal

modelling).


16 April 2012

As GGG transitions from a pre-development company into one close to development and

production, it will attract a multiple approaching development multiples or strategic uranium

value of A$4/lb-A$5/lb (Figure 12). In this scenario GGG share price should trade at x10

current levels or approximately A$4.50 per Share.

Another feature of the uranium market is the recent corporate activity with uranium projects

being acquired by takeover at multiples around $4-$10/lb uranium. For the large scale low

grade deposits, this tends to be at the lower end of the range, for example:

Acquirer Target Deposit EV/lb U3O8

CGNPC/ Taurus Kalahari/Extract Husab6 A$4.30

KEPCO Strathmore Gas Hills A$3.90

In the event a strategic investor took a position in the Kvanefjeld project, we would expect

multiples approaching A$3/lb-A$4/lb, or the equivalent of A$3/share, clearly a value-additive

position on current multiples (Table 8).

Looking at EV multiples against the contained REO resources of some of the major

companies in the REE space, we can see that GGG’s Kvanefjeld is by far the largest at

9.22mt REO equivalent. GGG’s multiple of A$19/ tonne of REO is the lowest in the group with

Molycorp and Lynas Corp giving some indication of the sorts of valuation multiples

achievable on moving to production (Table 9, Figure 13).

Market Cap Cash EV REO EV/tREO

$m $m $m mt A$/tREO

GGG $190 $10 $180 9.22 $19

MolyCorp $2,750 $420 $2,330 2.10 $1,110

Lynas Corp $1,903 $215 $1,688 1.00 $1,688

Arafura Resources $123 $26 $97 1.15 $84

Avalon Rare Metals $250 $63 $187 2.30 $81

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

Molycorp Lynas Corp Avalon Rare Metals Arafura GGG

Enterprise Value/t REO

In pre-development we

would expect a share

price in excess of A$4.50

TABLE 8: EV/lb U3O8

acquisition values for

recent low grade

resources (source: RM

Research internal

modelling).

TABLE 9: EV/t REO

based on approximate

market capitalisation,

latest reported cash

position and REO

resources (source:

Company reports and with


Energy REO adjusted for

recent Zone 2 upgrade).

FIGURE 13: Enterprise

Value/t REO for selected

ASX listed REE

explorers/developers

(source: RM Research

internal modelling).


16 April 2012

Valuation

RM Research has estimated the GGG value per share in two different timeframes:

1. Short-term estimate based on expectations in the next 6-18 months;

2. Mid-term estimate based on significant developments over the next 1-3 years.

A number of benchmarks (Table 10) are used: EV/lb U3O8 uranium multiples based on

corporate transactions in the uranium space, EV/lb U3O8 multiples and EV/t REO multiple

based on current industry benchmark pricing, and a proportion of NPV approach based on

2010 economics and anticipated 2012 outcomes.

Basis Short Term Mid Term

Uranium

Endowment

Assumed

+35% in mid

term

512mlb ~700mlb

REO Endowment

Assumed

+35% in mid

term

9.22mt ~12.5mt

$EV/lb U3O8 Industry

Benchmarks

~A$1/lb

Feasibility

A$512m n/a

$EV/lb U3O8 Industry

Benchmarks

~A$5/lb

Developer

n/a A$3,500m

$EV/t REO Industry

Benchmarks

~A$80/t REO

Feasibility

A$737m n/a

$EV/t REO Industry

Benchmarks

~A$400/t REO

Developer

n/a A$5000m

$EV/lb U3O8 Corporate

Transactions

~A$3/lb n/a A$2100m

NPV $1282m 2010 PFS 25% of after tax NPV

$1282m

A$320m n/a

NPV $3483m

RM Research

Estimate

2012 PFS 25% of after tax NPV

short term

50% of after tax NPV

mid term

A$870m A$1,741m

In the short term, RM Research can see valuations in the range of A$300-A$700 million, with

a mid-point of ~A$500 million or approximately A$0.90/Share (assuming 550 million Shares

on issue following a A$60 million equity raise at 45 cents to settle Westrip). In the mid-term,

assuming GGG can leverage better value for its REE resource and move into the “developer”

benchmark level, RM Research envisages valuations in the range of A$1.0 billion-A$3.5

billion although to achieve this, shareholders are likely to experience some dilution as the

project is progressively financed. Nevertheless, RM Research can still see share price levels

around the A$1.80-A$6.36 range in the medium term.

At what risk is this mid-long term valuation? On a purely economic analysis basis (ignoring

social issues and intangibles such as Greenland political developments), we can project a

range of prospective NPV10 outcomes by flexing for capital costs and REO/uranium pricing in

the mid-term.

TABLE 10: Valuation

multiples and estimated

company values in the

short and medium term

(source: RM Research).

Our short term price

target is A$500 million

based on the 2012 PFS

estimate…

…or A$0.90 per Share

Our medium term price

target is A$1 billion to

A$3.5 billion based on

the 2012 PFS estimate…

…or A$1.80 to A$6.36 per

Share


16 April 2012

Flexing capital costs and product pricing by 25% and 15% respectively (for example uranium

prices are lifted from US$70/lb to just under US$75/lb) results in a full range of NPV10

outcomes between A$1.3b to A$3.1b (Figure 14).

While RM Research expects it will be some time before such valuations are realised, it does

illustrate the immense upside that is possible should the project secure approvals and finance.

In particular, the Company is very leveraged to the uranium price with the potential for very

significant upside should it trend to US$80/lb as expected by RM Research in the medium

term.

FIGURE 14: Projected

after tax NPV10%

estimates under various

flex scenarios (source:

RM Research internal

modelling).

A 15% lift in uranium

prices is likely to see

NPV10 calculations surge

past A$3.0 billion


16 April 2012

CORPORATE

In August 2011, GGG announced an agreement between GGG, Westrip and Rimbal on a no-

admission basis that allows the resolution of certain ownership issues between the parties and

allows court action to cease. Importantly for GGG, it allows the project to be consolidated to a

100% ownership structure by acquiring the 39% of the JV vehicle it does not already own. In

exchange GGG was to pay A$39 million in cash and issue 8.125 million shares and 5 million

options ($1.50 exercise price).

In December 2011, the settlement deadline of this agreement was extended to 15 June 2012

and certain adjustments were made to the deposit requirements.

RISK ANALYSIS

POLITICAL RISK: Positive political developments in Greenland with respect to uranium

exploitation in recent times could be reversed by political backtracking and the exploitation

license declined or deferred. Progress on GGG's EIA and SIA will be critical to the success of

managing the political process.

PROJECT ONWERSHIP: If GGG fail to fund the resolution agreement with Westrip/Rimbal

and legal uncertainties return to the project, an air of uncertainty and possible legal conflict

may prevail. The A$39 million cash settlement component in particular may be a challenge in

current equity markets and in this stage of the uranium cycle.

REE & URANIUM OUTLOOK: Opaque markets in REE and uranium could surprise on the

downside and not perform to expectations even though supply-demand fundamentals point to

elevated pricing in the mid-term. Uranium in particular could suffer a depressed period of

several years post Fukushima with the market largely turning on the ability of Japan to

overcome political hurdles and re-start their reactors. REE on the other hand suffer from a

concentration of supply from a single source (China) that may not act in a typically market

induced fashion.

METALLURGY: Process recoveries could be stubbornly low, in particular for REE's. While the

beneficiation process improvements are encouraging and improve the base from which to

work from, process flow sheet optimisation will remain a key focus of the investment market.

GEOLOGICAL RISK: Mineralisation may not be as continuous as predicted, especially

between zones 2, 3 and Kvanefjeld and may limit the ultimate size of the resource base. This

risk is a second order issue given the substantial size of the project even to date and while

RM Research expects some significant variations on grade at this project scale, broad

correlation is likely to be maintained between Kvanefjeld and Zone 2 providing significant

upside on the resource base.

MARKET RISK: Further declines in equity markets may continue to put pressure on junior

resource companies as investors switch out of “risk” into perceived safe haven investments

such as cash, gold and counter cyclical equities. Our medium term view is that the risk

premium has been eroded for many junior resource companies and we see near term upside.

Securing finance to

complete the deal with

Westrip/ Rimbal could

be a challenge in current

equity markets.

Further declines in

equity markets could see

a move out of riskier

asset classes such as

junior resource

companies


16 April 2012

DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

Michael Hutchinson, B.Sc. CHAIRMAN

Mr Michael Hutchinson has had a distinguished career in resources and commodity trading,

having served as Director of the London Metal Exchange, the world’s largest market in options

and futures contracts on base and other metals. Michael has also served as Chairman of RBS

Sempra Metals Limited, and Wogen PLC; a trader of off-exchange metals that sources

metals worldwide for industrial end users. In addition, Mr Hutchinson previously served as a

director of MG PLC.

Roderick McIllree, B.Sc., Grad Dip. (Min Econ) MAusIMM MANAGING DIRECTOR

Mr Roderick McIllree graduated from Curtin University of Technology in 1996 with a Bachelor

of Science degree (Mineral Exploration and Mining Geology) and then commenced working in

Western Australia’s goldfields for companies including Placer Dome and Wiluna Gold.

Roderick gained international experience in Chile, before returning to Australia’s gold sector.

After completing a graduate diploma in Mineral Economics, Roderick worked as an analyst

and advisor for broking houses active in Australian and international capital markets.

Roderick was the founding Managing Director of ‘The Gold Company’ (now Greenland

Minerals and Energy), and was instrumental in the Company’s push into Greenland and the

acquisition to Kvanefjeld project in 2007.

Dr John Mair, PhD EXEC DIRECTOR – BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Dr John Mair completed a Bachelor of Science with Honours, majoring in geology, at the

University of Western Australia. He commenced working in gold exploration and mining in

Western Australia’s goldfields. He completed a PhD in 2004 and returned to the minerals

industry working in exploration for porphyry Cu-Au deposits in New South Wales, and gold

deposits in China. In mid-2005, John took the position of Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at

the University of British Columbia, with a focus on the metallogeny of southwest Alaska.

At completion of the project in 2006, John returned to the minerals industry as a project co-

coordinator for Vancouver-based exploration group Geoinformatics Exploration Inc., who in

alliance with Kennecott, were exploring for Cu-Mo-Au deposits in western North America from

Mexico to Alaska. In mid-2008 John returned to Australia to join Greenland Minerals and

Energy Limited as General Manager.

Simon Cato, B.A., MSDIA EXEC DIRECTOR

Mr Simon Cato has had over 20 years capital markets experience in both broking and

regulatory roles. He has been employed by ASX in Sydney and in Perth in the company’s

department that oversees the activities of listed companies. Over the last 12 years, he has

been an executive director of two stockbroking firms. As a broker he has also been involved in

the underwriting of a number of initial public offerings.

Mr Cato is also a director of Transactions Solutions International Limited, Advanced

Share Registry Limited, Queste Communications Limited and Convergent Minerals

Limited.

Jeremy Whybrow, B.Sc, Grad Dip. (Min Econ), MAusIMM EXPLORATION DIRECTOR

Mr Jeremy Whybrow and has had over 15 years’ experience in the minerals industry both

domestically and internationally. Jeremy has worked for companies such as Sons of Gwalia

Ltd, PacMin Ltd, Teck Australia Ltd, Mount Edon Gold Mines Ltd and Croesus Mining

NL. His experience has been mainly in the operational environment and includes significant

exposure to exploration and mining operations, project evaluation and feasibility studies.

Jeremy also has extensive international exploration experience having worked in China, Africa

and the Philippines as well as numerous localities in Australia. Jeremy is also an executive

director of Convergent Minerals Ltd.

Michael previously

served as director of the

LME

Rod has been with


Energy since inception in

2007 and has been the

main driver of the

Company

John brings valuable

technical expertise to

bear on what is a unique

geological context with

challenging metallurgy.

Simon has over 20 years

capital markets

experience

Jeremy has global

mineral exploration

experience


16 April 2012

Tony Ho, B.Com., CA, FAICD, FCIS NON-EXEC DIRECTOR

Mr Tony Ho is an experienced company director having held executive director and chief

financial officer roles with a number of publicly listed companies. Mr Ho is currently a non-

executive director of Dolomatrix International Limited. He is also non-executive director and

chairman of the Audit Committee of Apollo Minerals Limited, Metal Bank Limited,

Hastings Rare Metals Limited and Mariposa Health Limited.

CONCLUSION

RM Research is attracted to GGG because it has demonstrable scale with world class

uranium and rare earth resources, a process flow sheet that is improving rapidly and ticking all

the right boxes and the jurisdiction of Greenland, which has suffered from scepticism in the

past, appears to be coming round to a pro-uranium position, albeit in the special context that

is Kvanefjeld with its REE resource.

We expect to see this resource expand significantly in the near term, technical issues to be

systematically resolved in the mid-term and GGG put in place all the right building blocks to

complete their DFS sometime early 2013. With challenging equity markets attention will turn to

how they will fund the project but by the time the question is asked RM Research suspects

GGG will introduce a strategic partner to take the company to the next stage. Speculative

Buy.

Tony has acted as

executive director and

CFO for a number of

public companies

We believe an extended

period of speculation and

doubt is nearing an end

Page 22 – Copyright © 2012 RM Research - www.rmresearch.com.au

16 April 2012

Registered Offices

Perth

Level 2, 6 Kings Park Rd

West Perth WA 6005

Phone: +61 8 9488 0800

Fax: +61 8 9488 0899

PO Box 154 West Perth WA 6872

Email / Website

[email protected]

www.rmresearch.com.au

RM Research Recommendation Categories

Care has been taken to define the level of risk to return associated with a particular company. Our recommendation ranking system is as follows:

Buy Companies with ‘Buy’ recommendations have been cash flow positive for some time and have a moderate to low risk profile. We expect these to outperform the broader market.

Speculative Buy We forecast strong earnings growth or value creation that may achieve a return well above that of the broader market. These companies also carry a higher than normal level of risk.

Hold A sound well managed company that may achieve market performance or less, perhaps due to an overvalued share price, broader sector issues, or internal challenges.

Sell Risk is high and upside low or very difficult to determine. We expect a strong underperformance relative to the market and see better opportunities elsewhere.

Disclaimer/ Disclosure This report was produced by RM Research Pty Ltd, which is a Corporate Authorised Representative of RM Capital Pty Ltd (Licence no. 221938). RM Research will receive payment of A$17,500 for the compilation and distribution of two research reports. RM Research Pty Ltd has made every effort to ensure that the information and material contained in this report is accurate and correct and has been obtained from reliable sources. However, no representation is made about the accuracy or completeness of the information and material and it should not be relied upon as a substitute for the exercise of independent judgement. Except to the extent required by law, RM Research Pty Ltd does not accept any liability, including negligence, for any loss or damage arising from the use of, or reliance on, the material contained in this report. This report is for information purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation with respect to the sale or purchase of any securities. The securities recommended by RM Research carry no guarantee with respect to return of capital or the market value of those securities. There are general risks associated with any investment in securities. Investors should be aware that these risks might result in loss of income and capital invested. Neither RM Research nor any of its associates guarantees the repayment of capital.

WARNING: This report is intended to provide general financial product advice only. It has been prepared without having regarded to or taking into account any particular

investor’s objectives, financial situation and/or needs. Accordingly, no recipients should rely on any recommendation (whether express or implied) contained in this document without obtaining specific advice from their advisers. All investors should therefore consider the appropriateness of the advice, in light of their own objectives, financial situation and/or needs, before acting on the advice. Where applicable, investors should obtain a copy of and consider the product disclosure statement for that product (if any) before making any decision.

DISCLOSURE: RM Research Pty Ltd and/or its directors, associates, employees or representatives may not effect a transaction upon its or their own account in the investments referred to in this report or any related investment until the expiry of 24 hours after the report has been published. Additionally, RM Research Pty Ltd may have, within the previous twelve months, provided advice or financial services to the companies mentioned in this report. As at the date of this report, the directors, associates, employees, representatives or Authorised Representatives of RM Research Pty Ltd and RM Capital Pty Ltd may hold shares in Greenland Minerals and Energy Limited.

Documents

Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd