Duncan vs CLD

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
1	Rare Earth Oxides	Duncan Resource	CLD Resource
2	La	24.87%	23.88%
3	Ce	39.88	47.55
4	Pr	4.75	5.16
5	Nd	17.89	18.13
6	Gd	1.99	1.09
7	Tb	0.26	0.09
8	Dy	1.27	0.25
9	Ho	0.19	0.03
10	Other	9.4	0.76

From the Diggers and Dealers 2017 presentation.

Each column adds up to 100%, so that's the profile of the targeted minerals.​

For shits and giggles, from the TMR index, I'll mention two others REEs that are in the Other section: Sm at 4.8% in Duncan and 5.2% in CLD; Y at 5.2% in Duncan and 0.8% in CLD.

The in situ grade, as given by Hatch's TMR index, is 4.8% for Duncan and 9.7% for CLD.
Using those numbers, CLD is almost exactly twice the grade, meaning you have to process twice the tonnage from Duncan to get the same amount of concentrate (ASSUMING recovery of the mineral content is equal from each deposit).
Once the concentrate is sent to the LAMP, the Duncan concentrate would yield about the same amount of Nd-Pr as the CLD concentrate (22.6% vs 23.2% of TREO) on a weight basis, but also significantly less Ce and significantly more Dy, Y and Other.

Any idea when the resource update will be made public? ​