MP Materials Corp. / DE (MP) — 10-K

Filed 2026-02-26 · Period ending 2025-12-31 · 176,656 words · SEC EDGAR
# MP Materials Corp. / DE (MP) — 10-K

**Filed:** 2026-02-26
**Period ending:** 2025-12-31
**Accession:** 0001801368-26-000008
**Source:** [SEC EDGAR](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1801368/000180136826000008/)
**Origin leaf:** a6b8bb64d8c2004f735d06f98398f87058ae90400d8cc949128f28c412fb6a90
**Words:** 176,656



---

EX-96.1
12
mpmcexhibit961123125.htm
EX-96.1
**Exhibit 96.1**
**SEC Technical Report Summary**
**2025 S-K 1300 TRS Update**
**Mountain Pass Mine**
**San Bernardino County, California**
**Effective Date: October 1, 2025**
**Report Date: February 16, 2026**
**Report Prepared for**
**MP Materials Corp.**
1700 S. Pavilion Center Dr. 
Eighth Floor 
Las Vegas, NV 89135 
**Report Prepared by**
SRK Consulting 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. 
999 Seventeenth Street, Suite 400 
Denver, CO 80202 
SRK Project Number: USPR002310 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
2 | |
**Table of Contents**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1Executive Summary | 
| 
| 
18 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.1Property Description and Ownership | 
| 
| 
18 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.2Geology and Mineralization | 
| 
| 
18 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.3Status of Exploration, Development and Operations | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.4Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.4.1Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.4.2Rare Earths Separations | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.5Mineral Resource Estimate | 
| 
| 
21 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.6Mineral Reserve Estimate | 
| 
| 
23 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.7Mining Methods | 
| 
| 
25 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.8Recovery Methods | 
| 
| 
26 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.8.1Crushing and Concentrating Operations | 
| 
| 
26 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.8.2Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility | 
| 
| 
26 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.8.3Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | 
| 
| 
27 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.9Project Infrastructure | 
| 
| 
27 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.10Market Studies and Contracts | 
| 
| 
28 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.11Environmental, Closure and Permitting | 
| 
| 
30 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.12Capital and Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
30 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.12.1Capital Costs | 
| 
| 
30 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.12.2Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.13Economic Analysis | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
1.14Conclusions and Recommendations | 
| 
| 
32 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2Introduction | 
| 
| 
34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.1Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared | 
| 
| 
34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.2Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report | 
| 
| 
34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.3Sources of Information | 
| 
| 
34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.4Details of Inspection | 
| 
| 
34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.5Report Version Update | 
| 
| 
35 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.6Units of Measure | 
| 
| 
35 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.7Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions | 
| 
| 
35 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.7.1Mineral Resources | 
| 
| 
35 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.7.2Mineral Reserves | 
| 
| 
36 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
2.8Qualified Person | 
| 
| 
36 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3Property Description and Location | 
| 
| 
38 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.1Property Location | 
| 
| 
40 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
3 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.2Mineral Title | 
| 
| 
40 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.2.1Nature and Extent of Registrants Interest | 
| 
| 
43 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.3Royalties, Agreements, and Encumbrances | 
| 
| 
43 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.4Environmental Liabilities and Permitting | 
| 
| 
43 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.4.1Remediation Liabilities | 
| 
| 
44 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.4.2Required Permits and Status | 
| 
| 
45 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
3.5Other Significant Factors and Risks | 
| 
| 
45 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
4Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and
Physiography | 
| 
| 
46 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
4.1Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation | 
| 
| 
46 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
4.2Accessibility and Transportation to the Property | 
| 
| 
46 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
4.3Climate and Length of Operating Season | 
| 
| 
46 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
4.4Infrastructure Availability and Sources | 
| 
| 
47 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
5History | 
| 
| 
48 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
5.1Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes | 
| 
| 
48 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
5.2Exploration and Development Results of Previous Owners | 
| 
| 
48 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
5.3Historical Production | 
| 
| 
50 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit | 
| 
| 
54 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.1Regional Geology | 
| 
| 
54 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.2Local and Property Geology | 
| 
| 
56 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.2.1Local Lithology | 
| 
| 
58 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.2.2Alteration | 
| 
| 
60 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.2.3Structure | 
| 
| 
61 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3Significant Mineralized Zones | 
| 
| 
62 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.1Bastnaesite Svite | 
| 
| 
62 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.2Bastnaesite Beforsite | 
| 
| 
63 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.3Bastnaesite Dolosovite | 
| 
| 
63 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.4White Svite | 
| 
| 
64 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.5Parisite Svite | 
| 
| 
64 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.6Monazitic Carbonatite | 
| 
| 
64 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.3.7Breccia | 
| 
| 
65 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.4Relevant Geological Controls | 
| 
| 
66 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
6.5Deposit Type, Character, and Distribution of Mineralization | 
| 
| 
66 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
7Exploration and Drilling | 
| 
| 
67 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
7.1Exploration | 
| 
| 
67 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
7.2Drilling | 
| 
| 
67 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security | 
| 
| 
69 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.1Sampling | 
| 
| 
69 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
4 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.1.1Historical Sampling Procedures | 
| 
| 
69 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.1.2Sampling 2009-2011 | 
| 
| 
70 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.1.3Sampling 2021 | 
| 
| 
70 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2Laboratory Analysis | 
| 
| 
70 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.1Note on Assay Terminology | 
| 
| 
71 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.2Historical Analyses | 
| 
| 
71 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.3Current Analytical Practices | 
| 
| 
71 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.42009 and 2010 Samples | 
| 
| 
72 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.52011 Samples | 
| 
| 
72 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.2.62021 Samples | 
| 
| 
73 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.3Quality Control and Quality Assurance | 
| 
| 
73 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.3.1Historical QA/QC | 
| 
| 
73 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.3.22011 Campaign QA/QC Program | 
| 
| 
75 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
8.3.32021 Campaign QA/QC Program | 
| 
| 
75 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9Data Verification | 
| 
| 
78 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1Re-Assaying Program | 
| 
| 
78 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.1Procedures | 
| 
| 
78 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.2SGS Check Assay Sample Preparation | 
| 
| 
79 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.3SGS Check Assay XRF Procedures | 
| 
| 
79 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.4Analysis of Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution | 
| 
| 
80 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.5Analysis of Heavy Rare Earth Oxide Assays | 
| 
| 
81 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.1.6Results | 
| 
| 
82 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
9.2Opinion on Data Adequacy | 
| 
| 
86 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 
| 
| 
88 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.1Background | 
| 
| 
88 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.2Flotation Studies: Recovery vs. Ore Grade | 
| 
| 
88 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.3Concentrator Recovery Estimate | 
| 
| 
92 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.4Ore Sorter Upgrading Test Program | 
| 
| 
94 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.4.1Ore Sorter Test Results | 
| 
| 
95 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.4.2Flotation Test Work on Ore Sorter Products | 
| 
| 
100 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5Separation of Individual Rare Earths | 
| 
| 
101 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5.1Metallurgical Test work | 
| 
| 
102 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5.2Representativeness of Test Samples | 
| 
| 
105 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5.3Analytical Laboratories | 
| 
| 
105 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5.4Separations Facility Recovery Estimates | 
| 
| 
106 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
10.5.5Expected Product Specifications | 
| 
| 
115 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11Mineral Resource Estimate | 
| 
| 
117 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
5 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.1Topography and Coordinate System | 
| 
| 
117 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.2Drillhole Database | 
| 
| 
117 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.3Geological Model | 
| 
| 
120 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.3.1Structural Model | 
| 
| 
121 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.3.2Mineralogical / Alteration Model | 
| 
| 
122 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.4Exploratory Data Analysis | 
| 
| 
123 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.4.1Resource Domains | 
| 
| 
123 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.4.2Outliers | 
| 
| 
125 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.4.3Compositing | 
| 
| 
129 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.5Bulk Density | 
| 
| 
129 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.6Spatial Continuity Analysis | 
| 
| 
130 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.7Block Model Limits | 
| 
| 
132 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.8Grade Estimation | 
| 
| 
132 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.8.1Blasthole Data | 
| 
| 
134 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.9Model Validation | 
| 
| 
135 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.10Production Reconciliation | 
| 
| 
137 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.11Blasthole Bias | 
| 
| 
140 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.12Uncertainty and Resource Classification | 
| 
| 
143 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.13Cut-Off Grade and Pit Optimization | 
| 
| 
144 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.14Mineral Resource Statement | 
| 
| 
146 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.15Mineral Resource Sensitivity | 
| 
| 
149 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
11.16Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods | 
| 
| 
150 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12Mineral Reserve Estimate | 
| 
| 
152 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12.1Conversion Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods | 
| 
| 
152 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12.1.1Model Grade Dilution and Mining Recovery | 
| 
| 
153 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12.1.2Cut-Off Grade Calculation | 
| 
| 
153 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12.2Reserve Estimate | 
| 
| 
155 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
12.3Relevant Factors | 
| 
| 
156 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13Mining Methods | 
| 
| 
158 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.1Parameters Relevant to Mine or Pit Designs and Plans | 
| 
| 
159 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.1.1Geotechnical | 
| 
| 
159 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.1.2Hydrogeological | 
| 
| 
163 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2Pit Optimization | 
| 
| 
175 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.1Mineral Resource Models | 
| 
| 
176 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.2Topographic Data | 
| 
| 
176 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.3Pit Optimization Constraints | 
| 
| 
176 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.4Pit Optimization Parameters | 
| 
| 
176 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
6 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.5Optimization Process | 
| 
| 
178 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.2.6Optimization Results | 
| 
| 
178 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.3Design Criteria | 
| 
| 
180 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.3.1Pit and Phase Designs | 
| 
| 
180 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.4Mine Production Schedule | 
| 
| 
184 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.4.1Mine Production | 
| 
| 
185 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.5Waste and Stockpile Design | 
| 
| 
190 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.5.1Waste Rock Storage Facility | 
| 
| 
190 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.5.2Stockpiles | 
| 
| 
192 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6Mining Fleet and Requirements | 
| 
| 
192 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.1General Requirements and Fleet Selection | 
| 
| 
192 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.2Drilling and Blasting | 
| 
| 
195 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.3Loading | 
| 
| 
195 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.4Hauling | 
| 
| 
196 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.5Auxiliary Equipment | 
| 
| 
197 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
13.6.6Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor | 
| 
| 
198 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14Processing and Recovery Methods | 
| 
| 
200 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.1Historic Production | 
| 
| 
200 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2Current Operations | 
| 
| 
200 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.1Crushing | 
| 
| 
201 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.2Grinding | 
| 
| 
201 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.3Reagent Conditioning and Flotation | 
| 
| 
201 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.4Filtered Tailings Plant | 
| 
| 
202 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.5Metallurgical Control and Accounting | 
| 
| 
202 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.2.6Concentrator Performance | 
| 
| 
202 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.3Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | 
| 
| 
203 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.4Significant Factors | 
| 
| 
208 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
14.5Individual Rare Earth Separations | 
| 
| 
208 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15Infrastructure | 
| 
| 
212 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.1Access and Local Communities | 
| 
| 
212 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2Site Facilities and Infrastructure | 
| 
| 
213 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.1On-Site Facilities | 
| 
| 
213 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.2Explosives Storage and Handling Facilities | 
| 
| 
214 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.3Service Roads | 
| 
| 
214 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.4Mine Operations and Support Facilities | 
| 
| 
214 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.5Waste and Waste Handling (Non-Tailings/Waste Rock) | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.6Waste Rock Handling | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
7 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.7Power Supply and Distribution | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.8Natural Gas | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.9Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Fuel | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.10Other Energy | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.2.11Water Supply | 
| 
| 
215 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.3Tailings Management Area | 
| 
| 
217 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.4Security | 
| 
| 
218 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.5Communications | 
| 
| 
218 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.6Logistics Requirements and Off-Site Infrastructure | 
| 
| 
219 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.6.1Rail | 
| 
| 
219 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
15.6.2Port and Logistics | 
| 
| 
219 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16Market Studies and Contracts | 
| 
| 
220 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.1Abbreviations | 
| 
| 
220 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.2Introduction | 
| 
| 
220 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.3General Market Outlook | 
| 
| 
222 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.3.1Historical Pricing | 
| 
| 
222 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.3.2Market Balance | 
| 
| 
226 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.3.3Costs | 
| 
| 
229 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4Products and Markets | 
| 
| 
230 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4.1Mineral Concentrate | 
| 
| 
230 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4.2PrNd Oxide | 
| 
| 
233 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4.3SEG+ Oxalate, Carbonate, Chloride, and Oxide (i.e., SEG+
precipitate) | 
| 
| 
236 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4.4La Carbonate | 
| 
| 
239 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.4.5Cerium Chloride | 
| 
| 
241 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5Specific Products | 
| 
| 
243 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5.1Concentrate | 
| 
| 
243 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5.2PrNd Oxide | 
| 
| 
244 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5.3SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
| 
246 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5.4La Carbonate | 
| 
| 
246 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.5.5Cerium Chloride | 
| 
| 
247 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.6Conclusions | 
| 
| 
248 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
16.7Contracts | 
| 
| 
248 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
17Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Closure | 
| 
| 
251 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
17.1Environmental Study Results | 
| 
| 
251 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
17.2Required Permits and Status | 
| 
| 
251 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
17.3Mine Closure | 
| 
| 
253 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18Capital and Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
254 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
8 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1Capital Cost Estimates | 
| 
| 
254 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1.1Mining Capital Cost | 
| 
| 
254 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1.2Separations Facility Capital Cost | 
| 
| 
256 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1.3Other Sustaining Capital | 
| 
| 
256 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1.4Closure Costs | 
| 
| 
256 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.1.5Basis for Capital Cost Estimates | 
| 
| 
256 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.2Operating Cost Estimates | 
| 
| 
257 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.2.1Mining Operating Cost | 
| 
| 
257 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.2.2Processing Operating Cost | 
| 
| 
260 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
18.2.3Selling, General, and Administrative Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
261 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19Economic Analysis | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.1General Description | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.2Basic Model Parameters | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.3External Factors | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.3.1Pricing | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.3.2Taxes and Royalties | 
| 
| 
263 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.3.3Working Capital | 
| 
| 
263 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4Technical Factors | 
| 
| 
263 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.1Mining Profile | 
| 
| 
263 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.2Processing Profile | 
| 
| 
264 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.3Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
266 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.4Mining | 
| 
| 
267 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.5Processing | 
| 
| 
267 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.6G&A Costs | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.4.7Capital Costs | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.5Results | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.5.1Sensitivity Analysis | 
| 
| 
269 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
19.5.2Physical and Cash Flow Snapshot | 
| 
| 
271 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
20Adjacent Properties | 
| 
| 
273 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
21Other Relevant Data and Information | 
| 
| 
274 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22Interpretation and Conclusions | 
| 
| 
275 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.1Mineral Resource Estimate | 
| 
| 
275 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.2Mineral Reserve Estimate | 
| 
| 
275 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.3Metallurgy and Processing | 
| 
| 
277 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.3.1Existing Crushing and Concentration Operations | 
| 
| 
277 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.3.2Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility | 
| 
| 
277 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.3.3Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | 
| 
| 
278 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
9 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.4Project Infrastructure | 
| 
| 
278 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.5Products and Markets | 
| 
| 
279 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.6Environmental, Closure, and Permitting | 
| 
| 
279 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
22.7Projected Economic Outcomes | 
| 
| 
280 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23Recommendations | 
| 
| 
281 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23.1Geology and Resources | 
| 
| 
281 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23.2Mining and Reserves | 
| 
| 
281 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23.2.1Geotechnical Recommendations: | 
| 
| 
281 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23.2.2Hydrogeology: | 
| 
| 
282 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
23.2.3Costs and Economics | 
| 
| 
282 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
24References | 
| 
| 
283 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
25Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant | 
| 
| 
285 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Signature Page | 
| 
| 
286 | 
| |
**List of Tables**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-1: Product Specifications | 
| 
| 
20 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-2: Mineral Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral
Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2025 | 
| 
| 
22 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-3: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of
September 30, 2025 - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| 
24 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-4: Summary of Long-Term Price Forecasts | 
| 
| 
29 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-5: LoM Capital Expenditures | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-6: Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 1-7: Cash Flow Summary | 
| 
| 
32 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 2-1: Site Visits | 
| 
| 
35 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 3-1: Current Financial Assurance Obligations | 
| 
| 
44 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 5-1: Production History, 1952 to 1970 | 
| 
| 
51 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 5-2: Mine Production History, 1971 to 2002 | 
| 
| 
52 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 5-3: Mountain Pass Production History, 2009 to 2015, as
Separated RE Products | 
| 
| 
52 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 5-4: Mountain Pass Production History, 2018 to 2025, as
Bastnaesite Concentrate | 
| 
| 
53 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 8-1: Oxides and TREO Detection Limits, Mountain Pass
Laboratory | 
| 
| 
72 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 8-2: Oxides and Element Detection Limits, Actlabs
Laboratory | 
| 
| 
73 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-1: Oxides Analyzed with Detection Limits | 
| 
| 
79 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-2: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009
and 2010 Analyses | 
| 
| 
80 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-3: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2011
Analyses | 
| 
| 
80 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-4: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics:
2009, 2010 and 2011 Analyses | 
| 
| 
81 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-5: Light Rare Earth Oxide Assay Statistics: 2009 and
2010 Analyses | 
| 
| 
81 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
10 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-6: Heavy Rare Earth Summary | 
| 
| 
82 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 9-7: Standards with Expected Analytical
Performance | 
| 
| 
82 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-1: Summary of Overall Results From Concentrator Monitoring:
July - August 2024 | 
| 
| 
88 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-2: Cumulative Rougher Flotation Concentrate Grade and
Recovery vs. Ore Grade | 
| 
| 
89 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-3: Adjusted TREO Recovery, 43.64% TREO Rougher Concentrate
and 60% TREO Cleaner Concentrate | 
| 
| 
93 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-4: Cumulative Ore Sorter Performance on Low Grade Ore
Samples | 
| 
| 
96 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-5: Ore Sorter Performance at 90% REO Recovery to
Product | 
| 
| 
96 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-6: Flotation Test Results on Ore Sorter Products | 
| 
| 
101 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-7: Separations Facility Ramp Up Schedule | 
| 
| 
102 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-8: Analytical Laboratories | 
| 
| 
105 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-9: Overall Recovery Concentrate to Finished
Products | 
| 
| 
106 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-10: Feed Conditions that Resulted in Optimal
Extractions at 109 g/L | 
| 
| 
107 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-11: Test Material Feed Composition by % Solid
REO | 
| 
| 
108 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-12: Outlet Stream Composition by g/L REO at 109
g/L | 
| 
| 
108 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-13: Settling Test Results Including Overflow Clarity with
Various Flocculants and Dosages | 
| 
| 
108 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-14: Assays of Feed, Cell of Complete Rare Earth
Breakthrough, and Cell of Fe/U Bleed | 
| 
| 
110 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-15: Mass Balance Calculations for Outlet Streams at Various
Fractions | 
| 
| 
110 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-16: Volumetric Flowrates of Different Streams along with
Mass Flowrates of Different Components | 
| 
| 
112 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 10-17: Impurities in Brine Before and After Treatment | 
| 
| 
115 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-1: TREO Influence Limitations | 
| 
| 
126 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-2: 2009 Specific Gravity Results -
Carbonatite | 
| 
| 
130 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-3: Block Model Specifications | 
| 
| 
132 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-4: Blasthole vs. Exploration Comparison | 
| 
| 
141 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-5: Cut-Off Grade Input Parameters | 
| 
| 
145 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-6: Mineral Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral
Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2025 | 
| 
| 
147 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-7: Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for
the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2025 | 
| 
| 
148 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-8: TREO Cut-off Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource
Pit Indicated Category | 
| 
| 
149 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-9: TREO CoG Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit
Inferred Category | 
| 
| 
149 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 11-10: Mineralized Material External to Resource
Pit | 
| 
| 
150 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 12-1: Pit Optimization Inputs | 
| 
| 
154 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 12-2: Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of
September 30, 2025, SRK Consulting | 
| 
| 
156 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-1: Recommended Slope Design Parameters | 
| 
| 
161 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-2: CNI Final Recommended Slope Design Parameters by
Design Sector | 
| 
| 
162 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-3: Summary of Measured Hydraulic Conductivity
Values | 
| 
| 
168 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-4: Summary of Pit Water Production in the First Half
of 2025 | 
| 
| 
174 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
11 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-5: Block Model Block Sizes | 
| 
| 
176 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-6: Mountain Pass Pit Optimization Result Using
Indicated Classification Only | 
| 
| 
179 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-7: Estimated Remaining Storage Capacity for Waste
Rock | 
| 
| 
191 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-8: Mining Equipment Requirements | 
| 
| 
194 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-9: Loading Statistics by Unit Type in Waste | 
| 
| 
195 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-10: Loading Productivities by Unit Type in
Waste | 
| 
| 
196 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-11: Hauling Statistics by Unit Type in Waste | 
| 
| 
196 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-12: Pit Haulage Cycle Times (minutes) | 
| 
| 
197 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 13-13: Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor
Requirements | 
| 
| 
199 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 14-1: Historic Mill Production, 1980 to 2002 | 
| 
| 
200 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 14-2: Concentrator Production Summary - 2024 | 
| 
| 
203 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 14-3: Concentrator Production Summary - 2025
(YTD-Sept) | 
| 
| 
203 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 14-4: Crushing Plants and Ore Sorter Circuit Equipment
List | 
| 
| 
207 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 14-5: Product Specifications | 
| 
| 
208 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 16-1: Abbreviations for Market Studies and
Contracts | 
| 
| 
220 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 16-2: Summary of Long-Term Price Forecasts | 
| 
| 
243 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 17-1: Current Environmental Permits and Status | 
| 
| 
252 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 18-1: Mining Equipment Capital Cost Estimate
(US$000s) | 
| 
| 
255 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 18-2: Estimated Separations Facility Sustaining Capital
Costs | 
| 
| 
256 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 18-3: Mining Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
258 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 18-4: Separations Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
261 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 18-5: Summary of MP Materials Actual Site G&A
Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
261 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-1: Basic Model Parameters | 
| 
| 
262 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-2: LoM Mining Summary | 
| 
| 
264 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-3: LoM Processing Profile | 
| 
| 
265 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-4: Mining Cost Summary | 
| 
| 
267 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-5: Processing Cost Summary | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-6: G&A Cost Summary | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-7: Economic Result | 
| 
| 
269 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 19-8: Mountain Pass Annual Physicals and Cashflow (US$
millions) | 
| 
| 
272 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Table 25-1: Reliance on Information Provided by the
Registrant | 
| 
| 
285 | 
| |
**List of Figures**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 1-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout | 
| 
| 
25 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 1-2: Project Cashflow | 
| 
| 
32 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 3-1: General Facility Arrangement (WGS84 Coordinate
System) | 
| 
| 
39 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
12 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 3-2: Location Map | 
| 
| 
40 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 3-3: Land Tenure Map | 
| 
| 
42 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 6-1: Regional Geological Map | 
| 
| 
55 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 6-2: Generalized Geologic Map Sulfide Queen
Carbonatite | 
| 
| 
57 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 6-3: Schematic Cross Section (A-A) of Sulfide
Queen Carbonatite | 
| 
| 
58 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 6-4: Simplified Stratigraphic Column for the Mountain
Pass Site | 
| 
| 
60 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 7-1: Drilling in and around the Mountain Pass Pit
Area | 
| 
| 
68 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 8-1: 2009 Through 2010 Pit Standard Assays | 
| 
| 
74 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 8-2: 2009 Through 2010 Duplicates | 
| 
| 
75 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 8-3: 2021 Field Duplicate Analyses MP Materials
Lab | 
| 
| 
76 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 8-4: External Duplicate Analyses MP vs.
ALS | 
| 
| 
77 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 9-1: Results of Standard Analysis | 
| 
| 
83 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 9-2: Results of Pulp Duplicate Analysis | 
| 
| 
85 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 9-3: Results of Field Duplicate Analysis | 
| 
| 
86 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-1: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 3.8%
TREO | 
| 
| 
89 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-2: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 5.8%
TREO | 
| 
| 
90 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-3: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 6.8%
TREO | 
| 
| 
90 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-4: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 8.6%
TREO | 
| 
| 
91 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-5: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 9.8%
TREO | 
| 
| 
91 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-6: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 10.5%
TREO | 
| 
| 
92 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-7: Overall TREO Recovery vs. Ore Feed Grade at Target 60%
TREO Concentrate Grade | 
| 
| 
93 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-8: TREO Recovery to Cleaner Flotation Concentrate vs. Feed
Grade (MP Materials 2023 Recovery Relationship) | 
| 
| 
94 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-9: Diagram of the Ore Sorting Process | 
| 
| 
95 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-10: Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and Upgrade
Ratio: OS-OB: 12-35.5 mm Sample | 
| 
| 
97 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-11: Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and
Upgrade Ratio: OS-LO: 12-35.5 mm Sample | 
| 
| 
98 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-12: Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and Upgrade
Ratio: OS-OB: 35.5-80 mm Sample | 
| 
| 
99 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-13: Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and
Upgrade Ratio: OS-LO: 35 80 mm Sample | 
| 
| 
100 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-14: REO Recovery from Ore Sorter Test Products
Superimposed on the 2024 Recovery Curve | 
| 
| 
101 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-15: Primary Processes for Stage 2 Operation | 
| 
| 
102 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-16: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 109 g/L with 93+%
PrNd | 
| 
| 
107 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-17: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 127
g/L | 
| 
| 
107 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-18: Volumes of Leach Liquor per Volume of Resin Required
Before a Regeneration Cycle | 
| 
| 
110 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-19: Mass Balance | 
| 
| 
111 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-20: Diagram of the SXH Process | 
| 
| 
111 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
13 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-21: % REO in Feed, Raffinate, and Preg Liquor | 
| 
| 
113 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-22: TREO in Overflow Liquor Over Time vs Stoichiometric
Feed Ratio and pH | 
| 
| 
114 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 10-23: Market Standard PrNd Oxide Specification and Mountain
Pass Historical Results | 
| 
| 
116 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-1: Drilling Distribution Near Mountain Pass
Mine | 
| 
| 
118 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-2: Sample Length Histogram Mineralized
CBT | 
| 
| 
119 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-3: Geological Mapping and Fault Expressions 
July 2024 | 
| 
| 
120 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-4: Plan View of 3D Geological Model | 
| 
| 
122 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-5: Histogram of TREO% within Carbonatite Rock
Type | 
| 
| 
124 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-6: Cross-Section Illustrating CBT Domains and TREO
Grades | 
| 
| 
125 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-7: Log Probability Plot for TREO HG
Core | 
| 
| 
127 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-8: Log Probability Plot for TREO 
Undifferentiated CBT | 
| 
| 
128 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-9: Example of Directional Variogram Resource
Drilling - TREO in the HG Core Carbonatite Domain (Back Transformed modeled variogram from Normal Scores) | 
| 
| 
131 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-10: Directional Variogram Blasthole Data
TREO HG Core Carbonatite Domain (Back Transformed modeled variogram from Normal Scores) | 
| 
| 
132 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-11: Domain Boundary Analysis HG Core Domain
within CBT | 
| 
| 
133 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-12: Variable Orientation Surfaces for Estimation
Orientation | 
| 
| 
134 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-13: NW-SE Cross-Section Showing Block Grades and
Composite Grades for Visual Validation | 
| 
| 
136 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-14: Swath Plot Comparison Between TREO Estimated
Grades | 
| 
| 
137 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-15: Spatial Comparison of Block Model Grade
Distribution with Blasthole Grade Distribution | 
| 
| 
138 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-16: Comparison of Resource and Grade Control
Models | 
| 
| 
139 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-17: Previous Production Areas for Reconciliation
Validation | 
| 
| 
141 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-18: Percent Difference Blasthole vs. Exploration
Estimate | 
| 
| 
142 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-19: Extents of Optimized Pit Shape Relative to
Surface Topography | 
| 
| 
146 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 11-20: Mineralized Material >= 2.15% TREO and
External to Resource Pit Shell | 
| 
| 
150 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 12-1: Side by Side Comparison Non-Diluted (Left) Block
Model and Diluted (Right) Block Model | 
| 
| 
153 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout | 
| 
| 
159 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-2: Recommended Double Bench IRA from CNI | 
| 
| 
160 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-3: Idealized Cross-Section Through Mine Area and
Adjacent Valleys | 
| 
| 
163 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-4: Simplified Surface Geology | 
| 
| 
165 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-5: Conceptual Hydrologic Cross-Section | 
| 
| 
166 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-6: Location of 2025 Core Holes with Completed Slug Tests
and VWP Installations | 
| 
| 
167 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-7: Measured Hydraulic Conductivity Values per
Depth | 
| 
| 
168 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-8: Location of Monitoring Wells, Measured Water Table
Elevation, and Direction of Groundwater Flow (as of Q2 2023) | 
| 
| 
170 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-9:Location of VWPs and Measured Water Levels in Pit
Walls by CNI in 2025 | 
| 
| 
171 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-10: Location of Industrial and Domestic Water Supply Wells
and Mine Facilities | 
| 
| 
173 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-11: Mountain Pass Pit by Pit Optimization
Result | 
| 
| 
179 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
14 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-12: Mountain Pass Mineral Reserves Pit (Red) and
Mineral Resources Shell (Magenta Line) Surface Intersection | 
| 
| 
180 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-13: Phase Design Locations | 
| 
| 
181 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-14: Cross-Section through Pit Phases (looking
north) | 
| 
| 
182 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-15: Reserve Starting Topography, September 30,
2025 | 
| 
| 
183 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-16: Final Pit Design | 
| 
| 
184 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-17: Total Mined Material from the Open Pit (Ore and
Waste) | 
| 
| 
186 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-18: Ore Mined from the Open Pit | 
| 
| 
186 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-19: Mined Ore Grade | 
| 
| 
187 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-20: Rehandled Ore from Stockpiles | 
| 
| 
187 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-21: Mill Concentrate Production | 
| 
| 
188 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-22: Mill Feed Grade | 
| 
| 
188 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-23: Number of Benches Mined | 
| 
| 
189 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-24: Long-Term Ore Stockpile End of Period
Balance | 
| 
| 
189 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 13-25: Final Pit Design and Waste Dump
Locations | 
| 
| 
192 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 14-1: MP Materials Concentrator Flowsheet | 
| 
| 
201 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 14-2: Crushing Plant 1 Flowsheet | 
| 
| 
204 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 14-3: Crushing Plant 2 Flowsheet | 
| 
| 
205 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 14-4: General Arrangement for Crushing Plant -1 and the
Integrated Crushing Plant 2 and Ore Sorting Circuit | 
| 
| 
206 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 14-5: Rare Earth Distribution in Flotation
Concentrate | 
| 
| 
209 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 15-1: Facilities General Location | 
| 
| 
213 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 15-2: Water Supply System | 
| 
| 
216 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 15-3: Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility | 
| 
| 
218 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-1: Annual PrNd Oxide Price Volatility | 
| 
| 
222 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-2: PrNd Oxide Price History | 
| 
| 
224 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-3: SEG Oxide Price History | 
| 
| 
225 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-4: La Oxide Price History | 
| 
| 
225 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-5: Ce Oxide Price History | 
| 
| 
226 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-6: Supply Gap Growth to Accelerate from Mid-2030s
without Sufficient New Production | 
| 
| 
227 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-7: Adamas Upside Demand Growth Scenario Envisages
Moderately Balanced Market Until Early 2030s Before Deficit Growth Accelerates | 
| 
| 
227 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-8: Adamas Base Case PrNd Oxide Price and Market
Balance Forecast | 
| 
| 
228 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-9: Rare Earth Market Balance Forecast | 
| 
| 
229 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-10: Mineral Concentrate Price Forecast | 
| 
| 
231 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-11: PrNd Oxide Price Forecast | 
| 
| 
234 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-12: SEG+ Precipitate Price Forecast | 
| 
| 
237 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-13: La Carbonate Price Forecast | 
| 
| 
240 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
15 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-14: Summary of U.S. Facilities Monitoring and Limiting
P-Levels | 
| 
| 
241 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 16-15: Ce Chloride Price Forecast | 
| 
| 
242 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 18-1: Mining Unit Cost Profile | 
| 
| 
259 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-1: Mining Profile | 
| 
| 
264 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-2: Concentrator Feed Profile | 
| 
| 
264 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-3: Concentrate Production | 
| 
| 
265 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-4: Separations Production Profile | 
| 
| 
266 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-5: Annual Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
266 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-6: LoM Operating Costs | 
| 
| 
267 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-7: Capital Expenditure Profile | 
| 
| 
268 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-8: Annual Cash Flow | 
| 
| 
269 | 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Figure 19-9: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis | 
| 
| 
270 | 
| |
**Appendices**
Appendix A: Claims List 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
16 | |
**List of Abbreviations**
The US System for weights and units has been used throughout this report. Tons are reported in short tons of 2,000 pounds (lb), drilling
and resource model dimensions and map scales are in feet (ft). All currency is in U.S. dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated. 
The
following abbreviations may be used in this report. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Abbreviation | 
| 
Unit or Term | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
A | 
| 
ampere | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
AA | 
| 
atomic absorption | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
A/m2 | 
| 
amperes per square meter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Adamas | 
| 
Adamas Intelligence Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
amsl | 
| 
meters above mean sea level | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ANFO | 
| 
ammonium nitrate fuel oil | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
AP | 
| 
Action Plan | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
C | 
| 
degrees Centigrade | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CCD | 
| 
counter-current decantation | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
cm | 
| 
centimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
cm2 | 
| 
square centimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
cm3 | 
| 
cubic centimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CHP | 
| 
combined heat and power plant | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CoG | 
| 
cut-off grade | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CUP | 
| 
Conditional Use Permit | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
degree (degrees) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
dmt | 
| 
dry metric tonne | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
dst | 
| 
dry short ton | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
EIR | 
| 
Environmental Impact Report | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
EMP | 
| 
Environmental Management Plan | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
FA | 
| 
fire assay | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
FoS | 
| 
Factor of Safety | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ft | 
| 
foot (feet) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ft2 | 
| 
square foot (feet) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ft3 | 
| 
cubic foot (feet) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
g | 
| 
gram | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
gal | 
| 
gallon | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
g/L | 
| 
gram per liter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
gpm | 
| 
gallons per minute | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ha | 
| 
hectares | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
hp | 
| 
horsepower | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
HREE | 
| 
heavy rare earth elements | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
HRSG | 
| 
heat recovery steam generators | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ICP | 
| 
inductively coupled plasma | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
kg | 
| 
kilograms | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
km | 
| 
kilometer | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
km2 | 
| 
square kilometer | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
L | 
| 
liter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
lb | 
| 
pound | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LOI | 
| 
Loss on Ignition | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LoM | 
| 
life-of-mine | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LREE | 
| 
light rare earth elements | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LUS | 
| 
Land Use Services | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
m | 
| 
meter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
m2 | 
| 
square meter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
m3 | 
| 
cubic meter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mgal | 
| 
million gallons | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mgal/d | 
| 
million gallons per day | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
milligrams/liter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
17 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Abbreviation | 
| 
Unit or Term | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mL | 
| 
milliliter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mlb | 
| 
million pounds | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mlb/y | 
| 
million pounds per year | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mm | 
| 
millimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mm2 | 
| 
square millimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mm3 | 
| 
cubic millimeter | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mst | 
| 
million short tons | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
MP
Materials | 
| 
MP Materials Corp. | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
MP
Mine Operations | 
| 
MPMO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
mtw | 
| 
measured true width | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
MW | 
| 
million watts | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
NTU | 
| 
nephelometric turbidity unit | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
% | 
| 
percent | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
PLS | 
| 
Pregnant Leach Solution | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
ppm | 
| 
parts per million | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
QA/QC | 
| 
Quality Assurance/Quality Control | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
RC | 
| 
rotary circulation drilling | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
REE | 
| 
rare earth element | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
REO | 
| 
rare earth oxide | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
RF | 
| 
Revenue Factor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
RO | 
| 
reverse osmosis | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
RoM | 
| 
run-of-mine | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
RQD | 
| 
Rock Quality Designation | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SEC | 
| 
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SG | 
| 
specific gravity | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SGS | 
| 
SGS North America Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SLS | 
| 
spent leach solution | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SNR | 
| 
Secure Natural Resource | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SRK | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
st | 
| 
short ton (2,000 pounds) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
st/h | 
| 
short tons per hour | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SX | 
| 
solvent extraction | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SXD | 
| 
solvent extraction didymium | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SXH | 
| 
solvent extraction heavies | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SXI | 
| 
solvent extraction impurities | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
tonne | 
| 
metric tonne (2,204.6 pounds) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TEM | 
| 
technical economic model | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TREO | 
| 
total rare earth oxide | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TSF | 
| 
tailings storage facility | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TSP | 
| 
total suspended particulates | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TVR | 
| 
thermal vapor recompression | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
m | 
| 
micron or microns | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
V | 
| 
volts | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
vs. | 
| 
versus | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
W | 
| 
watt | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
wmt | 
| 
wet metric tonne | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
wst | 
| 
wet short ton | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
XRD | 
| 
x-ray diffraction | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
y | 
| 
year | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
yd3 | 
| 
cubic yard | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
18 | |
| 
1 | 
Executive Summary | |
This report was prepared as a pre-feasibility level Technical Report Summary in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305) for MP Materials Corp. (MP Materials) by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK) on the Mountain Pass Mine (Mountain Pass). 
Sections of this report pertaining to the rare earth element (REE) separations facility at Mountain Pass were authored by SGS North
America Inc (SGS). Portions of this report pertaining to products and markets, including long term price forecast for REE products, were authored by Adamas Intelligence Inc. (Adamas). 
| 
1.1 | 
Property Description and Ownership | |
Mountain Pass is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate-15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles
southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California, at geographic coordinates 352856"N latitude and 1153154"W longitude. This area is part of the historic Clark Mining District
established in 1865. Mountain Pass is the only rare earth deposit identified within this district. The Project lies within portions of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 16 North, Range 14 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. 
Mining claims and surface rights associated with the Project include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Patented claims with surface rights owned by MP Mine Operations (MPMO) and mineral rights held by Secure Natural
Resource (SNR) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Unpatented lode and mineral claims held by SNR | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the State of California | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the U.S. | |
MPMO and SNR are wholly owned subsidiaries of MP Materials. 
The rare earth mineralization at the Project is located within land either owned or leased by MP Materials. 
| 
1.2 | 
Geology and Mineralization | |
The Mountain Pass deposit is a rare-earth-element-enriched carbonatite deposit, historically referred to as the Sulfide Queen orebody.
The carbonatite and numerous other alkaline intrusives in the vicinity are hosted in Proterozoic gneissic rocks which have been altered through alkali metasomatism (fenitized) by the intrusive carbonatite dikes. Smaller dikes and breccia bodies
surround the Sulfide Queen orebody which comprises several different types of carbonatite (sovite, beforsite, dolosolvite, and white sovite) that are interlayered within a relatively large carbonatite package. This deposit is unique in terms of size
of the concession, and globally significant in terms of its enrichment in rare-earth minerals. 
The southern part of the Sulfide
Queen orebody strikes to the south-southeast and dips at 40 to the west-southwest; the northern part of the orebody strikes to the north-northeast and dips at some 40 to the west-northwest. Several post-mineralization faults result in
slight offsets to the otherwise simple tabular/lensoid geometry. The total orebody strike length is approximately 2,750 feet (ft) and dip extent 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
19 | |
is 3,000 ft; true thickness of the more than 2.0% total rare earth oxide (TREO) grade zone ranges between 15 ft and 250 ft. 
The main rare-earth-bearing mineral, bastnaesite, is present in all carbonatite subtypes, but in relatively lower concentrations in the
breccias and the monazitic carbonatites, which typically occur outside and proximal to the main orebody. Monazite and crocidolite (blue ore found on the hanging-wall contact in the northern part of the orebody) are both considered
deleterious in the processing plant. In some areas, post-mineral fault zones provide a conduit for water which results in localized hydration and oxidation of the fresh carbonatite. This weathering dissolves the calcite and dolomite gangue minerals,
leaving behind elevated concentrations of bastnaesite with limonite, resulting in what is referred to as brown and black ore types, the most altered of which results in a loosely consolidated high grade bastnaesite sand. The altered ore types are
mined, stockpiled separately, and blended to maintain target ore grades in the mill feed blend. 
| 
1.3 | 
Status of Exploration, Development and Operations | |
The Mountain Pass mine is an active operating mine. The primary mineral of economic interest is bastnaesite. MP Materials mines ore from
the open pit, transports the ore to a primary crushing/stockpile facility and transports the crushed ore to the mill. At the mill, the crushed material is ground further with a ball mill to create a slurry for downstream processing in the flotation
plant to separate the bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is filtered and then consumed into a collocated REE separations facility. MP Materials recommissioned the
REE separations facility at Mountain Pass to produce four saleable REE products: praseodymium and neodymium (PrNd) oxide; samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG+) precipitate; lanthanum (La) carbonate; and cerium (Ce) chloride. As the REE
separations facility continues to ramp up, it is expected that all concentrate will be stockpiled and processed on-site to produce the saleable REE products. 
| 
1.4 | 
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | |
| 
1.4.1 | 
Existing Crushing and Concentrating Operations | |
MP Materials mines ore from the open pit, transports the ore to a primary crushing/stockpile facility and then transports the crushed ore
to the flotation concentrator. At the concentrator, the crushed ore is ground in a ball mill operated in closed circuit with cyclones and then advanced to the flotation circuit to separate bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of
the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is thickened and filtered and then fed to the on-site separations facility. MP Materials has undertaken extensive metallurgical studies to evaluate TREO recovery versus (vs.) ore grade and in
addition has evaluated ore sorting as a method for upgrading lower grade ore prior to milling as a method for increasing mineral reserves and improving overall metallurgical performance. 
| 
1.4.2 | 
Rare Earths Separations | |
MP Materials is currently ramping up separation facility operations to increase production of four marketable rare earth products (PrNd
oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride). The specifications for the four products are shown in Table 1-1, with further discussion on the product specification provided in
Section 14.5. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
20 | |
******Table ****1-1**:**Product
Specifications**********
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Product | 
| 
Compound | 
| 
w/w % TREO | 
| 
Purity | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
PrNd Oxide | 
| 
75% Nd2O3 + 25% Pr6O11 (+/-2%) | 
| 
99 | 
| 
99.5%+ PrNd/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
- | 
| 
25 to 45 | 
| 
99% SEG+/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Lanthanum Carbonate | 
| 
La2(CO3)3 | 
| 
99 | 
| 
99% La/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Cerium Chloride | 
| 
CeCl3 | 
| 
45 | 
| 
85% Ce/TREO | 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
w/w % is the weight concentration of the material 
The work effort to develop the design criteria for the separation facility is briefly described below and is detailed in
Section 10.5. Unit operations for the separation facility are described below. 
**Concentrate Drying and Roasting**
Concentrate drying and roasting was practiced at Mountain Pass commencing in the mid 1960s. Tonnage quantity roasting
test work to confirm optimum operating parameters was conducted at Hazen Research. Studies involving the definition of specific leaching conditions were conducted at SGS Lakefield and at Mountain Pass facilities. These studies served to elucidate
optimum operational conditions. Of major importance was the adjustment of roasting parameters such that leaching dissolved trivalent rare earths and left the majority of the cerium undissolved. 
**Leaching**
Optimization studies to specify the most appropriate leaching parameters were conducted at several external laboratories and at MP
Materials Cerium 96 leaching facility. MP Materials upgraded a small-scale onsite leaching pilot facility which provided superior temperature control so as to define the optimum leach facility operating conditions. The leaching operations
produced an undissolved cerium concentrate and solubilized trivalent rare earths plus dissolved impurities. 
**Impurity
Removal**
Soluble impurities in the leach solution include iron, aluminum, uranium, calcium, magnesium, and other minor
quantities of dissolved elements. The MP Materials solvent extraction system used for this duty has been successfully operated for a number of years. 
**SXH and SXD**
The solvent extraction heavies (SXH) circuit makes a bulk separation of heavy rare earths and the solvent extraction didymium (SXD)
circuit separates a PrNd stream. These circuits have been piloted and have been demonstrated to function as designed. 
**Brine
Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing**
MP Materials has conducted several rounds of pilot studies taking appropriate mixtures of
brine from previously operated facilities and solvent extraction (SX) pilot plant investigations to produce a representative brine. Past experience coupled with recent modeling work indicate that the system has sufficient capacity to handle
anticipated feed volumetric changes. 
**Conclusions**
As with any extensive process modification effort, all possible contingencies may not be anticipated. However, based upon the project
documentation provided, 2023 and 2024 site visits to the MP Materials installations at Mountain Pass, and conversations during 2025 with MP Materials engineers who are directly involved with the ongoing ramp up operations, it is the opinion of SGS
North America 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
21 | |
Inc. (SGS) that the Mountain Pass modification and modernization project has been performed in a professional manner. 
| 
1.5 | 
Mineral Resource Estimate | |
Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305). Mineral
Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Resource modeling and reporting was completed
by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. 
The mineral resource estimate has been constrained within the 2024 geological model considering
relevant rock types, structure, and mineralization envelopes as defined by TREO content within relevant geological features. This geological model is informed principally by diamond core drilling, multiple phases of geological mapping, and blasthole
drilling. Three-dimensional (3D) and sectional interpretation is based on the combination of these data and utilized in the Mountain Pass geological model which forms the basis for the mineral resource domaining. 
The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with the S-K 1300 regulations and definitions. SRK
has addressed uncertainty and risk at Mountain Pass through the application of classification categories. The classification parameters are defined by a combination of geological understanding, quality of drilling and analytical data, the average
distance to composited drilling data, the number of drillholes used to inform block grades, and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). Bulk density is based on average density measurements collected from the
various rock types, and carbonatite density in particular is supported by extensive mining and processing reconciliation data. The in situ mineral resources at Mountain Pass are classified into Indicated and Inferred mineral resources. 
The mineral resources at Mountain Pass demonstrate reasonable prospects for economic extraction through the application of a cut-off
grade (CoG) and volumetric constraint within the economic pit shell. SRK has calculated a resources CoG of 2.15% TREO based on engineering and economic assumptions as outlined in this report. For mineral resources, a revenue factor of 1.0 is
selected which corresponds to a break-even economic pit shell. SRK notes that the pit selected for mineral resources has been influenced by setbacks relative to critical infrastructure such as the tailing storage and the rare earth oxide (REO)
concentrator. 
The September 30, 2025, mineral resource statement is shown in
Table 1-2. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
22 | |
******Table ****1-2**: **Mineral
Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2025******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
Resource Type | 
| 
| 
Cut-Off
TREO% | 
| 
| 
| 
Mass(Mst) | 
| 
| 
| 
Average Value (%) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TREO(1) | 
| 
| 
| 
La2O3(2) | 
| 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Indicated | 
| 
Within the Reserve Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.33 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.76 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.16 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.10 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.28 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Within the Resource Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.82 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.29 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.97 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.48 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Indicated | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.29 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.50 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.14 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.75 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.42 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Inferred | 
| 
Within the Reserve Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.80 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.44 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.77 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.71 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.23 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.66 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Within the Resource Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.28 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.48 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Inferred | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
14.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.65 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.52 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.32 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.56 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK 2025 
Mst: million short tons 
dst: dry short tons 
(1): TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a 99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses. 
(2): Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average
ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is
calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated
grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the
additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement. 
General Notes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves at a CoG of 2.15% TREO. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that
all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent
errors are insignificant. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2025, pit
topography. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Overall pit slope angles of 42 to 45 including ramps, were used in pit optimization. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following prices: PrNd Oxide US$154.66/kg, SEG+ Precipitate US$59.00/kg, La Carbonate
US$1.68/kg and Ce Chloride US$7.61/kg. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The
average REO distribution in the concentrate is PrNd (15.7%), SEG+ (1.8%), Lanthanum (32.3%) and Cerium (50.2%). Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are: PrNd Oxide
(89.7%), SEG+ Precipitate (97.9%), La Carbonate (74.9%) and Ce Chloride (8.9%). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following costs: mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.50/dst mined plus US$0.05/dst mined
for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, ore rehandling (US$2.96/dst of ex-pit ore mined); crushing (US$4.68/dst of ore crushed); ore sorting (US$1.57/dst ore fed to ore sorters), concentrating (US$51.28/dst of ore fed to concentrator),
general and administrative (US$24.52/dst of ore fed to the concentrator), separations (includes a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate processed on site), finished product shipping ( US$176.46/dst shipped) and
sustaining capital (US$32.38/dst of ore fed to the concentrator). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium,
praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historical data limitations
(see Section 9.1.5 for details). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
23 | |
| 
1.6 | 
Mineral Reserve Estimate | |
SRK developed a life-of-mine (LoM) plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. MP Materials is ramping up the
on-site separations facility at Mountain Pass that allows the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride). Forecast economic parameters are
based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue from individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study
commissioned by MP Materials, as discussed in Section 16 of this report. 
From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed
based on prices that were established by the preliminary market study. The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the approximately 28
year LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for approximately 22 years (Q4 2025 through Q3 2047). Processing of stockpile material will occur for approximately 6 more years (Q4 2047
through Q1 2053). 
The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and
administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. 
Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a
mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade. The calculated CoG for the reserves is 2.50% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit
optimization. 
The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (RF) 0.40
pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp angles (IRA) used for the mine design are based on operational-level geotechnical studies and range from 44 to
47. 
Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to probable
reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors, as described herein, to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM reserves pit are treated as waste. 
The mine design process results in in situ open pit probable mineral reserves of 28.16 million short tons (Mst) with an average
grade of 5.96% TREO. Additionally, there are 1.05 Mst of proven mineral reserves in stockpiles with an average grade of 4.16% TREO. Table 1-3 presents the mineral reserve statement, as of
September 30, 2025, for Mountain Pass (MP Materials mining engineers provided a September 30, 2025 topography as a reserve starting point). The reference point for the mineral reserves is ore delivered to the integrated crushing and
ore sorting facility. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
24 | |
******Table ****1-3****:**
**Mineral Reserves at Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2025 - SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Category | 
| 
Description | 
| 
RoM Mst
(dry) | 
| 
TREO% | 
| 
MY% | 
| 
Concentrate Mst
(dry) | 
| |
| 
Proven | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16 | 
| 
4.30 | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
Proven Totals | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16 | 
| 
4.30 | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
| 
Probable | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96 | 
| 
6.86 | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| |
| 
| 
Probable Totals | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96 | 
| 
6.86 | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| |
| 
Proven
+ Probable | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16 | 
| 
4.30 | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96 | 
| 
6.86 | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| |
| 
| 
Proven + Probable Totals | 
| 
29.21 | 
| 
5.90 | 
| 
6.77 | 
| 
| 
1.98 | 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
RoM: run-of mine 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves stated as contained within an economically minable open pit design stated above a 2.50% TREO CoG. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral reserves tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may
not add due to rounding. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MY% calculation is based on 60% concentrate grade of the product and the ore grade dependent metallurgical recovery. MY%
= (TREO% * Met recovery)/60% concentrate TREO grade. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Indicated mineral resources have been converted to Probable reserves. Measured mineral resources have been converted to
Proven reserves. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves are diluted at the contact of the 2% TREO geological model triangulation (further to dilution inherent to the
resource model and assume selective mining unit of 15 ft x 15 ft x 30 ft).Mineral reserves tonnage and grade are reported as diluted. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Overall pit slope angles of 42 to 45 including ramps, were used in pit optimization. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following prices: PrNd Oxide US$134.49/kg, SEG+ Precipitate US$51.30/kg, La Carbonate
US$1.46/kg and Ce Chloride US$6.62/kg. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The
average REO distribution in the concentrate is PrNd (15.7%), SEG+ (1.8%), Lanthanum (32.3%) and Cerium (50.2%). Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are: PrNd Oxide
(89.7%), SEG+ Precipitate (97.9%), La Carbonate (74.9%) and Ce Chloride (8.9%). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following costs: mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.50/dst mined plus US$0.05/dst mined
for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, ore rehandling (US$2.96/dst of ex-pit ore mined); crushing (US$4.68/dst of ore crushed); ore sorting (US$1.57/dst ore fed to ore sorters), concentrating (US$51.28/dst of ore fed to concentrator),
general and administrative (US$24.52/dst of ore fed to the concentrator), separations (includes a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate processed on site), finished product shipping ( US$176.46/dst shipped) and
sustaining capital (US$32.38/dst of ore fed to the concentrator). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The topography used was from September 30, 2025. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves contain material inside and outside permitted mining but within mineral lease. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves assume 100% mining recovery. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The strip ratio was 5.8 to 1 (waste to ore ratio). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The mineral reserves were estimated by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. | |
In the opinion of SRK as the QP, the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves has been completed in accordance with CFR 17,
Part 229 (S-K 1300). 
The reserve estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and
revenue assumptions utilized in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will ramp up its on-site separations facilities to full capacity by Q1 2027. It is further assumed that MP Materials will install an integrated crushing and ore sorting
facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. 
Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted
boundaries for the open pit. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be successful in
modifying this permit condition. In SRKs opinion, MP Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
A portion of
the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holders concession. This portion of the pit would only include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
25 | |
extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with
this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP
Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement. 
| 
1.7 | 
Mining Methods | |
Mountain Pass is currently being mined using conventional open-pit methods. The open pit is in gently undulating topography intersecting
natural drainages that require diversion to withstand some rainfall events during the summer and winter months. Waste dumps are managed according to the Action Plan (AP), are located on high ground, and are designed for control of drainage (contact
water) if required. 
The open pit that forms the basis of the mineral reserves and the LoM production schedule is approximately 3,100
ft from east to west and 3,700 ft from north to south with a maximum depth of 1,300 ft. Total LoM pit mining is estimated at 192.5 Mst comprised of 28.2 Mst of ore and 164.4 Mst of waste, resulting in a strip ratio of 5.8 (waste to
ore). Additional mill feed is sourced from existing stockpiles (1.0 Mst). LoM mill feed grade averages 7.07% TREO yielding over 1.98 million dry short tons of recoverable 60% TREO concentrate. 
SRK designed seven pit pushbacks that adhere to proper minimum mining widths. Bench sinking rates average approximately four benches per
year per pushback, with a maximum sinking rate of eight benches in one phase in one year of the mine plan. 
Figure 1-1 illustrates the site layout and final pit design. 
Source SRK, 2025 
******Figure** **1-1****:****Final Pit Design and Site Layout******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
26 | |
Mine activities include drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, and mining support
activities. Drill and blast operations are performed by a contractor, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. All other mine operations are performed by MP Materials. The primary loading equipment is front-end loaders (17 cubic yards (yd3)), which were selected for operational flexibility. Rigid frame haul trucks with 102 wet short tons (wst) capacity were selected to match with the loading units. 
Material within the pit will be blasted on 30 ft high benches. Material classified as reserves will be sent to the run-of-mine (RoM)
stockpiles for near-term blending to an integrated crushing and ore sorting facility or, alternatively, to long-term stockpiles for processing later in the mine life. Waste dumps will be used for material below the CoG. 
The mine operations schedule includes one 12 hour day shift, seven days per week for 365 days per year. 
| 
1.8 | 
Recovery Methods | |
| 
1.8.1 | 
Crushing and Concentrating Operations | |
MP Materials operates a 2,000 metric tonnes per day flotation concentrator that produces concentrates that are further processed to
produce separated rare earth oxides. The concentrator flowsheet includes crushing, grinding, rougher/scavenger flotation, cleaner flotation, concentrate thickening and filtration and tailings thickening and filtration followed by dry stack tailings
disposal. Significant improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since inception of operations, which are attributed primarily to new reagent and ore blending schemes as well as the introduction of steam to heat the flotation slurry.
During 2024, the concentrator processed 763,356 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.55% TREO and recovered 70.1% of the
contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 61.0% TREO. During this period 45,455 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total 13,700 metric tonnes were roasted and advanced to the separations plant. The remainder of the TREO was
sold to customers as unroasted concentrate: Product Code 4000 (30,116 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (1,639 metric tonnes TREO). 
During 2025 (YTD - September), the concentrator processed 611,704 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.45% TREO and recovered
76.0% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 62.5% TREO. During this period 38,609 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total, 18,158 metric tonnes TREO was roasted and advanced to the separations plant. The
remainder of the REO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrates: Product Code 4000 (20,308 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (143 metric tonnes TREO). 
| 
1.8.2 | 
Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility | |
MP Materials is in the process of ramping up its modified and recommissioned on-site separations facility to produce individual rare
earth products. The incentive for this substantial process change is the enhancement of revenue that will be realized for producing individual rare earth products as compared to the previous practice of producing a single rare earth containing
flotation concentrate which was sold to various entities that separate and market individual rare earth products. Over the 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
27 | |
past several years, MP Materials has made substantial technical and financial commitments to modify and recommission an on-site separation facility that allows for the sale of individual rare
earth products. 
A Qualified Person site visit to the MP Materials operation at Mountain Pass was undertaken in December 2024 by SGS.
This visit involved a brief reintroduction to the mining operation and the flotation plant along with a more detailed discussion and inspection of ongoing separations facility ramp up efforts. Conversations were held with MP Materials engineers who
are directly involved with the ongoing ramp up operations. Information provided revealed that the concentrate roasting section of the facility, particularly the product cooler following the roaster, has had commissioning, operational continuity, and
throughput challenges. MP Materials engineering personnel have been addressing these challenges. As a result of these efforts, a revised ramp up schedule has been developed by MP Materials personnel and is in the process of being implemented. This
new schedule stipulates that the full separations facility output will be achieved by approximately Q1 2027 and, in the opinion of the SGS Qualified Person, is likely to be achieved. When the full design output is achieved, nearly all of the
bastnsite concentrate produced will be consumed. If the bastnsite concentrate production exceeds the separations facility limit for REO throughput in any given period, the excess concentrate will be stockpiled for processing during
periods when there is unused capacity at the separations facility. 
| 
1.8.3 | 
Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | |
MP Materials is planning to install an ore sorting circuit to upgrade low grade ore containing 2.5% to 5.0% TREO. As part of the new ore
sorter installation, MP Materials will decommission the existing crushing plant and construct two new crushing facilities. MP Materials expects the integrated crushing and ore sorting facility to begin ramping up operations during Q1 2027. 
In the future, MP Materials plans to evaluate whether even lower grade material (<2.5% TREO) is potentially amenable to ore sorting.
| 
1.9 | 
Project Infrastructure | |
The Project is in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of
the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California. 
The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located
50 miles to the east on I-15. The Project lies immediately north of I-15 at Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is approximately 15 miles southwest of the
California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by surrounding natural topographic features. 
Outside
services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as
Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry). 
Access to the site,
as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. There is no public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
28 | |
MP Materials has fully developed operating infrastructure for the Project in support of
mining, concentrating and separations activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project. 
Substantially all the power to the Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation
(cogen) power facility with two natural gas-fired turbines capable of producing up to 26 MW of power combined. In addition, the site is served by a 12 kV line from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. 
Water is supplied through active water wells located eight miles west of the project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water
tanks and pumps. 
The site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, separations facility,
access and haul roads, explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area, administrative and office buildings, surface
water control systems, evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system. 
The LoM plan includes the planned relocation of key infrastructure to support ongoing operations. The existing crusher will be replaced
with an integrated crushing and ore sorting facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. The construction of this new facility will allow the existing crusher to be removed, thereby accommodating the northern expansion of the pit. Additionally,
in 2033, the filtered tailings plant and water tankscurrently situated northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration plantwill be relocated. Capital cost provisions for these relocations are included in the technical economic
model (TEM) discussed in Section 19 of this report. 
The project has utilized approximately 5.3 Mst of the total capacity of the
tailings storage facility. The existing facility has a remaining capacity of approximately 16.3 Mst which will provide approximately 18 more years of storage. MP Materials will expand the existing tailings facility to the northwest in
approximately 2043 to provide additional storage capacity. A capital cost provision has been included in the TEM for this expansion. 
Site logistics are straightforward with the concentrate product historically shipped in supersacks within a shipping container by truck
approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers were loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers. Since mid-2025, concentrate has been stockpiled and processed at the on-site rare earth separations
facility. Refined products are shipped in supersacks and intermediate bulk containers (IBC tote). Rail transshipment infrastructure is available in Henderson, NV and Barstow, CA less than two hours drive from the site. 
| 
1.10 | 
Market Studies and Contracts | |
Section 16 of this report provides an overview of key trends within the rare earths market. Analysis outlined in this report reveals
a high degree of variability in the demand profiles of individual rare earth elements and their associated end-uses. 
Consequently, a
strong demand outlook for PrNd oxide the main rare earth input for NdFeB permanent magnets - drives a comparatively weak supply outlook for Ce and La products, which are sacrificially overproduced as a function of keeping up with magnet
demand. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
29 | |
While centered in China, the rare earths market is increasingly global with suppliers
and potential suppliers emerging around the world. This report highlights the favorable demand conditions that non-China producers may face as they enter the market but also highlights the unfavorable supply side conditions end users can expect
without sustained investment into new production. 
Products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, Ce
chloride, and rare earth mineral concentrate) are desirable from a market perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. 
As shown in Table 1-4, and based on outlined product specifications, Adamas forecasts a
long-term price of US$134.49/kg REO for PrNd oxide, US$51.30/kg REO for SEG+ precipitate, US$1.46/kg REO for Lanthanum carbonate, and US$6.62/kg REO for Cerium chloride. The mixed rare earth concentrate price of US$11.51/kg of contained REO will be
principally driven by trends in PrNd and dysprosium (Dy), price swings of which will be mirrored by concentrates. 
******Table** **1-4****:** **Summary of Long-Term Price Forecasts******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Product | 
| 
Long-Term Price Forecast, 
Real 2025 US$/KG | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Rare Earth Mineral Concentrate | 
| 
11.51 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
PrNd Oxide | 
| 
134.49 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
51.30 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
La Carbonate | 
| 
1.46 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Ce Chloride | 
| 
6.62 | 
| 
| |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
Many of the near-term risks facing players in the rare earths market are political, with past disputes responsible for exacerbating
volatility of REE prices. Specific risks to products are highlighted where perceived, though the indicated specifications and communicated sales terms enforce the conclusion that products are both desirable and marketable. 
With MP Materials continuing to ramp production of refined PrNd oxide as of late 2025, the eventual mixture of spot and contract sales is
presently unknown, although the majority of contracts (or contracts under consideration) as of the report date contain a rolling price adjustment based on prevailing market prices. Both contract and spot sales are likely for PrNd oxide. 
As per the July 2025 Price Protection Agreement announced between MP Materials and the U.S. Department of War (DoW), MP
Materials receives a difference-in-condition payment for produced or stockpiled PrNd material for a minimum effective price of US$110/kg of contained PrNd. To the extent prices are above US$110/kg, following the date when MP Materials 10X
Magnet facility its second magnetics factory reaches full capacity, MP Materials will share 30% of the upside above US$110/kg with the DoW. The Price Protection Agreement is effective from October 1, 2025 through
December 31, 2035. 
MP Materials maintains various operational contracts with external parties to support current and future
operations. The operational contracts include procurement, labor and site services agreements (maintenance, equipment rental, security, etc.), and various business support services. MP Materials also fulfils and maintains contracts, services and
other requirements for recommissioning, functioning and operating its separation facility. The existence and maintenance of these contractual arrangements is in line with Adamas understanding of normal commercial practice for a company such
as MP Materials. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
30 | |
| 
1.11 | 
Environmental, Closure and Permitting | |
As of September 30, 2025, MP Materials holds the necessary operating permits, including conditional use and minor use permits from
the County of San Bernardino (SBC), which currently allows continued operations of the Mountain Pass facility through 2042. The proposed mine plan extends the mine life to 2053. The future mine plan requires expansion of the current permitted
boundary of the open pit, expansion of the North Overburden Stockpile and construction of a new East Overburden Stockpile. 
MP
Materials will need to engage with the SBC Land Use Services (SBCLUS) and other regulatory authorities and allow sufficient time to prepare the permit applications and gain the necessary approvals to implement the mine plan described herein. There
is a risk that the timing for regulatory approvals may be longer than anticipated. In this case, MP Materials may not be able to implement or follow the mine plan as currently proposed. SRK is of the opinion that MP Materials will continue to
successfully engage regulatory authorities and gain approval for future amendments related to site operations within the private property boundary. 
MP Materials maintains financial assurance cost estimates for closure, Post-Closure Management (PCM), and Amended Known Reasonable Future
Reclamation (AKRFR) for current and planned operations at the Mountain Pass property. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (LRWQCB) administers groundwater and surface water related financial assurance obligations. San Bernardino County
administers financial assurance requirements for surface reclamation of the property. The California Department of Health, Radiological Health Branch administers financial assurance requirements for decontamination and decommissioning activities. MP
Materials maintains miscellaneous financial assurance instruments for other closure-related obligations. As of September 2025, the total financial assurance obligation is approximately US$46.3 million. 
| 
1.12 | 
Capital and Operating Costs | |
Capital and operating costs are incurred and reported in 2025 US dollars and are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of
approximately +/-25%. 
| 
1.12.1 | 
Capital Costs | |
The mine is currently operating and, as such, there is no initial capital expenditure required. All capital expenditure as contemplated
by this report is expected to be sustaining capital. Sustaining capital expenditures include the sustaining capital cost associated with the mining fleet. Also included are sustaining capital cost provisions for the separations facility, integrated
crushing and ore sorting facility, planned filtered tailings plant replacement, crusher and water tank relocations, tailings storage facility expansion, and the other category, which captures all other sustaining capital costs. 
Capital costs for the separations facility have been reviewed and approved by SGS. All other capital costs have been reviewed and
approved by SRK. 
Table 1-5 summarizes the LoM capital costs for Mountain Pass. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
31 | |
******Table ****1-5****:****LoM Capital Expenditures******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
Years
Incurred | 
| 
| 
LoM Total
(US$ million) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mining Equipment Replacements and Rebuilds | 
| 
| 
2026-2049 | 
| 
| 
| 
60.4 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Integrated Crushing and Ore Sorting
Facility | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.9 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Infrastructure Relocations | 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
| 
79.3 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TSF Expansion | 
| 
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.9 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Closure | 
| 
| 
2054 | 
| 
| 
| 
46.3 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Separations Facility Sustaining | 
| 
| 
2025-2052 | 
| 
| 
| 
397.5 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Other Sustaining | 
| 
| 
2025-2052 | 
| 
| 
| 
145.3 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$771.5 | 
| |
Source: SRK, SGS and MP Materials 2025 
| 
1.12.2 | 
Operating Costs | |
For economic modeling, the operating costs are allocated among three main areas: mining, processing and site general and administrative
(G&A). SRK developed a first principles operating cost forecast for mining. SGS and MP Materials developed a first principles operating cost forecast for the separations facility. Otherwise, costs are forecast based on current operating results,
with appropriate adjustments for anticipated future changes in the configuration of the operation. 
The estimated operating costs are
presented in Table 1-6. 
******Table ****1-6****:** **Operating Costs******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
LoM Total
(US$ million) | 
| 
| 
Average Unit Cost
(US$/st fed to concentrator) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mining | 
| 
| 
631.40 | 
| 
| 
| 
26.50 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Processing (including ore sorting and separations) | 
| 
| 
4,294.72 | 
| 
| 
| 
180.26 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Site G&A | 
| 
| 
564.23 | 
| 
| 
| 
23.68 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
$5,490.36 | 
| 
| 
| 
$230.44 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, SGS and MP Materials 2025 
| 
1.13 | 
Economic Analysis | |
SRK generated an economic model for the life of the reserve stated in this report. The economic model utilized the capital and operating
costs described in Section 18. Product sales price assumptions are described in Section 16 and are based on a preliminary market study. Based on this economic analysis, the reserve stated herein generates positive free cash flow and meets
the economic test for the declaration of a reserve under SEC regulations. 
Economic analysis, including estimation of capital and
operating costs is inherently a forward-looking exercise. These estimates rely upon a range of assumptions and forecasts that are subject to change depending upon macroeconomic conditions, operating strategy and new data collected through future
operations and therefore actual economic outcomes may deviate significantly from forecasts. 
The Mountain Pass operation consists of
an open pit mine and processing facilities fed by the open pit mine. SRK modeled a 30 year period, which includes 22 years of pit mining (Q4 2025 through Q3 2047) followed by processing of stockpile material which will occur for approximately 6 more
years (Q4 2047 through Q1 2053) and closure in 2054. 
The economic analysis metrics are prepared on an annual after-tax basis in US$.
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1-7. The results indicate that, at prices outlined in the market study 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
32 | |
section of this report, the operation returns an after-tax net present value (NPV) at 6% of US$5.8 billion. Note that because the mine is in operation and is valued on a total project basis
with prior costs treated as sunk, internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period analysis are not relevant metrics. 
******Table** **1-7****:****Cash Flow Summary******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LoM Cash Flow (Unfinanced) | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Revenue | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
21,715 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Operating Cost | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
(5,490) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Operating Margin (excluding depreciation) | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
16,224 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Operating Margin Ratio | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
75% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Taxes Paid | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
(4,185) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Before Tax | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Free Cash Flow | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
15,453 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
NPV at 6% | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
7,783 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
After Tax | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Free Cash Flow | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
11,268 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
NPV at 6% | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
5,775 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
A summary of the cashflow on an annual basis is presented in Figure 1-2. 
Project Cashflow (unfinanced) 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure** **1-2****:****Project Cashflow** 
| 
1.14 | 
Conclusions and Recommendations | |
Based on the data available and the analysis described in this report, in SRKs opinion, the Mountain Pass operation has a valid
mineral resource and mineral reserve, as stated herein. The resource estimation has been validated using conventional means and reconciled against production records. 
The resources and reserves are subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized
in this study. Pre-concentration of lower grade ores (2.5% to 5.0% TREO) is expected to commence in Q1 2027. The separations facility is continuing to ramp up and is expected to reach full design capacity by approximately Q1 2027. 
Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these
boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRKs opinion, MP
Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
33 | |
A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holders
concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste
stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume that MP Materials will be able to negotiate a
similar agreement. 
Additional opportunity exists for the potential to convert current inferred resources both within the LoM pit and
on the fringes of the pit. The conversion of inferred resources to either measured or indicated resources, if successful, would increase the mine life and reduce waste stripping. Therefore, SRK recommends that MP Materials target infill drilling for
the purpose of this conversion. 
Other, more minor recommendations are detailed in Section 23. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
34 | |
| 
2 | 
Introduction | |
| 
2.1 | 
Registrant for Whom the Technical Report Summary was Prepared | |
This report was prepared as a pre-feasibility level Technical Report Summary in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305) for MP Materials Corp. (MP Materials) by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (SRK) on the Mountain Pass Mine (Mountain Pass). 
| 
2.2 | 
Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report | |
The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are consistent with the level of effort involved in SRKs
services, based on: i) information available at the time of preparation and ii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This Technical Report Summary (TRS) is based on pre-feasibility level engineering and cost
estimation. 
This report is intended for use by MP Materials subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with SRK and
relevant securities legislation. The contract permits MP Materials to file this report as a Technical Report Summary with U.S. securities regulatory authorities pursuant to the SEC S-K regulations, more specifically Title 17, Subpart 229.600,
Item601(b)(96) - Technical Report Summary and Title 17, Subpart 229.1300 - Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations. Except for the purposes legislated under U.S. securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party
are at that partys sole risk. The responsibility for this disclosure remains with MP Materials. 
The purpose of this Technical
Report Summary is to report mineral resources and mineral reserves. 
| 
2.3 | 
Sources of Information | |
This report is based in part on internal Company technical reports, previous engineering studies, maps, published government reports,
Company letters and memoranda, and public information as cited throughout this report and listed in Section 24 of this report. 
Reliance upon information provided by the registrant is listed in Section 25 when applicable. 
| 
2.4 | 
Details of Inspection | |
Table 2-1 summarizes the details of the personal inspections on the property by each
qualified person or, if applicable, the reason why a personal inspection has not been completed. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
35 | |
******Table ****2-1****:****Site Visits******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Expertise | 
| 
Company | 
| 
Date(s) of Visit | 
| 
Details of Inspection | |
| 
Infrastructure | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
April 7, 2025 | 
| 
Infrastructure, tailings area, general site inspection | |
| 
Slope Stability/ Engineering Geology | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
September 25, 2019 | 
| 
Open pit slopes and stockpiles | |
| 
Mining/Reserves | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
September 11, 2023 | 
| 
Review of the current practices and inspection | |
| 
Geology/Mineral Resources | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
September 11, 2023 | 
| 
Review of the current practices and inspection of laboratory and core facility, tour of pit geology,
meetings and technical sessions on geological modeling. | |
| 
Metallurgy/ Process | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
September 25, 2023 | 
| 
Review of the current practices and inspection | |
| 
Separations Facility | 
| 
SGS North America Inc. | 
| 
December 3, 2024 | 
| 
Review of ramp up progress | |
| 
Environmental/ Permitting/Closure | 
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
No recent site visit | 
| 
Visited site on several occasions under previous ownership | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
2.5 | 
Report Version Update | |
The user of this document should ensure that this is the most recent Technical Report Summary for the property. 
This Technical Report Summary is an update of a previously filed technical report summary filed pursuant to 17 CFR 229.1300
through 229.1305 (subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K). The previously filed technical report summary is titled SEC Technical Report Summary Pre-Feasibility Study Mountain Pass Mine San Bernardino County, California with an effective
date of October 1, 2024 and a report date of February 19, 2025. 
| 
2.6 | 
Units of Measure | |
The U.S. System for weights and units has been used throughout this report. Tons are reported in short tons (st) of 2,000 lb, drilling
and resource model dimensions and map scales are in feet (ft), except as noted. All currency is in U.S. dollars (US$) unless otherwise stated. 
| 
2.7 | 
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Definitions | |
The terms mineral resource and mineral reserves as used in this Technical Report Summary have the following
definitions as per the SEC, Regulation S-K, Item1301. 
| 
2.7.1 | 
Mineral Resources | |
17 CFR 229.1300 defines a mineral resource as a concentration or occurrence of material of economic interest in or
on the Earths crust in such form, grade or quality, and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for economic extraction. A mineral resource is a reasonable estimate of mineralization, taking into account relevant factors such as CoG,
likely mining dimensions, location or continuity, that, with the assumed and justifiable technical and economic conditions, is likely to, in whole or in part, become economically extractable. It is not merely an inventory of all mineralization
drilled or sampled. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
36 | |
A measured mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which
quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of conclusive geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with a measured mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying
factors, as defined in this section, in sufficient detail to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because a measured mineral resource has a higher level of confidence than the level of
confidence of either an indicated mineral resource or an inferred mineral resource, a measured mineral resource may be converted to a proven mineral reserve or to a probable mineral reserve. 
An indicated mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on
the basis of adequate geological evidence and sampling. The level of geological certainty associated with an indicated mineral resource is sufficient to allow a qualified person to apply modifying factors in sufficient detail to support mine
planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Because an indicated mineral resource has a lower level of confidence than the level of confidence of a measured mineral resource, an indicated mineral resource may only be converted
to a probable mineral reserve. 
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. The level of geological uncertainty associated with an inferred mineral resource is too high to apply relevant technical and economic factors likely to
influence the prospects of economic extraction in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability. Because an inferred mineral resource has the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources, which prevents the application of
the modifying factors in a manner useful for evaluation of economic viability, an inferred mineral resource may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project, and may not be converted to a mineral reserve. 
| 
2.7.2 | 
Mineral Reserves | |
17 CFR 229.1300 defines a mineral reserve as an estimate of tonnage and grade or quality of indicated and measured
mineral resources that, in the opinion of the qualified person, can be the basis of an economically viable project. More specifically, it is the economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource, which includes diluting
materials and allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined or extracted. A proven mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured
mineral resource. A probable mineral reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource. 
| 
2.8 | 
Qualified Person | |
This report was compiled by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc., with contributions from SGS North America Inc. (SGS) and Adamas Intelligence
Inc. (Adamas). All three firms are third-party firms comprising mining experts in accordance with 17 CFR 229.1302(b)(1). MP Materials has determined that all three firms meet the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified
person in 17 CFR 229.1300. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
37 | |
SGS North America Inc. prepared the following sections of the report: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sections 1.4.2 and 1.8.2 (Separations Facility) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 1.12 (Separations Facility Capital and Operating Cost) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 10.5 (Separation of Rare Earth Elements) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 14.5 (Individual Rare Earths Separations) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sections 18.1.2 and 18.1.5 (Separations Facility Capital Cost) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 18.2.2 (Separations Facility Operating Cost) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 22.3.2 (Separations Facility) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Related contributions to Section 1 (Executive Summary), Section 23 (Recommendations), Section 24
(References), Section 25 (Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant) | |
In sections of this report
prepared by SGS, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to SGS North America Inc. and not to any individual employed at SGS. 
Adamas Intelligence Inc. prepared the following sections of the report: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Section 16 (Market Studies and Contracts) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Related contributions to Section 1 (Executive Summary), Section 22 (Interpretations and Conclusions),
Section 23 (Recommendations) and Section 24 (References) and Section 25 (Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant) | |
In sections of this report prepared by Adamas, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to Adamas Intelligence Inc. and
not to any individual employed at Adamas. 
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. prepared all sections of the report that are not identified in
this Section 2.8 as being prepared by SGS and Adamas. In sections of this report prepared by SRK, references to the Qualified Person or QP are references to SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. and not to any individual employed at SRK. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
38 | |
| 
3 | 
Property Description and Location | |
MP Materials surface ownership includes approximately 2,222 acres (900 hectares (ha)). The County of San Bernardino General Plan
previously designated the Official Land Use District for the majority of the site as Resource Conservation. In 2021, a rezoning was completed with the majority of the site designated for Regional Industrial (IR). The site is located within
Improvement Overlay District 5, which applies to very rural areas with little or no development potential. The County Development Code permits mining in any land use district within the County subject to a conditional use permit. 
The lands surrounding the Mountain Pass Mine site are mostly public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Mojave
National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service, lies two to three miles to the north, west, and south of the site. The Clark Mountain Wilderness Area is located four miles northwest of the project site. 
Current mining and mineral recovery operations include the following major activities and facilities at the mine site (Figure 3-1): 
| 
| 
| 
| 
A single open pit mine for extraction of the rare earth mineralization | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
West and north overburden stockpiles (overburden consists of un-mineralized rock extracted from the pit) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Crusher and mill/flotation plant | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Filtered tailings disposal facility | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral recovery plants (concentrator and separations facility) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Offices, warehouses, and support buildings | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Onsite evaporation pond facility | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Product storage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Stormwater ponds | |
The primary mineral of economic interest mined historically at the Project is bastnaesite, a light brown carbonate mineral that is
significantly enriched with 14 of the lanthanide elements plus yttrium. 
As the Mountain Pass operation is currently configured, the
material is crushed and blended at the crushing plant and then transported to the concentrator. At the concentrator, the crushed ore is combined with recycled water and ground further in a ball mill. The slurry is then pumped to the downstream
conditioning and flotation equipment to separate the rare-earth bearing minerals away from the gangue minerals. The primary product of the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate. Until mid-2025, production of bastnaesite concentrate was sold
under contract to an offtake partner but is now being stockpiled and processed at the on-site REE separations facility discussed below. Engineered containment facilities are used for storage and packaging of product. 
MP Materials has recommissioned a REE separations facility at Mountain Pass that allows MP Materials to produce four saleable REE
products: praseodymium and neodymium (PrNd) oxide, samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG+) precipitate, lanthanum (La) carbonate, and cerium (Ce) chloride. As the REE separations facility continues to ramp up, it is expected that increasing
quantities of bastnaesite concentrate will be processed on-site to produce the saleable REE products. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
39 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
**Figure 3-1: General Facility Arrangement (WGS84 Coordinate System)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
40 | |
| 
3.1 | 
Property Location | |
Mountain Pass is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate-15 (I-15), approximately 15 miles
southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California, at geographic coordinates 352856N latitude and 1153154W longitude
(Figure 3-2). This area is part of the historic Clark Mining District established in 1865. The Project lies within portions of Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 16 North, Range 14 East, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian. 
Source: Google, 2023 
**Figure 3-2: Location Map**
| 
3.2 | 
Mineral Title | |
Figure 3-3 illustrates the boundaries of the current mineral claims and surface rights
associated with the Project, as provided by MP Materials. Mining claims and surface rights associated with the Project include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Patented claims with surface rights owned by MP Mine Operations LLC (MPMO) and mineral rights held by Secure Natural
Resources LLC (SNR) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Unpatented lode and mineral claims held by SNR | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the State of California | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Surface ownership by MPMO and mineral rights controlled by the U.S. | |
The rare earth mineralization at the Project is located within land owned by MP Materials. 
MPMO, the operator, owns the real property (e.g., equipment, surface rights, water rights, surface use rights, access rights, easements,
etc.) and SNR, the subsurface mineral rights owner, leases the mineral rights and certain intellectual property to MPMO. MPMO entered into a lease agreement with SNR on April 3, 2017, allowing MP Materials to extract rare earth products and
byproducts from the 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
41 | |
Project mineral rights (note that this agreement excludes rights to all other minerals and hydrocarbons that could be present at the Project) and to utilize the intellectual property, held by
SNR. At the time of entering into the lease agreement, MPMO and SNR had shareholders common to both entities; however, they were not partners in business nor did they hold any other joint interest. On November 17, 2020, MPMO and SNR were
combined with Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. (FVAC) and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp. Consequently, the intercompany transactions between MPMO and SNR are eliminated in the consolidated
financials of MP Materials Corp. 
Discussion of each category of land ownership is provided in the following sections. Figure 3-3 provides a land tenure map. Listings of claims for MPMO and SNR as reflected on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website are located in Appendix A to this Technical Report Summary. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
42 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
**Figure 3-3: Land Tenure Map**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
43 | |
| 
3.2.1 | 
Nature and Extent of Registrants Interest | |
**Surface Ownership by MP Materials and Mineral Rights by the State of California**
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) retains a mineral right in T16N, R14E, Section 13 (Figure 3-3). In a June 19,
2003, letter from the CSLC letter to the previous Project owner, .the CSLC has advised San Bernardino County that the State acquired and patented certain lands within the proposed project boundary, reserving a 100% mineral interest in
approximately 400 acres in the S1/2, SE1/4 of NE1/4, and the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 13, T16N, R13E, SBM. This interest is under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. (CSLC, 2003). 
**Surface Ownership by MP Materials and Mineral Rights by the U.S. Government**
The U.S. government holds the mineral rights to an approximate 2.25 square mile parcel of land located east of the planned area of
operations. 
**Surface Ownership by MP Materials and Mineral Rights by the State of California**
MP Materials owns a 40 acre parcel of land adjacent to the Bailey Road highway exit. The State of California retains the mineral rights
to this parcel. This mineral right is located to the south of the existing deposit and does not encroach on the ultimate boundaries of the open pit or overburden stockpiles. 
| 
3.3 | 
Royalties, Agreements, and Encumbrances | |
Several public service and utility easements and rights-of-way are located within the mine boundaries, including a Southern California
Edison (SCE) electric utility easement and an AT&T right-of-way. 
| 
3.4 | 
Environmental Liabilities and Permitting | |
MP Materials maintains financial assurance cost estimates for closure, PCM, and AKRFR for current and planned operations at the Mountain
Pass property. The LRWQCB administers groundwater and surface water related financial assurance obligations. San Bernardino County administers financial assurance requirements for surface reclamation of the property. The California Department of
Health, Radiological Health Branch administers financial assurance requirements for decontamination and decommissioning activities. MP Materials maintains miscellaneous financial assurance instruments for other closure-related obligations. Table 3-1 presents the current financial assurance obligations for the Mountain Pass property. The total financial assurance obligation is approximately US$46.3 million. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
44 | |
**Table 3-1: Current Financial Assurance Obligations**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Regulatory Authority | 
| 
Regulatory Obligation/FA Provider | 
| 
FA Instrument | 
| 
FAInstrument(US$) | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Lahontan Regional WaterQuality Control Board | 
| 
Site Closure - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029377 | 
| 
| 
15,131,745 | 
| |
| 
| 
Site Post Closure - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029378 | 
| 
| 
4,810,699 | 
| |
| 
| 
AK&RFR - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029379 | 
| 
| 
9,991,261 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mine Reclamation and County of San
Bernardino (Lead Agency) | 
| 
Mine Reclamation - SMARA Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029382 | 
| 
| 
10,233,989 | 
| |
| 
| 
Evap. Pond Closure - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029382 | 
| 
| 
723,100 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
California Departmentof Resource, Recyclingand Recovery | 
| 
Post Closure Maintenance - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029381 | 
| 
| 
377,677 | 
| |
| 
| 
Non-Water Release Corrective Action Plan - Endurance Assurance Corporation | 
| 
EACX0429375 | 
| 
| 
142,101 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection | 
| 
Kuehne & Nagel, Inc | 
| 
20C0006O3 | 
| 
| 
200,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
International Bond & Marine Brokerage, Ltd. | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
State of California - State Lands Commission | 
| 
Lease Agreement - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029383 | 
| 
| 
20,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
California Department of Public Health - Radiologic Health Branch | 
| 
Decontamination & Decommissioning - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029380 | 
| 
| 
4,442,667 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Bureau of LandManagement | 
| 
Shadow Valley Water System - Sompo International | 
| 
EACX4029374 | 
| 
| 
191,200 | 
| |
| 
| 
ROW for New Wheaton Wash Wells off of Nipton Road | 
| 
EACX4029376 | 
| 
| 
64,077 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
$ | 
46,328,516 | 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
Existing closure obligations include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reclamation and closure of the existing overburden stockpiles and dry stack tailings facility | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Completing active Corrective Action Programs (CAP) for groundwater remediation | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Operation and ultimate closure of the on-site evaporation ponds | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Indirect costs associated with direct costs listed above | |
Existing post-closure obligations include annual inspection and maintenance for the following closed facilities: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pond P-1 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pond P-16 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Community and Company landfills | |
| 
3.4.1 | 
Remediation Liabilities | |
The AKRFR costs include approximately 30 years of ongoing groundwater extraction and treatment of a plume of impacted groundwater
generated during historic operations. Pursuant to a 1998 clean up and abatement order issued by the LRWQCB, previous ownership conducted, and MP Materials continues to conduct various investigatory, monitoring, and groundwater abatement activities
related to contamination at and around the Mountain Pass facility. These activities include soil remediation and the operation of groundwater monitoring and recovery wells, water treatment systems, and evaporation ponds. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
45 | |
| 
3.4.2 | 
Required Permits and Status | |
MP Materials holds conditional use and minor use permits from SBC, which currently allow continued operations of the Mountain Pass
facility through 2042. MP Materials also holds permits to operate from the LRWQCB and the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. The Company restarted the rare earth separations facility with some modifications to the process. The Company
maintains the current permit authorization to operate the Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility (NWTDF) and to co-dispose of other waste streams in the NWTDF. MP Materials anticipates these waste streams will meet the approved waste characterization
profiles. 
The updated mine plan contemplates open pit mining through 2047 and stockpile processing through 2053. MP Materials will
be required to amend the Reclamation Plan from SBC to accommodate the updated mine plan. Section 17.2 provides further information. 
| 
3.5 | 
Other Significant Factors and Risks | |
Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries. Failure to achieve modification of these
boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRKs opinion, MP
Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
A portion of the pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right
holders concession. This portion of the pit only includes waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to
allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to
negotiate a similar agreement. 
SRK is not aware of any other risk items that can reasonably be assumed to impact access, title,
right, or ability to perform work on the property. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
46 | |
| 
4 | 
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography | |
The Project is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15
(I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California (Figure 3-2). 
| 
4.1 | 
Topography, Elevation, and Vegetation | |
The area is in the southwestern part of the Great Basin section of the Basin and Range physiographic province, which is characterized by
a series of generally north to south-trending mountain ranges separated by broad, low-relief alluvial basins, which often have internal drainage (Peterson, 1981). 
The Project occupies the highest elevation along I-15 between Barstow, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Elevations range from 4,500 to
5,125 ft above mean sea level (amsl), with most of the site located between 4,600 to 4,900 ft amsl. Clark Mountain (located northwest of the Project) is the highest local peak at 7,903 ft amsl. 
The major habitat in the Project area is Mojave Desert scrub. Local surface drainages support a mixture of scrub and riparian species.
Vegetation is characterized by various yuccas with a predominance of Eastern Joshua trees, larger shrubs, thorn bushes, and a host of smaller shrubs. Areas of ongoing disturbance in the Project area are barren of vegetation. 
| 
4.2 | 
Accessibility and Transportation to the Property | |
The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located 50 miles to the northeast on I-15. The Project lies immediately north of I-15 at
Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by
surrounding natural topographic features. I-15 follows the natural drainages, east-west between the Clark Mountain and Mescal mountains ranges, cresting at Mountain Pass Summit at an elevation of 4,730 ft amsl. 
All access to the Project is controlled by MP Materials, and there is no public access through the Project area. All public access roads
that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary. 
MP Materials maintains the existing infrastructure for the Project in
support of mining and processing activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project. 
| 
4.3 | 
Climate and Length of Operating Season | |
The climate at Mountain Pass is described as arid desert, generally hot and dry in the summer and mild in the winter, with limited
precipitation and cloud cover. Based on Western Regional Climate Center Statistics, the coldest month of the year is January with an average minimum temperature of 29.5F (-1.4C). The warmest month is July with an average high temperature
of 92.8F (33.8C). 
Precipitation in the area of the mine averages 8.4 inches per year. The maximum precipitation from a
single storm in the past 45 years was 5.9 inches (Geomega, 2000). Most storms yield a precipitation of 0.5 inch or less. Precipitation most frequently occurs during November through February, accounting for over 40% of the annual total rainfall.
However, the most significant portion of the annual rainfall can 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
47 | |
occur as summer thunderstorms during July and August with average monthly precipitation above 1.0 inch per month during these two months. These storms may result in heavy rainfall and
flash floods. The snowfall in the winter months can accumulate rapidly but has minimal effect on operations. Operations at the Project are year-round. 
| 
4.4 | 
Infrastructure Availability and Sources | |
MP Materials has fully developed operating infrastructure for the Project in support of mining and processing activities. A manned
security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring personnel entry and exit to the Project. 
Given the relative proximity of the Project to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, most personnel at the Project commute from the greater Las
Vegas area. This regional city provides an adequate source of skilled and unskilled labor for the operation. 
Outside services
include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers, and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers, such as Las Vegas, Elko, Nevada (an established
large mining district), and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry). 
Substantially all of the power to the Mountain
Pass facility is currently supplied by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility with two natural gas-fired turbines capable of producing up to 26 MW of power combined. In addition, the site is served by a 12 kV line
from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. 
Water is supplied through active water wells located eight miles west
of the Project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water tanks and pumps. 
Site logistics are straightforward with the
concentrate product historically shipped in supersacks within a shipping container by truck approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers were loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers. Since
mid-2025, concentrate has been stockpiled and processed at the on-site rare earth separations facility. Refined products are shipped in supersacks and intermediate bulk containers (IBC tote). Rail transshipment infrastructure is available in
Henderson, NV and Barstow, CA less than two hours drive from the site. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
48 | |
| 
5 | 
History | |
| 
5.1 | 
Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes | |
The Molybdenum Corporation of America (MCA) purchased the Birthday claims and the Sulfide Queen properties in 1950 and 1951,
respectively. In 1974, MCA changed its name to Molycorp, Inc. (Old Molycorp). In 1977, Union Oil of California (Unocal) purchased Old Molycorp and operated the company as a wholly-owned subsidiary. In 2005, Chevron Corporation
purchased Unocal. On September 30, 2008, Chevron sold the Mountain Pass facility and Rare Earth business, including the rights to the name Molycorp, to a private investor group who formed Molycorp, LLC. Molycorp, Inc. (Molycorp)
was formed on March 4, 2010, for the purpose of continuing the business of Molycorp, LLC in corporate form. Molycorp filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2015. As part of the corporate restructuring in the bankruptcy proceedings,
the former assets of Molycorp associated with the Project were split between multiple parties. This included MPMO, which purchased the real property (e.g., equipment, surface rights, water rights, surface use rights, access rights, easements, etc.)
and SNR, which purchased the subsurface mineral rights and certain intellectual property. 
MPMO entered into a lease agreement with
SNR on April 3, 2017, allowing MP Materials to extract rare earth products and byproducts from the Project mineral rights (note that this agreement excludes rights to all other minerals and hydrocarbons that could be present at the Project) and
utilize the intellectual property, held by SNR. At the time of entering into the lease agreement, MPMO and SNR had shareholders common to both entities; however, they were not partners in business nor did they hold any other joint interest. On
November 17, 2020, MPMO and SNR were combined with FVAC and became wholly-owned subsidiaries of FVAC, which was in turn renamed MP Materials Corp. Consequently, the intercompany transactions between MPMO and SNR did not continue after the
business combination. 
| 
5.2 | 
Exploration and Development Results of Previous Owners | |
The mining history of the area began with the organization of the Clark Mining District in 1865. This district produced about
US$5,000,000 in silver between 1865 and about 1895 (Olson et al., 1954). Between 1900 and 1920, many small lead, zinc, copper, gold, and tungsten mines were operated in the area. 
Mining at Mountain Pass began in 1924 when prospectors identified galena (lead sulfide) on Sulfide Queen Hill, which is near the location
of the existing open pit. Several small shafts and trenches were excavated by various operators; however, no ore was shipped. The Sulfide Queen mine was developed and worked for gold between 1939 and 1942, producing about 350 ounces of gold from an
inclined shaft about 320 ft deep and about 2,200 ft of workings developed on four levels. 
The discovery of rare earth mineralization
at Mountain Pass was made in April of 1949 by prospectors searching for uranium. Having noted that samples from the Sulfide Queen gold mine were radioactive, prospectors returned to the area and discovered a radioactive vein containing a large
proportion of a light brown mineral (bastnaesite) that the prospectors were unable to identify. This original discovery is known as the Birthday vein. The prospectors sent a sample of the unknown mineral to the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM)
for identification. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
49 | |
The USBM confirmed the bastnaesite discovery and made a public announcement in November
1949 (Olson et al., 1953). This attracted the attention of several mining companies, including MCA, which purchased the Birthday group of claims in February 1950. MCA sank a 100 ft deep shaft on the Birthday claims, but no mineable ore was
delineated, and development was stopped. 
During this time, prospectors identified carbonatite dikes throughout a wider, adjacent
area. The USGS proceeded to conduct detailed mapping of the entire Mountain Pass area. During this work, the USGS staff identified a massive body of carbonatite to the south of the Birthday claims, largely made up of barite, calcite, dolomite, and
bastnaesite. Much of this carbonatite body was located on the original Sulfide Queen claims. MCA bought the Sulfide Queen claim group and the surrounding properties in January 1951. The existing gold mine and its associated equipment and buildings
were also purchased, and a new crushing plant was installed. MCA drilled several hundred shallow churn holes in the following months and analyzed the cuttings for their rare-earth element contents (Olson et al., 1954). 
Production of rare earth concentrate at the Project began in 1952, using the old gold plant, a new ball mill, and flotation cells from
MCAs Urad, Colorado, molybdenum property. Mining started on a portion of the deposit where the ore averaged more than 15% TREO. The production rate varied from 80 to 120 st per day. 
MCA signed a contract with the U.S. General Services Administration to produce rare earth concentrates for the government stockpile. By
1954, MCA shipped one hundred and twenty 60-ton carloads of bastnaesite concentrate to the government stockpile, thereby fulfilling the terms of the contract. Other markets for TREOs had not yet developed, and the mine and mill operated part-time
with a small crew. 
Due to the increasing demand for europium for use in color televisions, MCA constructed a europium oxide plant in
1965 and increased production six-fold from the previous year to approximately 6.1 million pounds (Mlb) of TREO concentrate. The following year, a new concentrator was completed with a capacity of 600 metric tonnes per day. At the start of
1965, MCA produced 6,000 pounds per year (lb/yr) of europium oxide. By year-end, production of europium oxide reached 20,000 lb/yr. By the end of 1966, total production at the Project had quadrupled to 24 million pounds per year (Mlb/y) of TREO
concentrates. 
Old Molycorp (formerly MCA) undertook a major geologic evaluation program at Mountain Pass between 1976 and 1980. MCA
and Old Molycorp drilled dozens of diamond drillholes between 1953 and 1992 for exploration, mine development, and condemnation. More than 300 new mining claims were added over ground which could potentially contain rare earth mineralization.
Regional aeromagnetic and radiometric surveys were conducted within and beyond the known rare earth mineralization, and Landsat imagery for the region was evaluated. The geological program included characterization of the alkaline rocks and rare
earth mineralization of the district and involved detailed geologic mapping and petrographic studies of the Sulfide Queen deposit and the surrounding rocks. Ground-based geophysical surveys were completed over the known bastnaesite-bearing
carbonatite and associated intrusive rocks. 
Due to the continued expansion of the rare earths market, a new separation plant was
completed in 1982, which could produce samarium and gadolinium oxides up to 99.999% in purity by solvent extraction (SX). Subsequently, the plant was modified to produce high-purity terbium oxide for fluorescent lighting. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
50 | |
In 1989, Old Molycorp began production of dysprosium oxide and increased its output of
neodymium to satisfy the demand created by the growing neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnet industry. By 1990, lanthanide processing facilities at Mountain Pass expanded to produce various TREO concentrates. Between 1995 and 1997, Molycorp produced
and sold in excess of 40 Mlb of rare earth oxide products per year. Limited mining of overburden and mineralized rock took place through 2002. The historical mill entered care and maintenance in 2002. Between 2007 and 2012, there was limited
production of rare earth oxides from various types of stockpiled rare earth concentrates (primarily lanthanum concentrates and bastnaesite concentrate) through the historical separation facility. 
In December 2010, under the new Molycorp, mining operations were restarted, and in January 2011, a major redevelopment project was
initiated targeting modernization of milling and separation facilities. These new mining and separation facilities were intended to be developed in two phases, with the first phase targeting 19,050 metric tonnes (42 Mlb) of rare earth production per
year and the second phase targeting 40,000 metric tonnes (88 Mlb) of rare earth production per year. This modernization included construction of a new mill, cracking facilities, separation facilities, and associated infrastructure, including power
generation and reagent recycling facilities. The new separation facilities included production of cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, and praseodymium, with the remaining rare earths sold as a samarium, europium, and gadolinium (SEG) concentrate. During
initial construction activities, Molycorp changed its development strategy and decided to build out capacity for both phases at the same time. Construction activities were largely completed by the end of 2013, with all first phase equipment
constructed and most of the second phase constructed. Ramp up of the concentrator, separation facility and associated infrastructure (e.g., chlor-alkali/reagent recycling) encountered several issues that limited production and prevented operations
from achieving targeted goals. 2013 production from Mountain Pass was approximately 7.7 Mlb of rare earth oxides, and 2014 production was approximately 10.5 Mlb. January through June 2015 production was approximately 8.1 Mlb of rare earth oxides.
Molycorp declared bankruptcy in June 2015, and mining and processing operations were halted at that time. 
The current owner, MP
Materials, restarted milling and flotation operations in December 2017. MP Materials began production of separated REEs in 2023. 
| 
5.3 | 
Historical Production | |
The reported historic production for the Mountain Pass deposit for the period 1953 through 1970, including the tonnage of mineralized and
overburden materials mined, the plant feed grades and recovery, and pounds of rare-earth oxides produced, is shown in Table 5-1. The historic production from 1968 to 2002, including short tons mined,
crushed, and milled, is presented in Table 5-2. Historic rare earth oxide production from 2009 to 2015, which includes reprocessing of existing stockpiles (2009 to 2012) and processing of freshly mined
ore (2012 to 2015), is presented in Table 5-3. MP Materials historic rare earth oxide production from 2018 through September 2025 is presented in
Table 5-4. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
51 | |
**Table 5-1**: **Production History,
1952 to 1970******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Item | 
| 
1952 to
1964 | 
| 
| 
1965 | 
| 
| 
1966 | 
| 
| 
1967 | 
| 
| 
1968 | 
| 
| 
1969 | 
| 
| 
1970(1) | 
| 
| 
Total | 
| |
| 
Waste stripped,
st | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
15,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
20,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
85,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
14,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
134,000 | 
| |
| 
Ore mined and fed
to plant, st | 
| 
| 
255,375 | 
| 
| 
| 
37,476 | 
| 
| 
| 
179,721 | 
| 
| 
| 
201,233 | 
| 
| 
| 
193,100 | 
| 
| 
| 
259,097 | 
| 
| 
| 
182,290 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,308,292 | 
| |
| 
Flotation Plant
Feed, % TREO | 
| 
| 
9.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
10.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.3 | 
| |
| 
Concentrate
No. 400, klb TREO | 
| 
| 
31,934 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,094 | 
| 
| 
| 
12,873 | 
| 
| 
| 
16,483 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,361 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,188 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,519 | 
| 
| 
| 
154,444 | 
| |
| 
Concentrate
No. 401, klb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
11,139 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,001 | 
| 
| 
| 
20,408 | 
| 
| 
| 
25,155 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,289 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| |
| 
Flotation Plant
Recovery, % | 
| 
| 
68.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
80.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
73.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
73.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
72.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
70.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| |
| 
Chemical Plant
Feed, klb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,899 | 
| 
| 
| 
18,380 | 
| 
| 
| 
13,198 | 
| 
| 
| 
14,087 | 
| 
| 
| 
19,604 | 
| 
| 
| 
11,178 | 
| 
| 
| 
83,346 | 
| |
| 
RE Oxide
Nos. 410/411,
klb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
275 | 
| 
| 
| 
282 | 
| 
| 
| 
307 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,731 | 
| 
| 
| 
409 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,004 | 
| |
| 
Cerium Nos. 530/
532, klb CeO2 | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,925 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,668 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,680 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,901 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,672 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,846 | 
| |
| 
Lanthanum, 521,
klb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,250 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,669 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,568 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,522 | 
| 
| 
| 
23,009 | 
| |
| 
Lanthanum, 523,
klb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
306 | 
| 
| 
| 
501 | 
| 
| 
| 
249 | 
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
| 
| 
64 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,148 | 
| |
| 
Neo-Praseo
No. 545, lb
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
74,702 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,677 | 
| 
| 
| 
78,379 | 
| |
| 
Gadolinium
No. 573, lb Gd2O3 | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
17,084 | 
| 
| 
| 
17,881 | 
| 
| 
| 
13,990 | 
| 
| 
| 
48,955 | 
| |
| 
Gad-Sam
No. 575, lb TREO | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,961 | 
| 
| 
| 
12,095 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
22,056 | 
| |
| 
Samarium
No. 583, lb Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
29,600 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
29,600 | 
| |
| 
Europium Nos. 500/
501/ 510/510B/
511, lb | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,845 | 
| 
| 
| 
11,384 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,058 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,234 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,847 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,226 | 
| 
| 
| 
41,594 | 
| |
Source: Mountain Pass monthly operational reports 
(1): Through October 31, 2007 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
52 | |
**Table 5-2: Mine Production History,
1971 to 2002**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Year | 
| 
| 
Mined(st) | 
| 
| 
Crushed(st) | 
| 
| 
Milled(st) | 
| 
| 
Overburden(st) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
1971 | 
| 
| 
| 
214,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
181,175 | 
| 
| 
| 
181,175 | 
| 
| 
| 
No data | 
| |
| 
| 
1972 | 
| 
| 
| 
163,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
228,488 | 
| 
| 
| 
228,488 | 
| 
| 
| 
No data | 
| |
| 
| 
1973 | 
| 
| 
| 
303,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
305,072 | 
| 
| 
| 
305,073 | 
| 
| 
| 
No data | 
| |
| 
| 
1974 | 
| 
| 
| 
479,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
499,597 | 
| 
| 
| 
499,596 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,100 | 
| |
| 
| 
1975 | 
| 
| 
| 
296,693 | 
| 
| 
| 
296,693 | 
| 
| 
| 
296,693 | 
| 
| 
| 
70,100 | 
| |
| 
| 
1976 | 
| 
| 
| 
355,253 | 
| 
| 
| 
308,938 | 
| 
| 
| 
308,938 | 
| 
| 
| 
73,980 | 
| |
| 
| 
1977 | 
| 
| 
| 
314,946 | 
| 
| 
| 
321,508 | 
| 
| 
| 
321,508 | 
| 
| 
| 
66,255 | 
| |
| 
| 
1978 | 
| 
| 
| 
292,760 | 
| 
| 
| 
266,757 | 
| 
| 
| 
266,757 | 
| 
| 
| 
132,200 | 
| |
| 
| 
1979 | 
| 
| 
| 
326,010 | 
| 
| 
| 
358,399 | 
| 
| 
| 
358,399 | 
| 
| 
| 
327,760 | 
| |
| 
| 
1980 | 
| 
| 
| 
386,927 | 
| 
| 
| 
360,068 | 
| 
| 
| 
360,068 | 
| 
| 
| 
219,345 | 
| |
| 
| 
1981 | 
| 
| 
| 
371,553 | 
| 
| 
| 
370,207 | 
| 
| 
| 
370,207 | 
| 
| 
| 
225,691 | 
| |
| 
| 
1982 | 
| 
| 
| 
400,428 | 
| 
| 
| 
400,427 | 
| 
| 
| 
391,417 | 
| 
| 
| 
221,625 | 
| |
| 
| 
1983 | 
| 
| 
| 
485,315 | 
| 
| 
| 
322,771 | 
| 
| 
| 
371,252 | 
| 
| 
| 
226,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1984 | 
| 
| 
| 
621,714 | 
| 
| 
| 
439,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
543,354 | 
| 
| 
| 
728,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1985 | 
| 
| 
| 
365,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
204,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
253,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,233,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1986 | 
| 
| 
| 
343,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
214,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
225,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,225,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1987 | 
| 
| 
| 
402,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
320,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
358,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,072,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1988 | 
| 
| 
| 
143,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
214,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
221,764 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,049,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1989 | 
| 
| 
| 
445,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
419,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
418,446 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,610,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1990 | 
| 
| 
| 
706,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
508,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
480,161 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,749,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1991 | 
| 
| 
| 
404,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
446,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
336,344 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,477,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1992 | 
| 
| 
| 
275,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
247,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
409,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,771,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1993 | 
| 
| 
| 
540,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
447,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
433,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,232,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1994 | 
| 
| 
| 
567,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
494,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
508,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,217,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1995 | 
| 
| 
| 
714,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
546,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
537,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,388,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1996 | 
| 
| 
| 
604,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
551,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
544,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,312,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1997 | 
| 
| 
| 
632,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
452,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
424,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,355,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1998 | 
| 
| 
| 
234,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
269,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
321,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
688,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
1999 | 
| 
| 
| 
94,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
43,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
2000 | 
| 
| 
| 
78,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
239,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
2001 | 
| 
| 
| 
175,010 | 
| 
| 
| 
260,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
175,010 | 
| 
| 
| 
634,000 | 
| |
| 
| 
2002 | 
| 
| 
| 
201,520 | 
| 
| 
| 
217,204 | 
| 
| 
| 
183,487 | 
| 
| 
| 
255,520 | 
| |
Source: Mountain Pass monthly operational reports 
Mill quantities do not include tailings that were reprocessed. 
Between 1975 and 1982, crushing tonnages were not recorded (assumed to be the same as milling tonnages). 
**Table 5-3: Mountain Pass Production History, 2009 to 2015, as Separated RE Products**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Year | 
| 
| 
TREO Production
(Metric Tonnes) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
2009 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,103 | 
| |
| 
| 
2010 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,296 | 
| |
| 
| 
2011 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,062 | 
| |
| 
| 
2012 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,236 | 
| |
| 
| 
2013 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,473 | 
| |
| 
| 
2014 | 
| 
| 
| 
4,769 | 
| |
| 
| 
2015(1) | 
| 
| 
| 
3,678 | 
| |
Source: Molycorp 10-K and 10-Q filings 
(1): January to June production 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
53 | |
**Table 5-4: Mountain Pass Production
History, 2018 to 2025, as Bastnaesite Concentrate**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Year | 
| 
TREO Production(Metric Tonnes) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
2018 | 
| 
| 
13,913 | 
| |
| 
2019 | 
| 
| 
28,442 | 
| |
| 
2020 | 
| 
| 
38,561 | 
| |
| 
2021 | 
| 
| 
42,413 | 
| |
| 
2022 | 
| 
| 
42,500 | 
| |
| 
2023 | 
| 
| 
41,556 | 
| |
| 
2024 | 
| 
| 
45,455 | 
| |
| 
2025(1) | 
| 
| 
38,609 | 
| |
Source: MP Materials 
(1): January to September production 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
54 | |
| 
6 | 
Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit | |
| 
6.1 | 
Regional Geology | |
Mountain Pass is located in the southern part of the Clark Range in the northern Mojave Desert. The Mojave is situated in the
southwestern part of the Basin and Range physiographic province which extends from central Utah to eastern California and is characterized by Tertiary extensional deformation and associated volcanics. This deformational event resulted in north-south
trending mountain ranges separated by elongated valleys, characteristic of Basin and Range topography. The Mountain Pass rare earth deposit is located within an uplifted block of Proterozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks that is bounded to the south
and east by basin-fill deposits in the Ivanpah Valley. This block is separated from Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks on the west and southwest by the Clark Mountain thrust complex, which strikes north-northwest and dips from 35 to 70 west but
averages 55 W. The North Fault forms the northern boundary of the block, striking west-northwest and dips from 65 to 70 south (Olson, et al., 1954; Castor, 2008). Geology of the Mountain Pass property is shown in Figure 6-1. 
There are two main groups of rocks in the Mountain Pass area divided by age and
rock type. These are Early Proterozoic high-grade metamorphic rocks, which are intruded by unmetamorphosed Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic and carbonatite rocks. The Early Proterozoic high-grade metamorphic complex represents a wide variety of
compositions and textures, as follows: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Garnetiferous micaceous gneiss and schist | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Biotite-garnet-sillimanite gneiss | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Hornblende gneiss, schist, and amphibolite | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Biotite gneiss and schist | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Granitic gneiss and migmatite with associated granitic pegmatite | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Minor occurrences of foliated mafic rocks | |
The Middle Proterozoic ultrapotassic rocks are intrusive bodies of granite, syenite, and composite shonkinite-syenite, which contain
augite and orthoclase. These have been intruded by carbonatites which formed swarms of thin dikes, stocks, and the tabular Sulfide Queen carbonatite, currently the focus of mining activities (Olson et al, 1954; Castor 2008). The Middle Proterozoic
ultrapotassic rocks have been age dated using U-Th-Pb and 40Ar--39Ar methods at 1,410 5 Ma and 1,403 5 Ma for shonkinite and
syenite respectively. The rare earth-bearing carbonatite units, including the Sulfide Queen deposit, are younger with age dates, using Th-Pb ratios, of 1,375 5 Ma (DeWitt et al, 1987). Both the Early Proterozoic metamorphic rocks and the
Middle Proterozoic intrusive rocks have been crosscut by volumetrically minor, Mesozoic to Tertiary age dikes of andesitic to rhyolitic composition. Large portions of the Mountain Pass district are covered by younger (Tertiary to Quaternary)
basin-fill sedimentary deposits (Olson et al, 1954; Castor 2008) (Figure 6-1). 
Significant rare earth mineralization is only associated with carbonatite intrusions. Strongly potassic igneous rocks of approximately
the same age are known from other localities in and around the Mojave Desert region, but no significant carbonatite bodies or rare earth mineralization have been identified (Haxel, 2004). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
55 | |
Geomega 
Source:
Geomega, 2012 
**Figure 6-1: Regional Geological Map**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
56 | |
| 
6.2 | 
Local and Property Geology | |
At Mountain Pass, the ultrapotassic rocks occur in seven larger stocks and as hundreds of smaller dikes. The largest single body is a
composite shonkinite-syenite-granite stock approximately 6,400 ft in length and 2,100 ft wide (Olson, et al., 1954). These rocks span a variety of compositions, from phlogopite shonkinite (melanosyenite) to amphibole-biotite (mesosyenite and
leucosyenite) to alkali-rich granite (Haxel, 2005). These complex and varied lithologies are believed to be sourced from the same parent magma formed from partial melting of the upper mantle (asthenosphere) beneath the North American continent
during the Middle Proterozoic. The different compositions reflect different phases of magma differentiation (Castor, 2008). A generalized geological map of the area is shown in Figure 6-2. 
The Sulfide Queen carbonatite, which hosts the mineralization at the property is referred to as a stock but is a roughly tabular,
sill-like body that strikes approximately north and dips to the west at about 40 as shown in Figure 6-3. The carbonatite-bearing magma is believed to have formed by liquid immiscibility, separating
from the same parent magma which formed the ultrapotassic rocks occurring nearby (Castor, 2008). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
57 | |
Celebration Fault 
Source: Castor, 2008 
**Figure 6-2: Generalized Geologic Map Sulfide Queen Carbonatite**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
58 | |
Drill Hole 
Source: Castor, 2008 
Section looking N-NE 
**Figure 6-3: Schematic Cross Section (A-A) of Sulfide Queen Carbonatite**
| 
6.2.1 | 
Local Lithology | |
In the open pit and to the south, east, and west, lithology is dominated by gneiss and the Sulfide Queen carbonatite. Immediately north
of the pit, carbonatite is found at surface and a small outcrop of syenite is found adjacent to and on the east flank of the Sulfide Queen. The Sulfide Queen extends to the contact with shonkinite and ultrapotassic granite approximately 650 ft
northwest of the open pit boundary. 
The carbonatite rocks at the Project have been divided at Mountain Pass into six types: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bastnaesite svite (Bastnaesite-barite svite) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bastnaesite beforsite (Bastnaesite-barite svite) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bastnaesite dolosvite (Bastnaesite-barite dolomitic svite) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
White svite (White bastnaesite-barite svite) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Parisite svite (Parisite svite) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Monazitic svite (Monazite-bearing carbonatite) | |
These divisions are based on the carbonate mineral composition of the carbonatite, either calcite or dolomite, the dominant rare earth
mineral, texture, and other criteria detailed in the following sections 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
59 | |
(based largely on Castor, 2008). The different carbonatite types and their specific mineralization are discussed in detail in Section 6.3. 
Breccia is found within and adjacent to the Sulfide Queen and includes altered clasts of country rock as well as carbonatite. It is most
abundant in the northern part of the open pit and to the south under the former mill. Breccia textures range from matrix to clast supported breccia with rounded to angular clasts. In the hanging-wall of the Sulfide Queen, breccia occurs as a
stockwork while in other areas it appears to have formed by intrusive stoping. In the footwall of the carbonatite, the breccia is composed of rounded and crushed gneiss, syenite and shonkinite, which is interpreted by Castor (1988, 2008) as
indicating a pre-carbonate intrusive formation. Breccia has previously been thought to be unmineralized but contains monazite in places. 
A simplified stratigraphic column is presented in Figure 6-4 showing the primary lithology
types on the property. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
60 | |
Simplified Stratigraphic Column Mountail Pass Deposit, California, USA 
Source: SRK, 2023 
**Figure 6-4: Simplified Stratigraphic Column for the Mountain Pass Site**
| 
6.2.2 | 
Alteration | |
Alteration at the Property is primarily contact metamorphism associated with the emplacement of the Sulfide Queen carbonatite. It is
primarily fenitic alteration and found in the country rock adjacent to the 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
61 | |
carbonatite. Fenitic alteration or fenitization is associated with carbonate-rich fluids and is characterized by secondary potassium feldspar, phlogopite, and magnesio-riebeckite with chlorite
and hematite in places. Due to the resulting distinctive color and textures of these minerals, the fenitic alteration type is relatively easy to recognize in outcrop and drill core by its light-colored minerals. Fenitization is typically less
intense and widespread proximal to the ultrapotassic rocks relative to the intense alteration observed in the more reactive Middle Proterozoic rocks in the open pit area (Castor, 1988, 2008). 
Other alteration identified locally includes hydrothermal alteration and silicification around the Celebration Fault. This is considered
late stage and has little effect on mineralization (Castor, 1988; 2008). Additionally, weathering from meteoric water resulting in oxidation and hydration of minerals is commonly observed in the pit resulting in depleted carbonate minerals
and thus, enrichments in TREO. 
The presence of sillimanite in the biotite-garnet-sillimanite gneiss indicates that rocks of the
Middle Proterozoic age reached high temperatures and pressures during metamorphism and were metamorphosed to the granulite facies. The carbonatite sills are not metamorphosed, and the Late Proterozoic age ultrapotassic rocks show limited contact
metamorphism where these rocks host carbonatite. 
| 
6.2.3 | 
Structure | |
Structural controls include local brecciation and faulting. Regional structural controls include the Clark Mountain Thrust and North
Faults, which bound the block separating the Proterozoic rocks at the Property from the surrounding Paleozoic and Mesozoic age rocks. The Clark Mountain Thrust fault strikes north-northwest and dips from 35 to 70 W but averages 55
W. The North Fault strikes west-northwest and dips from 65 to 70 S and has offset the Clark Mountain Thrust by an estimated 1,200 ft near the Property. In general, all major faults in the Property area strike north-westerly and dip
to the southwest. This includes the Middle and South Faults near the open pit (Olsen et al., 1954; Castor, 2008). 
Within the open
pit area, the important faults are the Ore Body, Middle, and the Celebration faults. The Ore Body Fault is a splay of the North Fault and the carbonatite and ultrapotassic rocks are found primarily between the Middle and Ore Body Faults. Both are
normal faults that strike northwest and dip moderately to steeply southwest. Both faults display evidence of left-lateral and dip-slip displacements and were active until the Pliocene-Pleistocene. Both faults contain substantial gouge zones and are
barriers to groundwater flow. Many smaller faults with similar orientations and displacement have been mapped between these two faults. 
The Celebration Fault transects the open pit along the highwall and dips into the pit. It also functions as a groundwater conduit and is
a target for two dewatering wells. This structure is sub-parallel to the Middle Fault and strikes at an average of N60 W with a dip of approximately 60 SW. Although appreciable dip-slip offset is not noted north of 800 NW on the mine
grid, shallowly plunging slickensides indicate a component of right lateral strike-slip motion. The Celebration Fault is marked by a 10 to 20 ft wide zone of shearing and brecciation with only local cementation. The Friendship Fault is visible in
the pit, dips approximately 78 NE, and is considered to be a splay of the Celebration Fault. Information from drilling indicates that the Sulfide Queen carbonatite is offset downdip by a series of faults with limited displacement. These
structures are sub-parallel to the Friendship Fault, do 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
62 | |
not offset the Celebration Fault, and displacement of the Sulfide Queen carbonatite is less than 100 ft in most places (Castor, 1988; Molycorp, 2003; Nason, 2009). 
| 
6.3 | 
Significant Mineralized Zones | |
Mineralization occurs entirely within the Sulfide Queen carbonatite within the Project area. This has been defined through drilling and
mapping. Grade distribution internal to this mineralized zone is variable. Higher grade zones (>10% TREO) tend to occur in lenses parallel to the hangingwall - footwall contacts, both downdip, and along strike. High grade also occurs along faults
which have variable orientations due to meteoric water in faults dissolving carbonate minerals resulting in elevated concentration of bastnaesite in a weathered host rock. Continuity of mineralization internal to the carbonatite zone is well defined
both along strike and downdip. 
The currently defined zone of rare earth mineralization exhibits a strike length of approximately
2,750 ft in a north-northwest direction and extends for approximately 3,000 ft downdip from surface. The true thickness of the >2.0% TREO zone ranges between 15 to 250 ft. 
The principal economic mineral at the Project is bastnaesite, a rare earth fluorocarbonate with the generalized chemical formula LnCO3F, where Ln is a variable representing a lanthanide elemental component (usually lanthanum or cerium). This naming convention is applied throughout this resource report. The bastnaesite composition
at the Project is dominated by cerium, lanthanum, and neodymium, with smaller concentrations of praseodymium, europium, samarium, gadolinium, dysprosium, terbium, and heavier rare-earth elements. 
Bastnaesite mineralization at the Project were subdivided by Castor (1988, 2008) as described below. Non-mineralized rock types within
the open pit area are also described. 
| 
6.3.1 | 
Bastnaesite Svite | |
Bastnaesite-svite is a calcite-rich mineralized rock type containing relatively coarse, early-formed bastnaesite, along with
recrystallized barite phenocrysts, in an anhedral matrix of fine calcite and barite. Where unaltered, this material is a pink to mottled white and red-brown rock carrying about 65% calcite, 25% strontian barite, and 10% bastnaesite. However,
chemical and mineralogic changes subsequent to crystallization have produced more complex mineralogy. The svite is characterized by relatively high calcium, strontium and lead, moderate barium, and low phosphorous. 
The bastnaesite svite forms the basal portions of the resource area, and all of the resource at the north end of the pit. At the
south end of the pit, svite makes up less than half the mineralized zone thickness. 
Celestite occurs in the bastnaesite
svite as bladed replacements and outgrowths from barite phenocrysts. Celestite is particularly abundant, along with variable amounts of very coarse bastnaesite, in a basal sheet of otherwise unaltered svite about 50 ft thick. This
celestite svite zone is separated from the main mineralized body by a zone of gneiss and/or breccia. Late celestite veins have been observed cutting talc-altered svite. 
Dark brown or ochre limonite is locally pervasive in svite, particularly in silicified ore. Such rocks rarely have higher iron
contents than unaltered svite. Coarse bastnaesite typifies sovitic mineralized rock. On the 4,640 level the average bastnaesite grain diameter is about 300 m. For the most part, 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
63 | |
monazite [LNPO4)] occurs sparingly in the svite, almost always as small primary euhedral and patches of radial secondary needles.
| 
6.3.2 | 
Bastnaesite Beforsite | |
The bastnaesite beforsite unit generally lies above the sovitic material and is separated from it by dolosovite. Bastnaesite beforsite is
a carbonate-rich mineralized rock type, containing ferroan dolomite (ankerite) as the major carbonate phase, instead of calcite, and is largely unaltered. Locally this rock contains minor quartz. Beforsite is tan or grey to pinkish tan and contains
abundant grey or purple to pink and white single-crystal barite phenocrysts. The matrix consists mainly of fine dolomite rhombs set in very fine interstitial material consisting mainly of bastnaesite with calcite and barite. The mineralogical
composition of an average beforsite is about 55% dolomite, 25% barite, 15% bastnaesite, and 5% calcite. Zones of barite-rich beforsite, associated with barite-poor zones have been logged in core holes and noted during pit mapping. Compared with the
svite, beforsite in pit samples has higher Ln and Ba, along with lower Sr and Pb. Phosphate content is variable but can be high in areas of irregular late veinlets of felty monazite. This is known as bone monazite and can be as
much as 5% of the rock. 
Dark brown limonitic alteration occurs in places in the beforsite, particularly along faults and in
structural zones. In many instances, the limonite forms rhomb-shaped pseudomorphs indicating it formed by replacing the ferroan dolomite. In addition, secondary lanthanide minerals occur in portions of the beforsite such as sahamalite ((Mg,Fe2+)Ln2(CO3)4), synchisite
[synchysite, CaLn(CO3)2F] and ancylite (SrLn(CO3)2(OH)H2O) which was also identified using XRD. Large amounts of these secondary LN carbonates occurring within beforsite are associated
with secondary calcite. Along the south wall of the pit, the beforsite contains crude, nearly vertical banding. On close examination, this is seen to consist of braided discontinuous veins of late bastnaesite/calcite. This texture probably formed by
upward streaming of lanthanum and calcium-rich residual fluids remaining in the beforsite after dolomite crystallization. 
| 
6.3.3 | 
Bastnaesite Dolosovite | |
Bastnaesite dolosovite occurs in a 100 to 200 ft wide zone between the beforsite and svite. It contains both dolomite and calcite
and is generally limonitic. Similar to the beforsite, dark brown limonite commonly forms pseudomorphs after dolomite rhombs. The dolosovite generally contains white to pink recrystallized barite phenocrysts. Some dolosovite samples contain coarse
bastnaesite as in the svite, but often samples have fine, late beforsite-style bastnaesite. A line drawn along the interface between the zone of coarse-grained (greater than 150 m) bastnaesite average crystal sizes and the zone
characterized by fine (less than 150 m) average crystal size roughly bisects the bastnaesite dolosovite zone. 
Chemically, the
dolosovite shows both sovitic and beforsitic attributes. It is highly variable in terms of gangue mineralogy, particularly with regard to the carbonate minerals which show much evidence of secondary redistribution. In some samples, dolomitization is
obvious, along with later limonitic replacement of the dolomite. In other locations, late white to brown calcite veining is abundant. 
Some consider the dolosovite to be a hybrid rock and not a separate intrusive type. In this case, it is plausible it was formed by
carbonate redistribution during and after intrusion of the beforsite. Based on bastnaesite grain size, it is mainly dolomitized svite; but contains some finely divided bastnaesite 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
64 | |
and is in part calcitized beforsite. Strongly limonitized dolosovite, referred to as black ore, creates extreme milling problems. Black ore is mainly restricted to the
dolosovite but in places extends into the beforsite. This material is generally dark brown soft material with white calcite veining. It typically exhibits high lanthanum content, carrying large amounts of coarse- or fine-grained bastnaesite. In
part, the elevated lanthanide (Ln) values may be due to removal of carbonate, resulting in an abundance of void space allowing the formation of larger grain sizes. This material generally has relatively low densities and is poorly indurated.
Analysis of this rock type shows that bastnaesite dolosovite has above average iron, manganese, and phosphorous contents as compared with the bastnaesite svite. 
The bastnaesite dolosovite has high strontianite contents derived from sovitic rock. It is locally high in fine, anhedral, late-stage
silica. Although the dolosovite appears to be dominated by alteration minerals, it rarely contains talc. 
Ln-bearing minerals other
than bastnaesite commonly occur in the dolosovite, though mainly as minor phases. Bright yellow synchisite replacing bastnaesite was observed in many thin sections. Secondary sahamalite and ancylite have also been identified in many dolosovite
samples. Bastnaesite in dolosovite is generally yellow-brown or dark-brown, rather than in normal light tan to grey colors. Bone monazite is more abundant than primary monazite. 
| 
6.3.4 | 
White Svite | |
White svite occurs above the beforsite in the southwest corner of the pit (current pit bottom 4,300 ft). It carries very fine, late
bastnaesite as in the beforsite, but contains little or no dolomite. White svite appears to be the product of late stage calcitization of beforsite by rising residual fluids responsible for late bastnaesite/calcite deposition in the underlying
beforsite. 
In addition to fine bastnaesite, the white svite contains abundant single-crystal barite phenocrysts as in the
beforsite. Chemically, white svite has high Ln and low Pb relative to beforsite. Its Sr content ranges from low to moderate. Phosphate contents are variable, with most present as veins of bone monazite. 
On the 4,640 level, the white svite is exposed as a thick dike within hangingwall stockwork breccia 10 to 20 ft above the
beforsite. Drillhole 85-1 intercepted 80 ft of white svite before encountering dolomitic carbonatite. 
| 
6.3.5 | 
Parisite Svite | |
Parisite svite is found in the pit above the 4,700 level in the footwall. A dike carrying about 20% of flow-oriented parisite (CaLn2(CO3)3F2] was mapped on the
4,760 level at the south end of the pit. This dike was intercepted in core hole 85-2. 
| 
6.3.6 | 
Monazitic Carbonatite | |
Bodies of carbonatite which contain primary monazite in amounts that approach or exceed bastnaesite contents occur within, and adjacent
to, the mineralized zone. In addition, monazitic svite comprises most of the small carbonatite dikes in the vicinity of the mineralized zone. 
The monazitic carbonatite has low total TREO content, generally in the 2% to 4% range. It is also characterized by high Ca and P, and low
Ba. In hand specimen, the monazitic carbonatite is nearly equigranular because barite phenocrysts are sparse or lacking. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
65 | |
Although sovitic and beforsitic carbonate rock types have both been documented, nearly
all of the monazitic-bearing carbonatite rocks observed on the 4,700 to 4,640 levels are dolosovite. Monazite svite is abundant in core holes drilled on the north part of the pit. Significant amounts of monazite dolosovite occur at the south
end of the mineralized zone and extend beneath the mill. 
Monazitic carbonatite is generally associated with brecciated rocks. Small,
phlogopitized clasts are commonly present in the monazite carbonatite as well as phlogopite xenocrysts. At the north and south ends of the pit monazitic carbonatite appears to form envelopes around breccia masses. A large monazite dolosovite mass
along the hangingwall of the deposit contains areas rich in clasts. 
The monazite in the monazitic carbonatite occurs predominantly
as primary euhedra or subhedra. Bone monazite replaces primary crystals in some samples. Where present, bastnaesite occurs as sparse corroded grains, generally observed in coarser sizes similar to those documented in the basal svite. 
The location of monazitic carbonatite masses, and the lack of barite phenocrysts suggest the monazitic magma was filter pressed out of
the adjacent breccias. Formation of the monazitic carbonatite units probably post-dated svite emplacement and predated beforsite emplacement. 
Alteration in the monazitic carbonatite is similar to that observed in the dolosovite. However, black ore formed from
monazitic carbonatite has not been recognized to date. 
| 
6.3.7 | 
Breccia | |
Breccia with a carbonatite matrix comprises a significant proportion of the Mountain Pass carbonatite body. Like the related monazitic
carbonatite, the breccia nearly always has low lanthanum oxide (LnO) and high P and has historically not been added to mill feed in significant quantities. Breccia has been observed in abundance at the north end of the current pit, and essentially
limits mining in that direction due to metallurgical concerns. Breccia is also present at the south end of the pit, where considerable tonnages extend under the current mill location. 
Breccia occurrences associated with the main carbonatite body at the Project are variable. The breccia bodies were previously noted to be
semi-continuous envelopes on the hangingwall and footwall contact with the carbonatite intrusion and interlayered within the mineralized rock types. In the hangingwall, they range from stockworks of randomly oriented or sheeted carbonatite dikes
cutting altered gneiss, clast-supported breccia with more than 70% altered angular clasts, to matrix-supported breccia with angular to rounded clasts which locally grades into monazitic carbonatite with sparse clasts. 
In the footwall, abundant rounded clasts of gneiss, shonkinite, and syenite occur in a crushed rock matrix with little or no carbonatite.
This breccia grades to matrix supported breccia with rounded clasts. Some footwall breccia has protomylonitic textures, along with occurrences of talc and crocidolite. Breccia at the north end of the pit is strongly altered to talc, which renders
clast identification difficult. Brecciated zones have also been observed internal to the main carbonatite body. Surrounding Rock Types The carbonatite stock at the Project is intruded into the metamorphic rocks and the ultrapotassic suite. Both of
these rock types are typically strongly fenitized near their contacts with carbonatite, and fenitized clasts are commonly included in igneous breccias at the edges of the intrusion (Castor, 1988). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
66 | |
| 
6.4 | 
Relevant Geological Controls | |
The primary geologic control on mineralization is lithology; and only the carbonatitic rock types appear to be favorable for economically
significant rare earth mineralization. Although a number of high-angle normal faults bisect the mineralized zone, offset appears to be post mineral in all cases. 
| 
6.5 | 
Deposit Type, Character, and Distribution of Mineralization | |
Mountain Pass is a carbonatite hosted rare earth deposit (USGS Deposit Model 10; Singer, 1986). The mineralization is hosted principally
in carbonatite igneous rock. Mountain Pass is the only known example of a rare earth deposit in which bastnaesite is mined as the primary magmatic economic mineral in the world (Haxel, 2004). 
Mineralization occurs entirely within the carbonatitic portion of the currently drilled geologic sections, although grade distribution
internal to this mineralized zone is variable. Higher grade zones (>10% TREO) tend to occur in lenses parallel to the hangingwall/footwall contacts, both downdip and along strike. Continuity of mineralization internal to the carbonatite zone is
well defined both along strike and downdip. 
The currently defined zone of rare earth mineralization exhibits a strike length of
approximately 2,750 ft (850 meters (m)) in a north-northwest direction and extends for approximately 3,000 ft (930 m) downdip from surface. The true thickness of the >2.0% TREO zone ranges between 15 to 250 ft (5 to 75 m). 
Globally, carbonatites are subdivided into two main groups: apatite-magnetite bearing, mined for iron and/or phosphorus various
by-products, and rare-earth bearing carbonatites. Many other commodities may be present in economically significant concentrations, such as uranium, thorium, titanium, copper, vermiculite, zirconium, niobium, and phosphorus. The majority of
carbonatite complexes display a series of variable carbonatitic magma compositions, the majority of which are not significantly enriched in rare earths. Mountain Pass is unique in that the carbonatite does not exhibit such variation and has
significant intervals of elevated rare earths throughout its entirety. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
67 | |
| 
7 | 
Exploration and Drilling | |
| 
7.1 | 
Exploration | |
In 1949, the rare earth-bearing carbonatite was discovered by a United States Geological Survey (USGS) field team (Olson, et al., 1954).
The discovery and exploration details of Mountain Pass were published in USGS Professional Paper 261, which included regional and local scale geological and structural maps as well as maps of the underground workings at the Sulfide Queen Mine.
USGS Professional Paper 261 details petrography, mineralogy, and chemical analyses in addition to structural and geologic data collected by the USGS. This document served as the basis for further exploration and eventual exploitation of the Mountain
Pass Mine. 
There is no other relevant exploration work on the property, other than drilling, conducted by or on behalf of current
and previous owners at the Mountain Pass Mine. Drilling is discussed in Section 7.2. The USGS has conducted regional exploration work which is largely focused outside the Mountain Pass property. 
| 
7.2 | 
Drilling | |
Extensive drilling at the Mountain Pass mine has been undertaken since the 1950s, some of which is utilized to define the deposit
and relevant geological features. The prior owner, Molycorp, completed drilling campaigns in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Data prior to those exploration campaigns are considered historical in nature. While this historical data provides geological and grade
information, the historical drilling has no quality control (QC) data associated with it. In 2021, MP Materials performed a limited geotechnical and exploratory drilling campaign and handled core logging/sampling in a similar manner to the 2009-2011
drilling. 
The 2009 drilling campaign consisted of an infill drilling program to upgrade the resource classification within and
adjacent to the existing Sulfide Queen area. The program consisted of twelve, 5.5 inch reverse circulation (RC) holes around the south, west, and north sides of the pit. The 12 holes ranged in depth from 230 to 1,245 ft (70.1 to 379.5 m) and were
drilled between December 2009 and February 2010. Sampling was done on 5 ft (1.524 m) intervals, and the bagged samples were delivered by SRK to the on-site sample prep facility. Among the 12 holes, MP-09-01 is missing all data. 
The 2010 program was designed as a diamond drillhole (DDH) in-fill, exploration, and condemnation program. The program consisted of two
DDH infill holes on the south side of the pit, two DDH exploration holes north of the pit, and two condemnation holes. One condemnation hole was completed as a DDH drilled northwest of the existing waste rock dump to test a possible future tailings
site; the other was a RC hole drilled northeast of the pit, at the site of the separation plant expansion. Core sampling was conducted on 5 ft intervals and bagged samples were stored at the on-site sample preparation facility. RC samples were
submitted as approximate 10-kilogram (kg) splits of the original recovered sample. 
In 2011, Molycorp completed a DDH infill drilling
campaign. In addition to routine total rare earth assaying, Molycorp randomly selected 683 core samples for laboratory analysis of the individual light rare earth components. 
Core recoveries from the 2009 and 2010 drill campaigns exceeded 95%. MP Materials has noted similar results for the 2011 and 2021
drilling as well. Sample protocols described in Sections 8.1 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
68 | |
through 8.3 of this report provide reproducible results. SRK is of the opinion that drilling and sampling in these campaigns provides generally accurate and reliable results. 
MP Materials conducted a geotechnical / exploration DDH drilling campaign in 2021 with 16 holes drilled at a total depth of 10,136 ft for
geotechnical and resource evaluation purposes. All cores have been sampled at an interval of 10 ft on host rocks, and 5 ft on mineralized samples. 
Figure 7-1 illustrates the locations of the drillholes, color coded by drill campaign.
Several drillholes are located outside of the field of view but these do not impact the mineral resource model. 
Source: SRK, 2023 
Colored points are drill collars shaded by relative approximate date of drilling. 
**Figure 7-1: Drilling in and around the Mountain Pass Pit Area**
Geotechnical data for the project was acquired by detailed rock fabric mapping of surface exposures and subsurface sampling using drill
core. SRK has reviewed the industry-accepted procedures and methods used by Call and Nicholas, Inc. (CNI), which are documented in Nicholas & Sims (2001) to characterize the rock mass. In SRKs opinion, the geotechnical
conditions are well characterized, and a sufficient number of holes have been drilled into the final pit wall to interpret the ground conditions. 
CNI conducted laboratory testing to determine the intact and fracture strengths of the rock mass at their laboratory in Tucson, Arizona.
Laboratory testing at this laboratory is done in general accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM standards for rock and soil testing. Using the intact and fracture strengths, rock mass strength estimates were developed using a procedure outlined
in the Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design (Read & Stacey, 2009). SRK has reviewed the rock mass strength calculations and inputs into the stability analysis. SRK concurs with the methods, approach, and results of the documented
geotechnical study and interpretation of the results. Further discussion of the geotechnical parameters used for open pit mine design is presented in Section 13.1. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
69 | |
| 
8 | 
Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security | |
The majority of data in the mineral resource database is from historical drilling conducted prior to 2009. SRK has relied on prior
discussions, from the time of Molycorp ownership, with former site geologists (e.g., Geoff Nason and John Landreth) for description of sample collection, preparation, analysis, and security (Nason and Landreth; personal communication; 2009). SRK
conducted a verification program at the Project between 2009 and 2010 that included reanalysis of archived core from historic drilling programs and a limited infill program. This is discussed in Section 9.2. 
No additional drilling was completed until 2021, during which MP Materials drilled a series of 16 holes for geotechnical purposes (GT
series), some of which were in carbonatite zones and featured mineralization. Similar to previous programs, samples were processed and analyzed at the on-site laboratory with duplicate samples analyzed by an outside lab for validation. SRK is of the
opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures are adequate for reliance in the mineral resource estimation. Any uncertainty related to the historical or variable nature of the analyses are addressed in mineral resource
classification as described in Section 11 of this report. 
| 
8.1 | 
Sampling | |
| 
8.1.1 | 
Historical Sampling Procedures | |
The sample and drilling procedures prior to 2009 described by Nason and Landreth (2009) indicate that during drilling, the core or
drill cuttings were in the custody of the drillers or geologists or secured in an onsite storage location at all times. Field geologists delivered samples to the sample preparation area. The sample preparation and laboratory facilities were within
the secured Mountain Pass property boundary. This was industry standard practice at the time for ongoing exploration at an operating mine. Access to the Mountain Pass Mine is controlled by security at the gate 24 hours per day. Drilling since 2009
has been conducted in and around the open pit, which is a restricted area. All drill cores and RC samples were transported from the drill sites by a Molycorp employee and stored in a secure storage area until the core or RC chips were logged. Sample
security was controlled and supervised by Molycorp personnel. Molycorp observed accepted industry practice chain of custody. 
Nason
and Landreth (2009) described the sampling methods prior to 2009. After the core was logged, a geologist selected sample intervals for analysis. Sample intervals were based on lithology and were generally 5 ft in mineralized zones. Zones
identified by the logging geologist as being waste zones were not sampled. Sample intervals could be shorter or slightly longer at lithological contacts and through fault zones. Lithological contacts are generally sharp and recognizable. 
The core was split longitudinally using a hydraulic core splitter. Half of the core was placed in a bag for analysis and the remaining
half retained for geological reference. Following sample collection, the samples were delivered to the sample processing facility located in the mill facility. Preparation of the split core samples included overnight drying and subsequent crushing
and pulverizing. The entire crushed and dried sample was then passed through a cone crusher, homogenized and split using a Jones splitter to a 100 gram (g) sample. Reject material was placed in envelopes and labeled for storage. From the 100
gram (g) sample, 10 g was delivered to the on-site lab for X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. The grain size of the 90 g of remaining sample was further reduced using a shatterbox swing mill. A split of the pulverized material was placed in
sample envelopes and delivered to the 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
70 | |
Mountain Pass Lab. All pulp and coarse rejects were packaged and labeled. After analysis, the pulp and coarse rejects were returned to the geology department for onsite storage. 
SRK was not able to independently verify or observe the sampling methods employed during the historical drilling campaigns and has relied
on verbal and written descriptions of the processes by former employees of Molycorp and its predecessors. SRK reviewed drill logs, sample summary sheets, a limited number of coarse and pulp rejects and remaining drill core. The remaining drill core
is stored on site and is organized by drillhole and interval. Coarse and pulp rejects are no longer available on site. 
SRK conducted
a random inspection of the historical sample preparation area and core in the storage areas from the various major drilling programs and is of the opinion that sample handling, sample preparation and storage of core and rejects meets current
industry accepted practices. 
| 
8.1.2 | 
Sampling 2009-2011 | |
The 2009 to 2011 drilling programs include photographs of core, a system of marking sample intervals on the core boxes, a sample
numbering system and record-keeping for all sample intervals in the drill log. 
Sampling procedures include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
A written record of the sample collected | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Marking the sample interval on the core box | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Identifying the sample interval and box interval on the inside top of the box | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Photographing the core as both dry and wet core and core box top | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Splitting of the core lengthwise using a hydraulic press | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Placing the split core into a pre-labeled sample bag | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Inserting core blocks at the beginning and end of the removed core | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Inserting a lath cut to the sample interval as a space keeper in the core box | |
Sample numbers were generated using a combination of the drillhole identification and from-to sample interval. Control samples were
placed in the sample stream with similar numbers using a drillhole and interval to be unrecognizable to the laboratory. The sample interval used for control samples was beyond the total depth of the drillhole to eliminate confusion with an actual
sample. This was noted on the sample log to avoid future confusion on total depth of drillholes. 
| 
8.1.3 | 
Sampling 2021 | |
Procedures of sampling 2021 drilling cores are identical to the procedures used in 2009-2011. Core samples were collected by MP
Materials geologists, logged, photographed, split, and provided to the on-site lab for preparation and analysis. 
| 
8.2 | 
Laboratory Analysis | |
There were various analytical procedures used by MP Materials predecessors for sample preparation and analytical methods.
Historically, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) samples were not inserted into the sample stream as part of the drilling programs. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
71 | |
There were two types of analytical techniques used for measuring TREO at the Project:
| 
| 
| 
| 
Gravimetric methods | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) | |
Results for rare earths were typically reported as percent TREO. 
The analysis for the drilling data in the existing assay database was obtained primarily by XRF analysis. 
| 
8.2.1 | 
Note on Assay Terminology | |
For many rare earth projects, laboratory results typically include assays for all the individual rare earth oxides as well as for Y2O3 which is not considered a rare earth oxide but is geochemically similar and is often associated with heavy rare earth oxides. The exact
grouping of individual oxides into light and heavy categories is not consistent from one project to another. 
Mountain Pass is
considerably enriched in light rare earth oxides (LREO) compared with heavy rare earth oxides and Yttrium (HREO+Y), due to the predominance of bastnaesite whose mineral structure favors inclusion of lighter rare earth elements. The Mountain Pass
assay suite was limited to the lighter rare earth oxides, specifically La2O3,
CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3 and these were routinely summed together and reported as a single value
representing the sum of the five individual oxide assays. Therefore, for the Mountain Pass project, the grades entered into the drillhole database as LnO or REO and presented in this report as TREO represent the sum of La2O3, CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3. 
Many rare earth projects discuss LREO or HREO+Y ratios by expressing one group
as a percentage of the sum (LREO+HREO+Y) and may refer to this summed assay value as TREO or TREO+Y; however, this is not the case for Mountain Pass. 
Specifically, the definition of the term TREO in this report is different from the same term typically used when discussing other
projects. In this report, TREO is the sum of La2O3, CeO2, Pr6O11, Nd2O3, and Sm2O3 and it excludes the heavier rare earth oxides and yttrium oxide. 
| 
8.2.2 | 
Historical Analyses | |
Prior to 1970, Molycorp used a gravimetric method for samples from the drilling and sampling programs. The gravimetric method determined
Re2O3% and was reported as TREO%. In this method, approximately 0.5 to 1.0 g of sample was dissolved through heating in a mixture of
perchloric acid (HClO4) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The rare earths were then
isolated in two precipitation and dissolution steps using organic solvents and inorganic rinses. The first step involved using phenolphthalein and NH4OH and the second used oxalic acid. This
procedure separated the TREO and thorium from iron, aluminum, uranium, titanium, phosphate, manganese, alkaline and alkali earth metals and other divalent cations. The final filtered precipitate of RE-oxalate was then ignited at 900 to
1,000C and when cooled weighed as total Re2O3 (Jennings, 1966). SRK does not know the detection limit for this technique. 
| 
8.2.3 | 
Current Analytical Practices | |
Currently, the on-site lab uses XRF and Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) techniques for determination of individual rare earth species
and reports the analysis as individual and TREO. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
72 | |
Laboratory equipment at the on-site laboratory includes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
One Philips PW2404 x-ray spectrometer XRF with a PW2450 VRC sample changer capable of running up to 150 samples per day
(the lab is currently capable of prepping 50 fusion disks per day) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
One XPert PRO X-ray Diffraction (XRD) PANalytical | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
One Perkin and Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Two Ultima2 Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission spectrometers (ICP-AES) each capable of 100 samples per day | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
One Agilant Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS) with an Agilant 7500cc Octopole Reaction System
capable of speciation that can analyze 600 samples per day | |
Table 8-1
presents the detection limits for the oxides and TREO parameters. 
******Table 8-1****:****Oxides and TREO Detection Limits, Mountain Pass
Laboratory**********
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Oxide | 
| 
P2O5
| 
| 
ThO2 | 
| 
SiO2 | 
| 
Fe2O3 | 
| 
MgO | 
| 
CaO | 
| 
SrO | 
| 
BaO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Limit (%) | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
0.05 | |
| 
| 
TREO | 
| 
TREO | 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
n/a | 
| 
n/a | |
| 
| 
| 
Limit (%) | 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
0.03 | 
| 
0.03 | 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
| 
8.2.4 | 
2009 and 2010 Samples | |
Drill samples for the 2009 and 2010 campaigns were analyzed at both the Mountain Pass Laboratory and at SGS Minerals in Lakefield,
Ontario, Canada. SGS Minerals has ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. 
Quality control samples included: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Field blanks (roadside marble and scoria grab samples) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pulp blanks prepared from purchased silica sand | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Field duplicates (i.e., two splits of RC cuttings collected at the drill rig) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Coarse reject duplicates | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pulp duplicates | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
A pit standard (pulp prepared by Mountain Pass) | |
| 
8.2.5 | 
2011 Samples | |
The analysis for the 2011 drilling program completed by Molycorp were analyzed at Actlabs in Ancastor, Ontario, Canada using the Code 8
Rare Earth Element Assay Package. In this package, the analysis is conducted using a lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion followed by dissolution in acid and analysis by ICP-MS. Detection limits for this technique are shown in Table 8-2. Actlabs has ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
73 | |
******Table** **8-2****:**
**Oxides and Element Detection Limits, Actlabs Laboratory******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Oxide orElement | 
| 
DetectionLimit | 
| 
Element | 
| 
DetectionLimit | 
| 
Element | 
| 
DetectionLimit | 
| 
Element | 
| 
DetectionLimit | |
| 
Al2O3 | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Be | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Rb | 
| 
2 ppm | 
| 
La | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
CaO | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Bi | 
| 
0.4 ppm | 
| 
Sb | 
| 
0.5 ppm | 
| 
Ce | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
Fe2O3 | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Co | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Sc | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Pr | 
| 
0.05 ppm | |
| 
K2O | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Cr | 
| 
20 ppm | 
| 
Sn | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Nd | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
MgO | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Cs | 
| 
0.5 ppm | 
| 
Sr | 
| 
2 ppm | 
| 
Sm | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
MnO | 
| 
0.001% | 
| 
Cu | 
| 
10 ppm | 
| 
Ta | 
| 
0.1 ppm | 
| 
Eu | 
| 
0.05 ppm | |
| 
Na2O | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Ga | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Th | 
| 
0.1 ppm | 
| 
Gd | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
P2O5 | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Ge | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Tl | 
| 
0.1 ppm | 
| 
Tb | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
SiO2 | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Hf | 
| 
0.2 ppm | 
| 
U | 
| 
0.1 ppm | 
| 
Cy | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
TiO2 | 
| 
0.001% | 
| 
In | 
| 
0.2 ppm | 
| 
V | 
| 
5 ppm | 
| 
Ho | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
LOI | 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
Mo | 
| 
2 ppm | 
| 
W | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Er | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
Ag | 
| 
0.5 ppm | 
| 
Nb | 
| 
1 ppm | 
| 
Y | 
| 
2 ppm | 
| 
Tm | 
| 
0.05 ppm | |
| 
As | 
| 
5 ppm | 
| 
Ni | 
| 
20 ppm | 
| 
Zn | 
| 
30 ppm | 
| 
Yb | 
| 
0.1 ppm | |
| 
Ba | 
| 
3 ppm | 
| 
Pb | 
| 
5 ppm | 
| 
Zr | 
| 
4 ppm | 
| 
Lu | 
| 
0.04 ppm | |
Source: Modified from Actlabs fee schedule (http://www.actlabs.com/files/Canada_2012.pdf, 2012 
| 
8.2.6 | 
2021 Samples | |
A relatively small subset of the database is comprised of samples taken during 2021 geotechnical drilling. These samples function for two
purposes, primarily as additional information to characterize select interceptions of mineralization, and secondly as verification of the sample prep and analysis methodology employed by the Mountain Pass laboratory. 
| 
8.3 | 
Quality Control and Quality Assurance | |
| 
8.3.1 | 
Historical QA/QC | |
During the drilling programs at the Project, which were conducted prior to 1992, there was no QA/QC in place that included the regular
insertion of standards, blanks, and duplicates into the sample stream. SRK located a limited number of laboratory printouts but no analytical certificates. Within the printouts, SRK found a limited number of re-analyses, but these were not
systematic, appeared to be confirmation of higher grades and did not represent the entire spectrum of analytical results. Current laboratory personnel report that instrument QA/QC was in place at the on-site laboratory during these drilling
programs, but no records are available. 
The pre-1992 drilling comprises more than half of the drilling used in the resource model.
The uncertainty that results from the lack of QA/QC is counteracted by the production reconciliation presented in this report. The infill drilling program conducted in 2009 through 2010 used both the Mountain Pass laboratory and SGS Lakefield for
sample assay. Figure 8-1 illustrates the assay results returned for the pit standard. The pit standard was prepared and homogenized by Molycorp and was not subjected to a round robin assay study which
would normally be completed to certify the standard material; nevertheless, the results were quite precise, and both laboratories were broadly in agreement with each other with Mountain Pass laboratory returning slightly lower grades
on average than SGS laboratory. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
74 | |
Pit Standard Submission 2009-2010 
Source: SRK, 2019 
******Figure** **8-1****: 2009 Through 2010 Pit Standard Assays******
A number of duplicate samples were
submitted during the course of the program to assess the repeatability of sample assays both for field duplicates and for pulp duplicates. Figure 8-2 illustrates the results, generally both field and pulp
duplicates compare closely, the half average relative difference for each dataset is up to +/-17% and up to +/-6% respectively. This shows that the mineralization is reasonably homogeneous within the drill core and that there is only limited
potential for sampling error. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
75 | |
Mountain Pass 2009-2010 Duplicates 
Source: SRK, 2019 
******Figure** **8-2****: 2009 Through 2010 Duplicates******
| 
8.3.2 | 
2011 Campaign QA/QC Program | |
The 2011 drilling program included the insertion of blanks and duplicates but no standards. The prior standard samples were depleted
during the 2010 drilling campaign. Blanks, standards, and duplicates are part of an industry best practice drilling program and are used to independently check precision and accuracy during analysis. 
SRK was not provided with the QA/QC data from the 2011 drilling program. As a result, SRK has not reviewed this QA/QC data and cannot
comment. 
| 
8.3.3 | 
2021 Campaign QA/QC Program | |
The 2021 drilling included a series of field duplicate analyses and four blank insertions into the sample stream. No standards (certified
reference materials) were inserted to test laboratory precision. Duplicates were collected as quarter core from the remaining half not sent for analysis as the primary sample. One quarter was provided to the Mountain Pass lab to test against the
primary half core sample. The second quarter was sent to ALS Minerals in Tucson, AZ for processing and ALS Minerals Vancouver for analysis. While the comparison for the duplicates within the MP lab
(Figure 8-3) show excellent agreement, the comparison for the duplicates submitted to ALS (Figure 8-4) appear relatively poor, with significant deviations in
grade from the original Mountain Pass sample. In SRKs opinion, this demonstrates differences between laboratories in terms of preparation/analytical methodology. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
76 | |
Duplicate Treo 
Source: SRK, 2021 
******Figure** **8-3****: 2021 Field Duplicate Analyses MP Materials
Lab******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
77 | |
REO ALS 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 8-4: External Duplicate Analyses MP vs. ALS**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
78 | |
| 
9 | 
Data Verification | |
This section summarizes data verification performed by SRK in relation to information supporting the mineral resources. 
| 
9.1 | 
Re-Assaying Program | |
In 2009, SRK conducted a review of historical sample preparation and analytical procedures. The result of this review was to perform a
check assay program. Sample pulp and reject material was largely discarded by previous owners, so SRK utilized archived split core stored onsite. 
For this check assay program, samples were shipped to and then prepared at the SGS Minerals preparation laboratory located in Elko,
Nevada, USA. (SGS Elko). The primary analytical laboratory used for this program was SGS Minerals (SGS Minerals) located in Lakefield, Ontario, Canada and approximately 10% of these check samples were also analyzed on site at the internal Mountain
Pass Laboratory. 
| 
9.1.1 | 
Procedures | |
The 2009 sample check program included re-analysis of approximately 1% of the historical assay database results. The program included the
following sample types and numbers: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
108 half-core samples with original assay results between 0.18% to 16.30% TREO | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
10 site-specific standard samples based on two samples of known TREO content | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
10 blind duplicates | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
5 blank samples | |
SRK selected random duplicate samples from sample intervals within the database that covered a range of analytical results from 0.18%
TREO to 16.30% TREO. Since these duplicate samples are retained half split core, they are effectively field duplicates. Of the 108 core samples, 66 core samples had historical assay results between 3.00% and 11.00% TREO. The remaining 42 core
samples had historical assay results between 0.18% and 2.99% or 11.01% and 16.30% TREO. 
Standards and blanks were site specific. The
site-specific standards are non-certified and were created by the on-site laboratory from a pit sample and a high-grade sample from the Birthday claim. The blank material was a non-mineralized sample collected at the Mountain Pass site by SRK. 
SRK directed SGS Elko to prepare ten duplicates from the pulverized samples and to give them unique sample numbers. The duplicates were
prepared and inserted into the sample stream prior to shipping to the SGS Minerals laboratory for analysis. Ten pulverized splits of the core samples were also sent back to the on-site laboratory for comparative analysis. The pulverized splits are
considered pulp duplicates, with an allowed a 10% error. 
In addition to the external SRK quality control (QC) samples, SGS
Minerals included their internal laboratory QC sampling including one blank, one sequential duplicate (i.e., a duplicate placed immediately after the primary sample) and three additional duplicates per batch at the analytical lab in Lakefield. The
analysis was run in two batches, totaling two blanks, two in-line duplicates and six duplicates in addition to the external QC samples from SRK. Calibration standards were provided by the Mountain Pass Laboratory to insure similar analytical
sensitivity for both labs. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
79 | |
For the onsite Mountain Pass laboratory, site technicians inserted two duplicates and
one standard in the ten samples analyzed onsite. 
For specific gravity (SG) QC, ten samples were selected from the core samples and
sent to ALS in Reno, Nevada U.S.A for SG measurements. SG is further discussed further in Section 11.5. 
| 
9.1.2 | 
SGS Check Assay Sample Preparation | |
Sample preparation for the check analysis was completed at SGS Elko. The preparation technique used was SGS Minerals code PRP90, which
used the following procedures: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The sample was dried at 100C for 24 hours. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The sample was crushed to 90% passing a 2 millimeter (mm) (10 mesh) screen. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The sample was split using a riffle splitter to 250 g. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The 250 g split was placed in a vibratory mill and pulverized until 85% passed a 75-micron (200 Mesh) screen. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The coarse reject was retained and returned to the client for any future analysis. | |
The sample was then shipped to the SGS Minerals laboratory for X-Ray Fusion (XRF) analysis (SGS Minerals, 2009). 
| 
9.1.3 | 
SGS Check Assay XRF Procedures | |
SGS Minerals worked closely with the Mountain Pass Laboratory to identify the appropriate method for preparing fusion discs for the XRF
to ensure that both labs used similar procedures for TREO analysis. A 0.2 g to 0.5 g pulp sample is fused with 7 g of a 50/50 mixture of lithium tetraborate and lithium metaborate into a homogenous glass disk. This is then analyzed using a wave
dispersive XRF (WDXRF). Loss on ignition at 1000C is determined separately using gravimetric techniques and is part of the matrix correction calculation. These calculations are performed by WDXRF software (SGS, 2009). This method is accredited
with the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and conforms with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 (SGS, 2009). The analyses performed for the SRK study included SGS Minerals control quality measures, which are used to monitor and control metallurgical
or manufacturing processes. They are analyzed individually for better quality output. The oxides analyzed and their detection limits are listed in Table 9-1. The analytical work included Loss on Ignition
(LOI) as a separate analysis. 
******Table** **9-1****: Oxides Analyzed with Detection
Limits******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Oxide | 
| 
Limit (%) | 
| 
| 
Oxide | 
| 
Limit (%) | 
| 
| 
Oxide | 
| 
| 
Limit (%) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Whole Rock Analysis | 
| |
| 
| 
SiO2 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
Na2O | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
CaO | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
Al2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
TiO2 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
MgO | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
Fe2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
Cr2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
K2O | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
P2O5 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
V2O5 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
MnO | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
Rare Earth Oxide Analysis | 
| |
| 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| |
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| 
| 
| 
BaO | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
SrO | 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
ThO2 | 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
80 | |
| 
9.1.4 | 
Analysis of Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution | |
Starting in 2009, Molycorp expanded the assay method to include the individual rare earths present in each sample. During the 2009
in-fill and 2010 condemnation drilling campaigns, SRK selected 403 samples for the assay of light rare earth elements (i.e., lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium and samarium). Table 9-2
presents a statistical summary of the light rare earth element results. 
******Table** **9-2****: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009 and
2010 Analyses******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Statistic | 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Number of Samples | 
| 
| 
403 | 
| 
| 
| 
403 | 
| 
| 
| 
403 | 
| 
| 
| 
403 | 
| 
| 
| 
403 | 
| |
| 
| 
Mean Fraction of TREO | 
| 
| 
0.325 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.497 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.043 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.121 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.009 | 
| |
| 
| 
Standard Deviation | 
| 
| 
0.026 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.021 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.003 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.012 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| |
| 
| 
Coefficient of Variance | 
| 
| 
0.079 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.042 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.075 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.095 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.238 | 
| |
| 
| 
Minimum | 
| 
| 
0.26 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.44 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.09 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
Maximum | 
| 
| 
0.41 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.61 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Abs Diff (Min Max) | 
| 
| 
0.151 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.167 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.028 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.080 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.015 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
Standard deviation and associated coefficient of variance indicate a relatively narrow range of variability suggesting that the light
rare earth distribution is consistent. SRK has verified the QA/QC aspects of the 2009/2010 data set and is of the opinion that the protocols in place during this period meet or exceed industry best practices. 
In 2011, Molycorp completed an expanded assay program using a combination of existing core samples and additional drilling in the
resource area. Molycorp conducted an additional 395 assays for individual light rare earths. Table 9-3 presents the summary statistics for this assay program. 
******Table**** 9-3****: Light Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2011
Analyses******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Statistic | 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Number of Samples | 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| |
| 
| 
Mean Fraction of TREO | 
| 
| 
0.327 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.500 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.043 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.121 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.009 | 
| |
| 
| 
Standard Deviation | 
| 
| 
0.019 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.010 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.003 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.012 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| |
| 
| 
Coefficient of Variance | 
| 
| 
0.060 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.019 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.077 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.101 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.242 | 
| |
| 
| 
Minimum | 
| 
| 
0.27 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.46 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.09 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| |
| 
| 
Maximum | 
| 
| 
0.37 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.54 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.16 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Range (Min Max) | 
| 
| 
0.102 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.075 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.028 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.070 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.016 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
Similar to the 2009 and 2010 statistical summary, the 2011 analyses corroborate the relative light rare earth oxide distribution as a
function of TREO. The standard deviation and associated coefficient of variation represent a wider range of variability but still suggest a narrow overall range for light rare earth distribution and that the data are consistent. 
SRK combined the 2009 through 2011 light rare earth assays and calculated summary statistics for each light rare earth. Table 9-4 presents the results of this combined analysis of light rare earths. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
81 | |
******Table** **9-4****: Light
Rare Earth Oxide Distribution Statistics: 2009, 2010 and 2011 Analyses******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Statistic | 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Number of Samples | 
| 
| 
798 | 
| 
| 
| 
798 | 
| 
| 
| 
798 | 
| 
| 
| 
798 | 
| 
| 
| 
798 | 
| |
| 
| 
Mean Fraction of TREO | 
| 
| 
0.326 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.499 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.043 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.121 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.009 | 
| |
| 
| 
Standard Deviation | 
| 
| 
0.023 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.015 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.003 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.012 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| |
| 
| 
Coefficient of Variance | 
| 
| 
0.069 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.031 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.076 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.098 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.240 | 
| |
| 
| 
Minimum | 
| 
| 
0.258 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.444 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.022 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.092 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.005 | 
| |
| 
| 
Maximum | 
| 
| 
0.410 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.611 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.051 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.171 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.021 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Range (Min Max) | 
| 
| 
0.151 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.167 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.028 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.079 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.016 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
The combined dataset of 798 individual assays provides a robust basis to define the distribution of light rare earths in the target
carbonatite mineral, bastnaesite. 
SRK examined the individual assay parameters for the 2009 and 2010 drilling campaigns. Table 9-5 presents the results of this examination. The mean TREO% of this dataset is 7.96%, indicating that the majority of assayed samples are likely above the 5% TREO CoG. Standard deviations are greater
than 50% of the mean estimates. SRK notes that as mean TREO grades are reduced in future mining, it is recommended that the applied LREO applied concentrations are revised and evaluated to determine whether adjustments are warranted. 
******Table**** 9-5****: Light Rare Earth Oxide Assay Statistics: 2009 and 2010 Analyses******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Statistic | 
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Length (ft) | 
| 
| 
1,972 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,972 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,972 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,972 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,972 | 
| |
| 
| 
Number | 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| 
| 
| 
395 | 
| |
| 
| 
Mean Grade (%) | 
| 
| 
2.652 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.970 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.336 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.932 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.067 | 
| |
| 
| 
Standard Deviation | 
| 
| 
1.69 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.19 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.51 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| |
| 
| 
Coefficient of Variance | 
| 
| 
0.637 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.593 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.579 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.546 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.511 | 
| |
| 
| 
Minimum Grade (%) | 
| 
| 
0.80 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.11 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| |
| 
| 
Maximum Grade (%) | 
| 
| 
7.81 | 
| 
| 
| 
10.84 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.95 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.68 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.21 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Abs Diff Grade (%) | 
| 
| 
7.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.49 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.33 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.18 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
| 
9.1.5 | 
Analysis of Heavy Rare Earth Oxide Assays | |
Based on a limited re-assaying program of 210 five ft composite samples from eight of the 2009 Mountain Pass drillholes, the HREO+Y
subtotal expressed as a proportion of LREO+HREO+Y is on average 0.8% in the high-grade samples (TREO>5%), 1.8% in low to medium grade samples (TREO 2% to 5%) and 2.2% in the lowest grade samples (TREO<2%).
Table 9-6 summarizes the results per element for the three grade categories. 
SRK notes
that while this data shows the presence of these heavy rare earths in the Mountain Pass deposit, given the majority of historical sampling does not include analysis for these elements, they have been excluded from the mineral resource estimate given
the uncertainty around the consistency of distribution across the deposit. Further investigation is recommended to improve the understanding and confidence in average grade distributions prior to inclusion of these elements in the mineral resource
statement. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
82 | |
**Table 9-6: Heavy Rare Earth Summary**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Assay Grade (%) | 
| 
| 
Proportion of LREO+HREO+Y | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Grade Category | 
| 
| 
Grade Category | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
>5% | 
| 
| 
2%-5% | 
| 
| 
<2% | 
| 
| 
>5% | 
| 
| 
2%-5% | 
| 
| 
<2% | 
| |
| 
Y2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.21% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.66% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.79% | 
| |
| 
La2O3 | 
| 
| 
2.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.75 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.33 | 
| 
| 
| 
33.4% | 
| 
| 
| 
30.4% | 
| 
| 
| 
29.1% | 
| |
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
4.19 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.55 | 
| 
| 
| 
49.1% | 
| 
| 
| 
48.8% | 
| 
| 
| 
49.0% | 
| |
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
0.36 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.11 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.25% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.52% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.67% | 
| |
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.98 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.32 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.5% | 
| 
| 
| 
13.2% | 
| 
| 
| 
13.8% | 
| |
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.07 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.86% | 
| 
| 
| 
1.21% | 
| 
| 
| 
1.34% | 
| |
| 
Eu2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.013 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.006 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.003 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.15% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.24% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.27% | 
| |
| 
Gd2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.021 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.011 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.006 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.25% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.46% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.53% | 
| |
| 
Tb4O7 | 
| 
| 
0.004 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.06% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.08% | 
| |
| 
Dy2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.006 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.004 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.07% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.20% | 
| |
| 
Ho2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05% | 
| |
| 
Er2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.005 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.002 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.06% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.08% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.09% | 
| |
| 
Tm2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04% | 
| |
| 
Yb2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05% | 
| |
| 
Lu2O3 | 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.001 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.01% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04% | 
| |
| 
LREO | 
| 
| 
8.46 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.41 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.10 | 
| 
| 
| 
99.2% | 
| 
| 
| 
98.2% | 
| 
| 
| 
97.8% | 
| |
| 
HREO+Y | 
| 
| 
0.07 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.8% | 
| 
| 
| 
1.8% | 
| 
| 
| 
2.2% | 
| |
| 
LREO+HREO+Y | 
| 
| 
8.53 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.46 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.12 | 
| 
| 
| 
100% | 
| 
| 
| 
100% | 
| 
| 
| 
100% | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: Molycorp, 2009 
| 
9.1.6 | 
Results | |
Statistical comparison of the analytical results for the 108 core samples with the historical assay database values indicate the datasets
are broadly comparable within tolerance limits. Results for the site-specific standards and duplicate samples were also within acceptable confidence limits. 
There were no blank failures indicating that there was no cross contamination during sample preparation. However, two failures were
observed in the low-grade standard in the 2009 and 2010 QA/QC analysis at the Project. Only one high grade standard was inserted in the sample stream due to delays in creating this sample. Both standards performed lower than the expected value and
the nine low grade standard analyses suggest instrument drift, based on a consistent downward slope in the graph over time. 
In
addition, one of the standards that failed was within a group of samples that showed acceptable correlation with the original sample. The standard failure may be due to failure to adequately determine the accepted mean and standard deviation of the
standard samples. Table 9-7 lists the standards with expected analytical values and Figure 9-1 shows the results of the standards. 
**Table 9-7: Standards with Expected Analytical Performance**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Maximum TREO (%) | 
| 
| 
Median TREO (%) | 
| 
| 
Minimum TREO (%) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Pit Standard | 
| 
| 
6.50 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.91 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.32 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Birthday Standard | 
| 
| 
24.86 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.60 | 
| 
| 
| 
20.34 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2012 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
83 | |
Pit Standard 
Birthday Standard 
Source: SRK, 2012 
**Figure 9-1: Results of Standard Analysis**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
84 | |
The Mountain Pass pulp duplicates showed satisfactory agreement with the SGS Lakefield
original analyses being within 10% with one failure. The blind pulp duplicate assay value pairs analyzed by SGS were all within 10% of each other. These results are shown in Figure 9-2.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
85 | |
SGS Original vs. SGS Duplicate 
Mt. Pass Duplicate vs.
SGS Duplicate 
Source: SRK, 2012 
**Figure 9-2: Results of Pulp Duplicate Analysis**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
86 | |
Overall, the historical Project analyses in the resource database are on average lower
than the corresponding SGS Minerals analyses and the present-day Mountain Pass Laboratory analyses. This is shown in the scatterplot provided in Figure 9-3. SRK notes that the observed scatter between
labs from this program is similar to the 2021 duplicate core samples submitted to ALS, indicating that there are likely minor differences in processing of samples between labs. It is SRKs opinion that these differences are considered
immaterial related to confidence of the mineral resources. 
Original vs. SGS 
Source: SRK, 2012 
**Figure 9-3: Results of Field Duplicate Analysis**
| 
9.2 | 
Opinion on Data Adequacy | |
It is SRKs opinion that the database containing geological and analytical data used to determine and classify mineral resources is
appropriate to application of confidence categories. 
The duplicate pulps assayed at Mountain Pass during this verification exercise
show that assays generated by the internal Mountain Pass Laboratory provide a satisfactory comparison with the external laboratory of SGS Lakefield. SRK concludes that assay results from the 108 half core duplicate samples show minor scatter and
variations which are partly due to the differences in grade from one half of the core to the other and partly due to laboratory precision. This conclusion is based upon the 2021 duplicate analysis as well. It appears that the historical samples
which were prepared on site and assayed at the Mountain Pass Laboratory 20 years ago returned lower assay grades than those returned by SGS Lakefield based on the field duplicate analysis. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
87 | |
Overall, average grades for field duplicates submitted to ALS for the 2021 samples
returned a lower grade of 3.4% TREO vs. the MP lab at 3.8%. Given the limited duplicate data set and the nature of there being no consistent bias observed, SRK notes that this remains unresolved at the time of this report. SRK strongly recommends
that MP investigates the source of the variance in the duplicates from the 2021 sampling. 
The production reconciliation has shown
that historically, the resource block model is acceptably performing although commonly provides relatively lower TREO block grades than the grade control blasthole data. The resource block model grades represent block volumes based on wider spaced
drilling data with the expectation of lower variance (i.e., smoother) grades than the close spaced blastholes. SRK recognizes that the resource block model is purposely designed for prediction of broad grades and tonnages to support mine planning
and therefore, the relatively lower grades are considered acceptable for this purpose. The minor discrepancy in mean grades between blastholes and estimated blocks suggests that further drilling and refinement of block estimation methodology may
improve grade prediction in future model updates. It is SRKs opinion that the current resource block model is satisfactory for the reporting of mineral resources and LoM planning but SRK recommends updating of the model after additional
drilling data is collected. 
Overall, SRK is of the opinion that the historical analytical data in the database can support a level
of confidence commensurate with resource estimation and classification using industry standard definitions. Uncertainties in the underlying quality of the analytical data were accounted for in mineral resource classification and compensated by the
fact that Mountain Pass is an operating mine with ongoing production and reconciliation to support both short term and long term mine planning. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
88 | |
| 
10 | 
Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | |
| 
10.1 | 
Background | |
MP Materials mines ore from the open pit, transports the ore to a primary crushing/stockpile facility and then transports the crushed ore
to the flotation concentrator. At the concentrator, the crushed ore is ground in a ball mill operated in closed circuit with cyclones and then advanced to the flotation circuit to separate bastnaesite from the gangue minerals. The primary product of
the flotation process is a bastnaesite concentrate, which is thickened and filtered and then transported to customers for sale or fed to the on-site separations facility. MP Materials has undertaken extensive metallurgical studies to evaluate TREO
recovery vs. ore grade and in addition has evaluated ore sorting as a method for upgrading lower grade ore prior to milling as a method for increasing mineral reserves and improving overall metallurgical performance. The discussions in Sections
10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 have been prepared by SRK. MP Materials has determined SRK meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR 229.1300. 
MP Materials has recommissioned a rare earths separations facility that is ramping up, with full capacity expected to be achieved by
approximately Q1 2027. The separations facility allows the Company to separate the bastnaesite concentrate into four saleable products (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride). The discussion of the separations facility in
Section 10.5 has been prepared by SGS. MP Materials has determined SGS meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR 229.1300. 
| 
10.2 | 
Flotation Studies: Recovery vs. Ore Grade | |
MP Materials implemented several improvements in the concentrator aimed at increasing overall concentrator performance and undertook a
plant monitoring campaign during the period from July August 2024 to evaluate concentrator performance. The overall results of this monitoring program are summarized in Table 10-1. During this period
concentrator feed averaged 8.54% TREO with an average of 81.5% TREO recovery into the rougher + scavenger flotation concentrate that averaged 45.0% TREO, and which was upgraded to an average of 61.9% TREO during cleaner flotation. Unit TREO recovery
in cleaner flotation circuit averaged 91.6% with an upgrade ratio of 1.375. Overall TREO recovery averaged 74.7%. MP Materials only requires flotation concentrates containing 60% TREO as feed to their separations plant and recognizes that overall
TREO recovery could be increased if the concentrator targeted the production of concentrates containing 60% TREO. 
**Table 10-1: Summary of Overall Results From Concentrator Monitoring: July - August 2024**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Parameter | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ore Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
| 
8.54 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rougher + Scavenger Conc. Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
| 
45.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Cleaner Conc.
Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
| 
61.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rougher/Scavenger : Cleaner Conc. Upgrade
Ratio | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1.375 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rougher + Scavenger TREO Recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
81.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Cleaner Flotation
Unit TREO Recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Overall TREO Recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
74.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Target Cleaner Conc. Grade | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
60.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Target Rougher
Conc. Grade | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
43.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
89 | |
MP Materials conducted a series of rougher flotation studies in the laboratory to
evaluate rougher flotation recovery vs. concentrate grade for ore grades ranging from 3.8% to 10.5% TREO. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 10-2 and shown graphically in Figure 10-1 to Figure 10-6 where TREO recovery into the rougher flotation concentrate is plotted as a function of rougher flotation concentrate grade for each ore tested. 
**Table 10-2: Cumulative Rougher Flotation Concentrate Grade and Recovery vs. Ore Grade**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ore Grade | 
| 
Cumulative Ro Conc Grade (TREO%) | 
| 
| 
Cumulative TREO Recovery (%) | 
| |
| 
REO % | 
| 
Ro Conc-1 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-2 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-3 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-4 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-1 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-2 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-3 | 
| 
| 
Ro Conc-4 | 
| |
| 
3.8 | 
| 
| 
51.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
43.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
40.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
34.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
42.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
62.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
70.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
80.2 | 
| |
| 
5.8 | 
| 
| 
52.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
45.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
42.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
36.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
46.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
76.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
84.9 | 
| |
| 
6.8 | 
| 
| 
53.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
46.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
42.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
37.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
38.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
77.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
85.3 | 
| |
| 
8.6 | 
| 
| 
52.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
47.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
45.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
40.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
50.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
71.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
79.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
87.6 | 
| |
| 
9.8 | 
| 
| 
56.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
47.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
44.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
53.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
77.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
82.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
86.2 | 
| |
| 
10.5 | 
| 
| 
56.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
50.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
48.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
43.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
48.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
74.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
79.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
84.9 | 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
3.8% REO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-1: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 3.8% TREO**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
90 | |
5.8% REO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-2: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 5.8% TREO**
6.8% REO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-3: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 6.8% TREO**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
91 | |
8.6% RCO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-4: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 8.6% TREO**
9.8% REO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-5: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 9.8% TREO**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
92 | |
10.5% REO Feed Rougher Recovery vs Rougher Con Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-6: Rougher Flotation vs. Concentrate Grade: 10.5% TREO**
| 
10.3 | 
Concentrator Recovery Estimate | |
Figure 10-2 to Figure 10-6 graphically show
cumulative concentrate grade vs. cumulative TREO recovery for each ore grade tested along with polynomial equations representing TREO rougher flotation recovery vs. concentrate grade for each ore grade tested. These equations were used to calculate
TREO rougher flotation recovery at a fixed rougher flotation grade of 43.6% TREO, which MP Materials has shown can be upgraded to the target final concentrate grade of 60% TREO in the concentrator. This recognizes that the concentrator cleaner
flotation circuit recovers an average of 91.6% of the TREO contained in the rougher flotation concentrate with an average upgrade ratio of 1.375. Table 10-3 shows rougher and cleaner flotation recoveries for
each ore grade at the fixed rougher concentrate grade of 43.6% TREO and a fixed cleaner flotation concentrate grade of 60% TREO. Figure 10-7 shows overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade, when targeting a final
concentrate containing 60% TREO. Based on this analysis, overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade is given by the following relationship: 
Y = -0.2872*x2 + 7.1509*x +34.02 
Where: 
Y = TREO
recovery % into the cleaner flotation concentrate at a grade of 60% REO 
x = Ore grade: TREO% 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
93 | |
**Table 10-3: Adjusted TREO Recovery, 43.64%
TREO Rougher Concentrate and 60% TREO Cleaner Concentrate**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed TREO % | 
| 
Rougher Flotation 1 | 
| 
TREO Recovery (%) | 
| 
Overall 3 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Cleaner Flotation 2 | |
| 
| 
| 
3.8 | 
| 
62.6 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
57.3 | |
| 
| 
| 
5.8 | 
| 
72.8 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
66.7 | |
| 
| 
| 
6.8 | 
| 
74.8 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
68.5 | |
| 
| 
| 
8.6 | 
| 
82.4 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
75.5 | |
| 
| 
| 
9.8 | 
| 
83.5 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
76.5 | |
| 
| 
| 
10.5 | 
| 
84.8 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
77.7 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
1 TREO recovery at rougher concentrate grade of 43.64% TREO 
2 Cleaner flotation unit TREO recovery based on actual concentrator performance 
3 Overall TREO recovery at final concentrate grade of 60% TREO 
Final Recovery vs Feed Grade 
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
MP Materials is performing test work to determine whether this equation can be modified to include grades below 3.8% TREO. 
**Figure 10-7: Overall TREO Recovery vs. Ore Feed Grade at Target 60% TREO Concentrate Grade**
The metallurgical program conducted during 2024 evaluated ore grades over the range from 3.8% to 10.5% TREO. As such, the
recovery equation developed during 2024 is not considered to be valid for ore grades less than 3.8% TREO. Therefore, the TREO recovery vs. ore grade relationship developed by MP Materials during 2023 will continue to be used for ore grades less than
3.8% TREO. MP Materials 2023 TREO recovery vs. ore grade relationship is shown graphically in Figure 10-8 and is expressed by the following equation: 
Y = -0.0431X5 + 1.2761X4
14.415x3 + 75.427x2 169X + 159.4 
Where: 
Y = TREO recovery % into the cleaner flotation concentrate at a grade of 60% REO 
x = Ore grade: REO% 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
94 | |
At ore grades less than 2% TREO this recovery relationship begins to estimate
incrementally higher TREO recoveries. To address this issue, SRK has interpolated TREO recovery at 22% for the ore grade increment of 1.5% to 2.0% TREO and zero % recovery for ore grades less than 1.5% TREO. 
SRK is of the opinion that the metallurgical data relied upon is adequate for the purposes of estimating concentrator recoveries across
the anticipated range of mill feed grades. 
Final recovery vs Feed grade (70% Cap) 
Source: MP Materials, 2023 
**Figure 10-8: TREO Recovery to Cleaner Flotation Concentrate vs. Feed Grade (MP Materials 2023
Recovery Relationship)**
| 
10.4 | 
Ore Sorter Upgrading Test Program | |
Tomra, a leading supplier of ore sorters, conducted performance test work on low grade ore samples provided by MP Materials to determine
whether ore sorting can be effectively used to sort rare earth bearing material from waste. This test program was conducted using an X-ray transmission (XRT) sensor due to the differences in the atomic densities of the ore (high atomic density) and
the host rock (low atomic density). The results of this program are fully documented in Tomras report, Performance Test Report Rare Earth Ore Sorting, January 17, 2023. The ore sorting test program was conducted on
two feed samples identified as OS-OB and OS-LO, each of which had been screened into two size fractions (12 to 35.5 millimeters (mm) and 35.5 to 80 mm). Each test sample size fraction was run through the ore sorter at three different sensor
settings. The overall results of the test work were positive and demonstrated the potential for ore sorting using an XRT sensor. Significant TREO upgrades as well as high recoveries were achieved for both samples. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
95 | |
Figure 10-9 provides a schematic diagram of the
ore sorting process. Feed material (1) is evenly fed via a screen feeder or vibration feeder over a transition chute onto a conveyor belt. An electric X-ray tube (2) creates broad-band radiation which penetrates the material and provides
spectral absorption information that is measured with an X-ray camera using DUOLINE sensor technology. The resulting sensor information is then processed to provide a detailed density
image of the material allowing it to be separated into high and low-density fractions. If the sensor detects material to be sorted out, it commands the control unit to open the appropriate valves of the ejection module at the end of the
conveyor belt (3). The detected materials are separated from the material flow by jets of compressed air. The sorted material is divided into two fractions in the separation chamber. 
1 Feeding of unsorted material 2 detection by xrt technology 3 separation by comporessed air 
Source: Tomra Report, 2023 
**Figure 10-9: Diagram of the Ore Sorting Process**
| 
10.4.1 | 
Ore Sorter Test Results | |
Ore sorter test results are summarized in Table 10-4 and shown graphically in Figure 10-10 to Figure 10-13. After three stages, REO recovery ranged from 91.0% to 94.7% into ore sorter products that contained 46.4 mass % to 60.0 mass % with upgrade ratios
that ranged from 1.58% to 1.99%. Table 10-5 shows interpolated ore sorter results at a target TREO recovery of 90%. At a 90% TREO target recovery, an average of 47 mass % reported to the product at an average
upgrade ratio of 1.9%. 
In the future, MP Materials plans to evaluate whether even lower grade material (<2.5% TREO) is
potentially amenable to ore sorting. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
96 | |
**Table 10-4: Cumulative Ore Sorter
Performance on Low Grade Ore Samples**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
OS-OB 12-35.5 mm | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mass% | 
| 
| 
REO% | 
| 
| 
REO Dist.% | 
| 
| 
Upgrade Ratio | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed | 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-1 | 
| 
| 
36.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.43 | 
| 
| 
| 
80.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-2 | 
| 
| 
41.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.10 | 
| 
| 
| 
87.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.08 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-3 | 
| 
| 
49.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
92.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.87 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
OS-OB 35.5-80 mm | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mass% | 
| 
| 
REO% | 
| 
| 
REO Dist.% | 
| 
| 
Upgrade Ratio | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed | 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-1 | 
| 
| 
33.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.94 | 
| 
| 
| 
78.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.34 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-2 | 
| 
| 
37.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.65 | 
| 
| 
| 
84.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.25 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-3 | 
| 
| 
46.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.88 | 
| 
| 
| 
92.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.99 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
OS-LO 12-35.5 mm | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mass% | 
| 
| 
REO% | 
| 
| 
REO Dist.% | 
| 
| 
Upgrade Ratio | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed | 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.71 | 
| 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-1 | 
| 
| 
34.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.41 | 
| 
| 
| 
78.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.27 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-2 | 
| 
| 
44.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.30 | 
| 
| 
| 
87.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.97 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-3 | 
| 
| 
60.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
94.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.58 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
OS-LO 35.8-80 mm | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mass% | 
| 
| 
REO% | 
| 
| 
REO Dist.% | 
| 
| 
Upgrade Ratio | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed | 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.25 | 
| 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-1 | 
| 
| 
31.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.31 | 
| 
| 
| 
69.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.19 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-2 | 
| 
| 
36.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.90 | 
| 
| 
| 
77.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.09 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stage-3 | 
| 
| 
51.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
91.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.76 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: Tomra Report, 2023 
**Table 10-5: Ore Sorter Performance at 90% REO Recovery to Product**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Test Sample | 
| 
Recovery Target % | 
| 
Upgrade Ratio | 
| 
Mass Pull % | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
OS-OB 12-35.5 mm | 
| 
90 | 
| 
2.0 | 
| 
46 | |
| 
| 
| 
OS-OB 35.5-80 mm | 
| 
90 | 
| 
1.8 | 
| 
49 | |
| 
| 
| 
OS-LO 12-35.5 mm | 
| 
90 | 
| 
2.0 | 
| 
43 | |
| 
| 
| 
OS-LO 35.5-80 mm | 
| 
90 | 
| 
1.8 | 
| 
51 | |
| 
| 
| 
Average | 
| 
90 | 
| 
1.9 | 
| 
47 | 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
97 | |
Test 1 overburden 12-35.5mm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Recovery vs grade recovery vs upgrade ratio 92.20,5.47 87.20,6.10 80.90,6.43 92.20,1.87 87.20,
2.08 80.90, 2.19 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Recovery (%) 
Source: Tomra and MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-10: Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and Upgrade Ratio: OS-OB:
12-35.5 mm Sample**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
98 | |
Test 2 Low grade 12-35.5mm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Recovery vs grade recovery vs upgrade ratio 94.70, 5.85 87.90, 7.30 78.90, 8.41 94.70,1.58
87.90, 1.97 78.90, 2.27 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Recovery (%) 
Source: Tomra and MP Materials, 2024 
**Figure 10-11****:****Ore Sorter TREO Recovery****vs**. **Product Grade and
Upgrade Ratio****:** **OS-LO****:** **12**-**3****5.5 mm Sample******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
99 | |
Test 3 overburden 12-35.5-80mm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Recovery vs grade recovery vs upgrade ratio 92.00,5.88 84.80, 6.65 78.20, 6.94 92.00,1.98
84.80, 2.24 78.20, 2.34 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Recovery (%) 
Source: Tomra and MP Materials, 2024 
******Figure****10-12****:** **Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and
Upgrade Ratio****:** **OS-OB****:** **35.5-80 mm Sample******
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
100 | |
Test 4 Low grade 12-35.5mm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Recovery vs grade recovery vs upgrade ratio 91.00, 7.47 77.10, 8.90 69.80, 9.31 91.00,
1.76 77.10, 2.10 69.80, 2.19 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 Recovery (%) 
Source: Tomra and MP Materials, 2024 
******Figure****10-13****:** **Ore Sorter TREO Recovery vs. Product Grade and
Upgrade Ratio****:** **OS-LO****:** **35 80 mm Sample******
| 
10.4.2 | 
Flotation Test Work on Ore Sorter Products | |
Rougher flotation tests were conducted on the ore sorter products using standard flotation conditions. The results of these tests are
summarized in Table 10-6. Rougher flotation on the overburden (OS-OB) test product, which contained 5.9% TREO resulted in an interpolated TREO recovery of 71.7% into a rougher flotation concentrate containing
43.6% TREO. Based on a unit TREO recovery of 91.6% during cleaner flotation, overall TREO recovery into a final concentrate containing 60% REO is estimated at 65.7%. Similarly, duplicate rougher flotation tests on the low grade (SO-LO) ore sorter
test product resulted in 81.5% to 83.2% TREO recovery with overall TREO recovery estimated at 74.7% to 76.2% into final REO concentrates containing 60% TREO. These results are shown graphically in Figure 10-14
where it can be seen that TREO recovery from the ore sorter product aligns well with the 2024 recovery curve. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
101 | |
**Table 10-6: Flotation Test Results on Ore
Sorter Products**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Feed Grade | 
| 
REO Recovery % | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Ore Sorter Product | 
| 
REO% | 
| 
Rougher 1 | 
| 
Cleaner Flotation 2 | 
| 
Overall 3 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Overburden | 
| 
5.9 | 
| 
71.7 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
65.7 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Low Grade -Test 1 | 
| 
8.3 | 
| 
81.5 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
74.7 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Low Grade -Test 2 | 
| 
8.3 | 
| 
83.2 | 
| 
91.6 | 
| 
76.2 | 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
1 TREO recovery at fixed rougher concentrate grade of 43.64% TREO 
2 Cleaner flotation unit TREO recovery based on actual concentrator performance 
3 Overall TREO recovery at final concentrate grade of 60% TREO 
Final Recovery vs feed grade 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 y=-0.1593x2+5.675x+38.25 r2=0.9895 2024 recovery curve tomra product test
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
******Figure****10-14****:** **REO Recovery from Ore Sorter Test Products
Superimposed on the 2024 Recovery Curve******
| 
10.5 | 
Separation of Individual Rare Earths | |
The findings put forth by SGS are based on decades of process data, implied results from MP Materials current customers, plant
data from the same assets operating between 2012-2015, bench data, and pilot data. 
A Qualified Person site visit to the MP Materials
operation at Mountain Pass was undertaken in December 2024 by SGS. This visit involved a brief reintroduction to the mining operation and the flotation plant along with a more detailed discussion and inspection of ongoing separations facility ramp
up efforts. Conversations were held with MP Materials engineers who are directly involved with the ongoing ramp up operations. Information provided revealed that the concentrate roasting section of the facility, particularly the product cooler
following the roaster, has had commissioning, operational continuity, and throughput challenges. MP Materials engineering personnel have been addressing 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
102 | |
these challenges. As a result of these efforts, a revised ramp up schedule has been developed by MP Materials personnel and is in the process of being implemented (refer to Table 10-7). This new schedule stipulates that the full separations facility output will be achieved by approximately Q1 2027 and, in the opinion of the SGS Qualified Person, is likely to be achieved. When the full design
output is achieved, nearly all of the bastnsite concentrate produced will be consumed. If the bastnsite concentrate production exceeds the separations facility limit for REO throughput, the excess concentrate will be stockpiled for
processing during periods when there is unused capacity at the separations facility. 
**Table
10-7: Separations Facility Ramp Up Schedule**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Description | 
| 
Units | 
| 
| 
Q4 | 
| 
| 
Q1 | 
| 
| 
Q2 | 
| 
| 
Q3 | 
| 
| 
Q4 | 
| 
| 
Q1 | 
| |
| 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Design Capacity | 
| 
| 
dmtREO | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Ramp
up estimate | 
| 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
| 
51.8 | 
% | 
| 
| 
72.3 | 
% | 
| 
| 
73.2 | 
% | 
| 
| 
84.0 | 
% | 
| 
| 
92.1 | 
% | 
| 
| 
100.0 | 
% | |
| 
| 
| 
Adjusted Capacity | 
| 
| 
dmtREO | 
| 
| 
| 
5,527 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,711 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,810 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,963 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,831 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,670 | 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
dmt is dry metric tonnes 
The remainder of Section 10.5 of this report discusses metallurgical test work, recovery estimates and expected product
specifications for the separations facility. 
| 
10.5.1 | 
Metallurgical Test work | |
MP Materials has conducted extensive pilot testing to both generate data to design circuits and to confirm existing legacy data. There
are 11 primary processes that make up the separations (Stage 2) operation; they are outlined in Figure 10-15. 
Process 1 Concentrate Drying & Roasting 2 Leaching Impurity Removal 3 HREE/LREE Separation 4 PrNd Separation 5 PrNd Finishing 6 La Finishing 7
Ce Finishing 8 SEG+ Finishing 9 Brine Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing Data Source Historical Data (1965-1998); customer data; pilot data (small/large scale) Historical Data (1965-1998); customer data; pilot data (small/large scale) Plant data
(2012-2015); pilot data (small/large) Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale) Plant data (2012-2015); 3rd party lab testing; pilot data (small scale) Plant data (2012-2015); 3rd party lab testing; pilot data (small scale) Plant data
(2012-2015); 3rd party lab testing; pilot data (small scale) Plant data (2012-2015); pilot testing (small scale) Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale); interference testing Plant data (2012-2015); pilot data (small scale); vendor
testing/engineeringMP & 3rd Party Laboratories Analytical Results MP & 3rd Party Laboratories MP & 3rd Party Laboratories MP & 3rd Party Laboratory MP Laboratory MP & 3rd Party Laboratories MP & 3rd Party Laboratories MP, 3rd
Party Laboratory, Customer qualification MP Laboratory; 3rd Party Laboratory; Customer Data 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
******Figure ****10-15**: **Primary Processes for Stage 2 Operation**********
Details of the test work performed are as follows. 
**Concentrate Drying and Roasting**: roasting of bastnaesite concentrate began at Mountain Pass in 1965 or 1966. Roasting of
bastnaesite is known to convert the carbonates into oxides with the salutary effect of converting much of the trivalent cerium to the tetravalent state, which is largely insoluble. The roasting conditions are critical to leach recovery.
Consequently, roasting is a most important thermal step that will allow for economical downstream rare earth processing. Legacy records from the multi-hearth furnace (that remains onsite) suggested a roasting temperature of approximately 600C.
To confirm these figures, MP Materials conducted initial scoping studies of different roasting temperatures and roasting residence times at Hazen Research. The roasted concentrate was then leached at various temperatures and acid consumption levels
to confirm recoveries of trivalent rare earth elements (REEs) and rejection of cerium. This testing was then scaled up by sending at least 5 st of 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
103 | |
concentrate to multiple outside labs and tolling facilities. These organizations performed larger scale roasting exercises using their pilot equipment. These samples were sent to SGS Lakefield
for further confirmatory testing. These tests confirmed the optimal process conditions. Lastly, an approximately 2 st batch of roasted concentrate was leached at MP Materials Cerium 96 plant in two large reactors to confirm the scalability of
the results. Subsequent smaller scale leach tests using the same roasted concentrate have been performed to optimize the timing and temperature of HCl to further enhance PrNd recovery and Ce rejection. 
**Leaching**: given the interconnectedness of roasting with the leach steps, leaching pilot studies were used to confirm both
the effectiveness of the roasting conditions and the optimization of leach conditions. As mentioned above, testing was performed at several outside laboratories, and MP Materials pilot plant. The results were duplicated on a larger scale in
MP Materials Cerium 96 plant. To mirror the temperature control and flexibility provided in MP Materials multi-stage, temperature-controlled reactors, MP Materials upgraded its small-scale leach pilot facility to incorporate better
temperature control than was available in the Cerium 96 plant or at outside laboratories. This generated the best results, superior to those of previous tests. Notwithstanding, MP Materials has used the more conservative recovery estimates to
underly its pre-feasibility study for the separations facility.****
**Impurity Removal**: following the leach step and
the removal of the cerium concentrate and insoluble impurities, the next stages initiate the removal of remaining impurities. The primary end point is the removal of iron, uranium, aluminum, and any other salts that may be partially solubilized with
the potential to produce solids (i.e., CRUD defined as interphase suspended solids or emulsions) in the solvent extraction circuits. These circuits were operated by MP Materials predecessor from 2012-2015. Plant data confirms that
these circuits operated with few major issues. Improvements include a new thickener, filter press, and a pressure leaf filter to ensure full removal of precipitated solids induced by pH adjustment. Also, the installation of a system to add filter
aid to assist in the solid-liquid separation stage of additional impurities is expected to further reduce the risk of CRUD formation in the (solvent extraction) SX circuits and improve consistent throughput. SGS Lakefield pilot tests for impurity
removal and MP Materials own pilot tests confirm the ability to successfully remove sufficient iron, uranium, and dramatically reduce aluminum prior to SX. A secondary bulk extraction is then performed to remove rare earths from remaining
impurities, in particular the cations Ca and Mg. Historical plant data demonstrates that this system operated largely without major complications. The removal of a significant portion of the cerium during leaching will offset the increased
volumetric flow which will result from higher concentrate production. MP Materials has conducted several pilot plant runs using glass mixer-settlers to produce feed for heavy REE separations and (solvent extraction didymium) SXD pilot plant
experiments to further minimize CRUD formation. All these studies have confirmed high recovery and purity of the RE-enriched preg solution. 
**SXH**: a bulk separation of the heavy rare earths (SEG+) fraction from light rare earth element (LREE) will be performed in
solvent extraction heavies (SXH). Previous plant operating experience between 2012-2015 and MP Materials modeling confirms that this plant is adequately sized to ensure clean separation of Sm+ from Nd while minimizing losses of Nd into Sm.
The separation factor between Sm and Nd is large (aided largely by the absence of Pm in nature), so MP Materials has not performed any additional piloting on this circuit. 
**SXD**: the SXD circuit separates a PrNd stream from the La and residual Ce in the SXH raffinate. SXD operated smoothly under
the predecessor entity and sufficient data exists from the later months to 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
104 | |
conclude that once in equilibrium, the ability to make on-spec PrNd is confirmed. However, MP Materials is pursuing an additional separation in this facility involving the elimination of the need
for a separate cerium removal stage. 
**PrNd Finishing**: precipitation of PrNd from the chloride media has been piloted at
SGS Lakefield as well as in MP Materials pilot plant. Both carbonate and oxalate experiments were conducted and analyzed for rheology, particle size, settling rate, impurities, ability to meet market product specifications, and determination
of equipment sizing. The products were analyzed by a third party laboratory and MP Materials analytical laboratory. The finishing circuit has been designed for maximum flexibility for product precipitation and high-purity finishing based upon
testing performed by MP Materials, third party laboratories, and equipment vendors. 
**La Finishing**: lanthanum
precipitation by soda ash, solid liquid separation, drying and calcining tests were conducted at third party laboratories, and in MP Materials pilot plant to confirm rheology, equipment sizing, and the ability to meet market specifications.
The implementation of a 2 stage (countercurrent decantation) CCD solid-liquid separation circuit is anticipated to improve spent leach solution (SLS), minimize losses, and improve product quality. This approach was demonstrated in several pilot
plant runs. 
**PhosFIX Finishing**: a multi-month pilot study conducted by MP Materials demonstrated the ability to
produce a clean cerium chloride solution for sale into the water treatment market. This confirmed previous modeling studies. The laboratory data were confirmed by MP Materials laboratory and by mass balances. The wide range of acceptable La
to Ce ratios means that little additional pilot work has been necessary. 
**SEG+ Finishing**: MP Materials uses the same
SEG+ finishing assets as previously employed from 2012-2015 with minimal change. Legacy plant data confirms that the equipment is appropriately sized and designed, so no additional testing was performed. 
**Brine Recovery, Treatment, Crystallizing**: MP Materials has conducted several rounds of pilot studies taking appropriate
mixtures of brine from previously operated facilities and SX pilot plant investigations to produce a representative brine. Additional flocculant testing and soda ash precipitation has been conducted in several runs to confirm the ability to perform
adequate solid/liquid separation. MP Materials plans an upgrade to the brine recovery circuit, including the addition of an additional filter press (like in kind), and a pressure leaf filter as a final polishing step. These will facilitate removal
of non-sodium salts, to be disposed on site, prior to sending the sodium chloride solution to the brine evaporator and crystallizer. As no material chemical changes are expected, the major focus has been on confirming adequate equipment sizing.
Legacy plant data combined with SysCAD modeling confirm that there should be sufficient redundancy to handle the expected volume. A salt crystallizer is being designed to handle the expected plant flow (including an engineering factor). A
conservative brine assay was provided to confirm suitability of the materials of construction as well as throughput. The existing brine evaporator ran smoothly to service the chlor-alkali plant (that is not slated for restart until a later date) and
is being repositioned to optimize the crystallizer feed solution. No direct piloting of the crystallizer has been performed, though the vendor has provided a performance guarantee. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
105 | |
| 
10.5.2 | 
Representativeness of Test Samples | |
The Mountain Pass ore body has been consistent over 70 years of regular mining, beneficiation, and processing. The mineral resource and
mineral reserve estimates presented in this Technical Report Summary forecast a similar mineralogy over the LoM. For this reason, the pilot results are considered to be representative of the results to be expected for the deposit as a whole. 
The most critical steps in the entire hydrometallurgical and separation process are the roasting and leaching steps. These steps are
critical for cracking the bastnaesite mineral as well as maximizing trivalent recovery and minimizing cerium recovery that underlie the processing of the Mountain Pass ore. MP Materials has extensively piloted roasting and leaching variations from
concentrate produced over different periods (early 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) and has always found the optimal results utilize similar conditions. Testing was conducted by third party laboratories, various vendors and cross-checked with legacy
data, verified as consistent with Chinese processing conditions, and further piloted at bench, pilot, and commercial scale at MP Materials. These optimized conditions, apparently not coincidentally, were nearly identical to those practiced by its
predecessor from 1966 to 1998. 
This suggests that within the typical volatility of the ore body, these roasting and leaching
conditions have produced the optimal results over time. In recent years, MP Materials has shipped approximately 100,000 metric tonnes of REO to different processors in China. MP Materials understands that the vast majority of its customers pursue a
similar hydrometallurgical process as is planned by MP Materials. Despite the concentrate being produced from different mining phases of the open pit (and different ore blends and final concentrate grades), the sales pricing framework has remained
largely intact. This suggests that the leaching recovery has been consistent over the four year period, providing further comfort of the representativeness of the samples tested. 
Once the bastnaesite has been leached, it is not expected that variations in mineralogy will materially impact plant performance.
Therefore, satisfaction of consistent leachability should provide sufficient support for the assumption of the suitability of the process design for LoM. 
| 
10.5.3 | 
Analytical Laboratories | |
MP Materials has been supported in its process design effort by a number of institutions and laboratories, as shown in Table 10-8. With the exception of MP Materials own analytical and engineering laboratories, all are fully independent of MP Materials and were compensated on a fee-per-service basis with no compensation tied to
results achieved. 
**Table 10-8: Analytical Laboratories**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Name | 
| 
Location | 
| 
Certification | |
| 
| 
| 
Hazen Research,
Inc. | 
| 
Golden,
Colorado, USA | 
| 
https://www.hazenresearch.com/capabilities/analytical-laboratories | |
| 
| 
| 
SGS Lakefield | 
| 
Lakefield,
Ontario, Canada | 
| 
https://www.scc.ca/en/system/files/client-scopes/ASB_SOA_15254-
Scope_v2_2021-07-30.pdf | |
| 
| 
| 
Paterson & Cooke
USA Ltd | 
| 
Golden,
Colorado, USA | 
| 
http:///www.dcmsciencelab.com/certifications/
through DCM Science Laboratories | |
| 
| 
| 
Golder Associates
Inc. | 
| 
Lakewood,
Colorado, USA | 
| 
https://acz.com/index.php/certifications/
through ACZ Laboratories Inc. | |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
106 | |
| 
10.5.4 | 
Separations Facility Recovery Estimates | |
In order to design, size, and optimize the operation of the circuits in the Stage 2 process, MP Materials has analyzed legacy plant data
and conducted (and continues to conduct) a range of bench-scale and larger-scale pilot activities. The primary end points relate to the following, summary data of which will be explained in more detail in the subsequent sections: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Optimizing roasting and leaching conditions to maximize trivalent (La, Pr, Nd, SEG+) rare earth recoveries while
maintaining cerium recovery below 20% | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Ensuring sufficient settling rate of cerium concentrate with clear thickener overflow | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Efficient iron and uranium removal with minimal REE loss | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
pH adjustment and further impurity removal with minimal trivalent REE loss | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Clean separation of Nd from Sm, with a focus on minimizing Sm into the raffinate stream (i.e., into Nd) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Clean separation of PrNd from La and Ce along with pure La and on-spec Ce (with no more than 20% La) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sufficient settling of PrNd oxalate with clear overflow and low impurities | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sufficient settling and purity of lanthanum carbonate | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Ability to remove non sodium (Na) impurities from brine stream to feed the crystallizer, allowing for relatively pure
sodium salt (non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) discharge that could be either sold or disposed onsite in the Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility (NWTDF) | |
The data confirms the recovery figures shown in Table 10-9. 
**Table 10-9: Overall Recovery Concentrate to Finished Products**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Finished Product | 
| 
Overall Recovery | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Lanthanum | 
| 
| 
74.9% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Cerium | 
| 
| 
8.9% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Praseodymium/Neodymium | 
| 
| 
89.7% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SEG+ | 
| 
| 
97.9% | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
SEG+ includes the impact of LREE losses into SEG+ stream (considered an impurity) 
**Summary of Continuous Roasting and Leaching**
Experimental Conclusions
For the leach pilot, an optimal extraction of 94.63% Nd2O3 and %Pr6O11 and %SEG+ was achieved at 109 grams per liter (g/L) REO in pregnant
leach solution (PLS). Respective Ce extraction was 13.90%. During the stabilized run of the pilot, the highest achievable consistent g/L was 125 to 127 g/L. The respective optimal cerium extraction achieved was 9.57%. 
Experiment Background and Objectives
During previous runs of the REE separation circuit at Mountain Pass, further downstream processes were required to separate cerium from
the blend of rare earth elements in the concentrate. The purpose of this pilot was to show that parametric optimization of the roasting and leaching conditions in the leach circuit can result in the rejection of 80%+ cerium oxide and the extraction
of 90%+ PrNd and SEG+ Oxides. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
107 | |
Experiment Metrics
Experiment results are presented in Figure 10-16 and
Figure 10-17 and in Table 10-10 through Table 10-12. 
Rare Earth % extraction 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% Experiment at 109 g/L 0.95 La203% 0.14 Ceo 2% 0.94 Pr6011% Red 0.93
Nd203% 0.95 SEC+ Total% 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-16: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 109 g/L with 93+% PrNd**
Rare Earth % extraction 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% Experiment at 127 g/L 0.93 La203% 0.10 Ceo 2% 0.97 Pr6011% Red 0.88
Nd203% 0.82 SEC+ Total% 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
Lower extraction of Nd2O3
and SEG+ 
**Figure 10-17: Extraction of Rare Earth Oxides at 127 g/L**
**Table 10-10: Feed Conditions that Resulted in Optimal Extractions at 109 g/L**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ore Feed Rate
(g/min) | 
| 
| 
RO
Water (mL/min) | 
| 
| 
HCl TK2
(mL/min) | 
| 
| 
HCL TK3
(mL/min) | 
| 
| 
HCL TK4
(mL/min) | 
| 
| 
HCL TK5
(mL/min) | 
| 
| 
HCL TK6
(mL/min) | 
| 
| 
Total Volume
Pilot Tanks (mL) | 
| 
| 
Residence Time
Distribution (hours) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
8.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
18.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
17,500 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.55 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
g/min is grams per minute; mL/min is milliliters per minute. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
108 | |
**Table 10-11: Test Material Feed
Composition by % Solid REO**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
La2O3% | 
| 
| 
CeO2% | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11% | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3% | 
| 
| 
SEG%+ | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
24.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
37.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Table 10-12: Outlet Stream Composition by g/L REO at 109 g/L**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
La2O3 g/L | 
| 
| 
CeO2 g/L | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 g/L | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 g/L | 
| 
| 
SEG g/L | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
62.034 | 
| 
| 
| 
13.739 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.939 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.095 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.3139 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Summary of Leach Slurry Settling Tests**
Experimental Conclusions 
With the assistance of two vendors, MP Materials evaluated various anionic high molecular weight dry flocculants mixed at 0.20% and dosed
into 500 mL samples of well mixed slurry. It was found that two worked best at a minimal dosage of 40 ppm for all 3 CCD thickeners. For CCD 1, this translated to 1,012 grams per metric tonne dosages and for CCD 2 and 3 translated to approximately
909.1 grams per metric tonne. See Table 10-13 for full breakdown. 
Experiment
Background and Objectives
Tests were performed on the CCD 1 thickener feed slurry with both vendors products. Two products
of similar settling efficacy were found. 
Experiment Metrics
Experiment results are presented in Table 10-13. NTU (as a measure of clarity) refers to
nephelometric turbidity unit. 
**Table 10-13: Settling Test Results Including Overflow
Clarity with Various Flocculants and Dosages**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
CCD | 
| 
Test
Product # | 
| 
| 
Dose
(PPM) | 
| 
| 
Minimum Dosage
(grams/metric tonne) | 
| 
| 
Size | 
| 
Settle | 
| 
Clarity
(NTU) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Med. | 
| 
| 
1000+ | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
428 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Med. | 
| 
| 
1000+ | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
23 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
38 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
113 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
50 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
36 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Med. | 
| 
| 
1000+ | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
29 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Med | 
| 
| 
29 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
909.1 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
45 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
909.1 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,012.0 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
909.1 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
| 
| 
909.1 | 
| 
| 
Small | 
| 
Fast | 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
109 | |
**Summary Fe/U Loading and Losses**
Experimental Conclusions 
The range of Fe in MP Materials leach solution exists nominally within a range of 200 to 400 ppm, and, as such, ion exchange
loading capacity is reported as a range respective to these two conditions. With the addition of 12N HCl and a 10% dilution of the feed solution, it is possible to reach a loading capacity of 0.95 to 1.89 L mother liquor/L column resin. With
the addition of 1.8 N NaCl and a 10% dilution of the feed solution with 12N HCl (total Cl- of 3N), that number can be increased to 5.59 to 11.18 L mother liquor/L column resin. It was determined that 250 g/L of solid NaCl (4.27 Mol Cl-) can be
safely added to further boost the loading capacity of the resin and that NaCl should be dissolved first to avoid the formation of sodium hydride salts in the reactor. At a 20% dilution with 12N HCl, this would increase the loading capacity to
22.18 to 44.36 L mother liquor/ L column resin. Mass balances of the rare earths that hover between 98% and 102% indicate analytical statistical error and are not indicative of rare earth losses to the resin. However, loading of iron and uranium can
be observed as shown in the mass balance of cell 10 of Table 10-15. 
Experimental and
Objectives
The objective of these experiments is to alter the Cl- composition of the feed stock leach liquor to improve loading
capacity of the Fe/U IX columns. This is achieved with the addition of HCl and NaCl.
Experimental Metrics
Experiment results are presented in Figure 10-18, Table
10-14 and Table 10-15. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
110 | |
LMP Liquor/L Column Resin 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 total Loadable Volume vs Column Bed Volume 1.2 1.89 0.95 1.5 4.00 2.00 11.18 5.59 3 28.23
14.11 3.7 44.36 2218 5 84.55 42.28 6 Approximate normal CL Max feed volume (200 ppm Fe) Min feed volume (400 ppm Fe) 
Source:
MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-18: Volumes of Leach Liquor per Volume of Resin Required
Before a Regeneration Cycle**
**Table 10-14: Assays of Feed, Cell of Complete Rare Earth
Breakthrough, and Cell of Fe/U Bleed**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Sample ID | 
| 
La2O3 g/L | 
| 
| 
CeO2 g/L | 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 g/L | 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 g/L | 
| 
| 
Fe mg/L | 
| 
| 
Na mg/L | 
| 
| 
U mg/L | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
INFLB Cell 10 | 
| 
| 
36 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.14 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.69 | 
| 
| 
| 
21.91 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
34840.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| |
| 
INFLB Cell
78 | 
| 
| 
36.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.56 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
65.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
34257.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.3 | 
| |
| 
INFLB Feed | 
| 
| 
36.89 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.53 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.54 | 
| 
| 
| 
22.55 | 
| 
| 
| 
129.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
34195.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
19.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Table 10-15: Mass Balance Calculations for Outlet Streams at Various Fractions**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Sample ID | 
| 
La/La
Feed | 
| 
| 
Ce/Ce
Feed | 
| 
| 
Pr/Pr
Feed | 
| 
| 
Nd/Nd
Feed | 
| 
| 
Fe/Fe
Feed | 
| 
| 
Na/Na
Feed | 
| 
| 
U/U
Feed | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
INFLB Cell 10 | 
| 
| 
97.59% | 
| 
| 
| 
98.27% | 
| 
| 
| 
102.71% | 
| 
| 
| 
97.16% | 
| 
| 
| 
2.08% | 
| 
| 
| 
101.89% | 
| 
| 
| 
0.52% | 
| |
| 
INFLB Cell
78 | 
| 
| 
98.86% | 
| 
| 
| 
99.42% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.36% | 
| 
| 
| 
98.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
50.35% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.18% | 
| 
| 
| 
27.75% | 
| |
| 
INFLB Feed | 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| 
| 
| 
100.00% | 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Summary of Impurity Removal**
The Impurity Removal circuit is designed to achieve a high purity SX feed. First the pH of the liquor is increased by the addition of 32%
NaOH solution to the highest practical value with less than 1% of rare earth losses. This process was piloted at Mountain Pass in Summer 2021 to attain process parameters. A secondary goal of the pilot work was to determine whether this could serve
as the primary aluminum-removal step for MP Materials entire plant process. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
111 | |
Figure 10-19 shows a before and after for the
steady-state operation of the pilot effort. The assay for T2 Shift Avg represents the product stream of this pilot work. The absolute concentrations are listed as well as the adjusted values. 
SampleID Fe/U-removed leach liquor T2 Shift Avg Absolute T2 Shift Avg Dilution Adjusted T2 % Loss La2O3 g/L 27.065
24.093 26.310 2.79 CeO2 g/L 30.054 26.003 28.396 5.52 Pr6O11 g/L 4.386 3.986 4.353 0.76 Nd2O3 g/L 19.510 17.862 19.505 0.03 Sm2O3 g/L 3.953 3.634 3.969 -0.39 Eu2O3 g/L 0.247 0.219 0.239 3.01 Gd2O3 g/L 0163 0.148 0.162 0.95 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-19: Mass Balance**
The pilot effort also showed that an additional aluminum removal step will continue to be required. 
**Summary of SXI Recovery / Mass Balance** 
A subsequent impurity removal stage has two main functions in the overall MP Materials flowsheet: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Remove the divalent impurities from the leach liquors | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Increase the concentration of rare earth elements feeding solvent extraction | |
One of the relevant modifications in the circuit from the legacy operations is that around 10% of the lanthanum present in the feed
stream will be intentionally rejected. The process was tested on a pilot scale for a total of 10 weeks to achieve statistical process control. 
**Summary of SXH Recovery / Mass Balance** 
The SXH circuit which follows the solvent extraction impurities (SXI) circuit in the overall MP Materials flowsheet, receives the
purified SX solution as the feed, after a stage of pH adjustment. The primary functions of the SXH circuit in the circuit are: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
To separate the heavy fraction (i.e., the SEG+ elements) from the light rare earths (i.e., LaCePrNd fraction).
The light REE fraction is subsequently separated in the SXD circuit | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
To concentrate the SEG+ fraction from ~20 to ~350 g/L in the preg stream | |
The process has three input streams as shown in Figure 10-20; Feed, NaOH, and HCl. There are two
output streams: Raffinate containing the light REs, and the heavy RE-enriched preg stream. 
Feed NaOH HCl Strip SXH Process LRE Product Stream HRE Product Stream 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-20: Diagram of the SXH Process**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
112 | |
The process was run on a pilot scale using a synthetic feed produced by blending SXI
preg with heavy rare earth element (HREE) concentrate produced from the legacy circuit. Although the REO distribution in the synthetic feed does not match what would be encountered in the full-scale plant, the outcome of the testing would be the
same at plant conditions. Piloting feed concentrations were adjusted to provide a reasonable timeframe for results. 
The process
control of the circuit was done by complexometric titrations to measure the REO concentrations in different streams of the circuit. Additionally periodic samples were analyzed by ICP-MS to evaluate the efficacy of the process. The concentrations of
relevant species, i.e., Pr, Nd and Hv (abbreviation for SEG+ fraction), in the pilot during steady state are given in Table 10-16 with the flowrates. 
**Table 10-16: Volumetric Flowrates of Different Streams along with Mass Flowrates of Different
Components**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Feed | 
| 
| 
NaOH | 
| 
| 
Scrub | 
| 
| 
Strip | 
| 
| 
Raffinate | 
| 
| 
Preg liquor | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Flowrate (ml/min) | 
| 
| 
60 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
12.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
71.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
12.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Pr g/L | 
| 
| 
0.77 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.828 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.008 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Nd g/L | 
| 
| 
3.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hv g/L | 
| 
| 
33.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.068 | 
| 
| 
| 
342 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
The elemental distribution of the raffinate, preg, and feed streams as shown in Figure 10-21,
indicate that >99.5% of the light REE fraction reported to the raffinate and >95% of the heavy REE fraction reported to the preg solution in the pilot run described. This effort also resulted in 7.7% Nd losses in the pregnant
solution stream. As the synthetic feed had significantly higher proportion of HREEs (65% by weight) in contrast to the natural distribution of REEs in bastnaesite (~2% by weight), the purity numbers achieved were not optimized. Furthermore, to
minimize the heavy fraction in the raffinate, greater than optimal concentration of neodymium was lost in the pregnant liquor stream. The large separation factor between Nd and Sm and the legacy operation indicates that high yield and
purity of Hv can be achieved with low loss of Nd into the pregnant solution. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
113 | |
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 La2O3 CeO2 Pr6O11 Nd2O3 Sm2O3 Eu2O3 Gd2O3 Tb4O7 Dy2O3 Ho2O3 Er2O3 Tm2O3 Yb2O3 Lu2O3 Y2O3 Raffinate
Feed Pregliquor 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-21: % REO in Feed, Raffinate, and Preg Liquor**
**Summary of SXD Pilot**
Piloting data for SXD indicated that >99% pure (Pr/Nd)Cl3 can be produced as a
product in both the traditional configuration, and in a new configuration. The new configuration increased the purity of the La in raffinate to be >99.5% pure for sustained periods of several days, while maintaining the purity of the PrNdCl3 product. The purity of the Ce-La product achieved was >99% with an average ratio of Ce to La of 2.87 (74% Ce) on an oxide basis. The low residence time of the mixer settlers as well as the
low inventory volume led to high volatility compared to what is expected in the full-scale operation. In the full-scale operation, it is believed that even higher purity may be achieved due to increased SX circuit stability. Characterization of Ce
and La in the PrNdCl3 product was to the nearest 1 g/L. 
**PrNd Oxalate/Carbonate Precipitation PrNd**
PrNd Precipitation was conducted with SXD Pregnant Solution (containing 166 g/L TREO at about
30% Pr and 70% Nd) and precipitant being fed into Reactor 1 and cascading down a series of four reactors before overflowing into a collection bucket. 
Average recovery for the first five days was 99.9%, suggesting that even at feed ratios close to (or even slightly lower than) 1.0 can
achieve nearly complete recovery.
From this study, stoichiometric feed ratio may be a good starting point for determining feed rates,
but from a control standpoint, pH appears to be a good indicator for precipitation performance. Based on the data, low pH values should be targeted. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
114 | |
**Lanthanum Carbonate Precipitation Summary
of La Recovery**
Lanthanum Carbonate Precipitation was conducted with a solution containing 70 g/L of
lanthanum on an oxide basis and soda ash solution (at 15% sodium carbonate by weight) being fed into Reactor 1 and cascading down a series of four reactors before overflowing into a collection bucket. 
Figure 10-22 shows the stoichiometric feed ratio (actual/theoretical for soda ash) and residual
TREO in the overflow liquor (both via ICP and manual titration) over the course of a two-week period. Stoichiometric feed ratio was calculated from recorded feed rates measured every two hours using a stopwatch and graduated cylinder. This crude
method may account for some of the noise in this dataset. Average recovery for the first five days was 90.3%. 
Stoichiometric Ratio 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TREO in Overflow (g/L) 25 20 15 10 5 0 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17
8/19 8/20 8/21 8/22 8/23 8/24 8/25 8/26 8/27 8/28 8/29 Date Via KP Via Manual Traction 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-22: TREO in Overflow Liquor Over Time vs Stoichiometric Feed Ratio and pH**
On day six, soda ash flow became more erratic. In response, a reduction in lanthanum recovery is noted. While there were periods of time
where flow was normal, this circumstance did not appear to be sufficient to maintain a consistent level of recovery in the pilot facility, suggesting that a consistent flow is critical to the operation of carbonate precipitation. This situation
should be more easily maintained in the full-scale process. 
**Brine Recovery Summary** 
The Brine Recovery circuit is designed to remove impurities via carbonate precipitation from the brine crystallizer feed stream and allow
for the impurities to be impounded as carbonate solids. This process was piloted at Mountain Pass in Spring 2021 to display proof of concept and to attain process parameters. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
115 | |
The Mountain Pass pilot showed that impurities can be removed from the crystallizer
stream to the point at which the wet cake salt (generated from the crystallizer) may be impounded. The Company would like to sell the salt as a product in the future. The pilot work also showed that the solids generated from the process are
permissible to be impounded. 
Table 10-17 shows the average concentrations of relevant
impurities from the Mountain Pass pilot effort. The Impurity Removal Solution is an average of multiple grabs from the starting material, while the crystallizer feed is multiple grabs of the supernatant generated from the thickener. 
**Table 10-17: Impurities in Brine Before and After Treatment**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Brine Recovery Pilot - Average of Grab
Sample Assays | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Component | 
| 
Unit of Measure | 
| 
Impurity Removal Solution | 
| 
Crystallizer Feed | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Al | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
5.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ba | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
2,240 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.56 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ca | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
23,845.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Co | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
3.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Fe | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
6.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mg | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
345.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mn | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
249 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Na | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
69,864 | 
| 
| 
| 
66,192 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ni | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
1.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
P | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
5.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Pb | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
200 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Si | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
18.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Sr | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
4,587 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.44 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Th | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
U | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
<0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Cl | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
77,302 | 
| 
| 
| 
76,837 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PO4 | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
13.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SO4 | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
7.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
14.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
K | 
| 
mg/L | 
| 
| 
78.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
54 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
The thickener from the pilot plant did not provide any relevant data regarding settling time, however the solids did settle easily with
both flocculants which were deployed. 
| 
10.5.5 | 
Expected Product Specifications | |
**Lanthanum Carbonate/Oxide**
For lanthanum, MP Materials has designed its circuits to primarily meet the required specifications for the FCC catalyst market in the
U.S. and Europe, which are the largest future customers. These specifications are not considered exceedingly tight, and the implementation of the SXD upgrades in MP Materials Stage 2 will enable the Company to alter the amount of lanthanum
directed into the cerium chloride product to ensure on-spec La/TREO for those customers requiring higher purity La carbonate or oxide. MP Materials produced sample material for customer testing during the SXD pilot operation in mid-2020, which
confirmed the ability to meet these primary specifications. 
**Cerium Chloride**
The cerium (or cerium-lanthanum) chloride market does not yet have a fixed specification. However, the ratio of cerium to lanthanum, in
MP Materials experience, does not dramatically impact performance. MP Materials predecessor produced and sold cerium chloride solution into the market for several years, and MP Materials has continued to sell legacy inventory of this
product to an existing 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
116 | |
customer at premiums to observed market prices. The MP Materials flowsheet will produce cerium chloride in a similar process flow to the predecessor, where there should be no difficulty
continuing to meet market expectations. Product that does not meet market specifications can be recycled back to the separation plant or neutralized and disposed through brine recovery without significant financial impact. 
**PrNd Oxide**
Market standard PrNd oxide specifications, as confirmed by MP Materials customer discussions, are demonstrated in Figure 10-23. Mountain Passs primary production and separation assets were previously operated at commercial scale, and several representative 5 metric tonne lots are compared to market specifications below,
highlighting the ability to produce on-spec PrNd Oxide. Further, MP Materials has implemented more robust solid liquid separation, QA/QC, and finishing assets, which are expected to improve upon the ability and economics of producing to market
specification. 
Element Specification 5450-15-0826-1B 5450-15-0827-1B 5450-15-0827-2B 5450-15-0828-1B TREO 99.00% 99.70% 99.80% 99.70% 99.70% LOI
<1% 0.33% 0.24% 0.32% 0.28% Pr6O11 23.60% 22.20% 22.90% 23.00% Nd2O3 76.80% 78.00% 77.50% 77.30% PreO11+Nd2O3/TREO 99.50% 100.40% 100.20% 100.40% 100.30% pr6O11(pr6O11+Nd2O3) 25% +/- 3% 23.51% 22.16% 22.81% 22.93% La2O3/TREO 0.05% 0.003% 0.002%
0.001% 0.003% CeO2/TREO 0.05% 0.008% 0.007% 0.008% 0.008% Sm2O3/TREO 0.03% 0.007% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 2O3/TREO 0.01% n/a n/a n/a n/a Other REO n/a 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% 0.005% Fe2O3 0.05% 0.002% 0.002% 0.001% 0.002% CaO 0.05% 0.004% 0.004%
0.001% 0.001% AI2O3 0.05% 0.001% 0.001% 0.003% 0.001% Na2O 0.05% 0.004% 0.001% 0.005% 0.001% SiO2 0.05% 0.006% 0.006% 0.006% 0.006% SO4 0.05% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% 0.001% Cl 0.05% 0.030% 0.050% 0.030% 0.020% 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 10-23: Market Standard PrNd Oxide Specification and Mountain Pass Historical Results**
**SEG+ Precipitate**
There are varying specifications for SEG+ precipitate products driven by the varying ratios of Tb and Dy and purity requirements. The
typical SEG+ contract would include a minimum Tb and Dy assay percentage. 
A representative SEG+ transaction specifies a 4% Tb+Dy
minimum (REO equivalent). While there is sample volatility due to low concentrations of certain elements, recently produced samples from material extracted from legacy circuits and other testing indicate between 4% and 8% as a conservative range for
Tb+Dy. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
117 | |
| 
11 | 
Mineral Resource Estimate | |
Mountain Pass site geology is modeled using Seequents Leapfrog Geo software, and a 3D block model, grade estimation, and
classification are developed in the same software utilizing the EDGE module. Pit optimization was conducted in Maptek Vulcan software. The Project limits are based on the near-mine area and are represented in local mine coordinate system.
Rare earth mineralization at Mountain Pass is contained within intrusive carbonatite hosted by Proterozoic gneissic and shonkinitic
/ syenitic rocks. The carbonatite has a relatively constant dip of 35 to 45 to the west southwest (255o), offset by minor post-mineral west and north-northwest normal faults. Drillholes
are predominantly vertical to steeply dipping, almost perpendicular to the dip of the mineralized zone. Drill spacing averages 100 to 300 ft throughout the deposit along the strike and down dip. Most of the drilling occurred prior to or during mine
production in the early 1950s to late 1990s. The current mineral resource estimate incorporates drilling and mapping information that has been sourced or revised by MP Materials as part of a geological database review process in 2021
and updated structural and pit mapping in 2024. 
SRK constructed the geological model and resource block model in 2024 based on
exploration drilling, blasthole data, pit mapping, and structural mapping. The mineral resource estimate is constrained by a combination of carbonatite lithology and TREO grade shell domains. Grade interpolation was defined based on geology,
drillhole spacing, and geostatistical analysis. The mineral resources are classified based on geological understanding, historical production, proximity to drilling data, number of drillholes used in the estimate, and relative indicator of
estimation quality (Kriging Efficiency (KE)). The reported mineral resources are reported above a nominal CoG developed from assumptions of internal cost and pricing from MP Materials, and within an economic pit shell to demonstrate reasonable
prospects for economic extraction. 
| 
11.1 | 
Topography and Coordinate System | |
The 2024 mineral resource estimate has been confined to a topography dated September 30, 2024 with annual updated mineral resource
statement modified for annual mine depletion. The Mountain Pass property utilizes a local mine grid in easting and northing with elevation being true elevation above mean sea level (amsl). The local mine grid is based in feet (ft). 
| 
11.2 | 
Drillhole Database | |
As described in Section 7, the majority of drilling activities at the Project were conducted throughout the 1950s to
1990s, and data was recorded in U.S. standard units with locations in a local mine grid. Drilling locations relevant to the project area are shown in Figure 11-1. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
118 | |
Year 2021 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 Looking down 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 11-1: Drilling Distribution Near Mountain Pass Mine**
MP Materials compiled a
digital drilling database based on information available from original laboratory analyses during 2021. No new exploration or resource definition within the pit area has been performed since this time. In some cases, the original lab sheets were not
located, and SRK relied on typed and hand-written analyses as posted on drilling logs. This database differs from previous drilling information compiled by SRK or other consultants and includes revisions to historical information based on relatively
newly discovered records as well as drilling added to the database from 2011 to 2021 drilling. MP Materials compiled drilling data in Microsoft Excel. 
The drilling database used for the 2024 resource model utilizes a total of 233 drillholes with a cumulative length of 118,621 ft in the
vicinity of the mine area. SRK notes that there are additional drillholes in the database excluded from the resource estimate as they were completed for other purposes (hydrogeological, geotechnical, condemnation, etc.), could not be located
accurately from historical information, or were outside of the project area. Individual drillholes range in length from 50 to 2,499 ft, and average 510 ft. The drilling is located on a series of generally east-northeast and east to west
oriented sections spaced at nominal 150 ft intervals. Drill spacing is not consistent down-dip and less than 100 ft in the higher-grade center of the deposit but widens to over 300 ft in other areas. Drillhole spacing averages approximately 200
ft x 100 ft throughout the deposit area. In some cases, there are drillholes that contain geological logging, but missing assay data. These holes are outside of the main carbonatite zone but are used to inform the geological model. 
Within the geological model, there are 17,850 blasthole and 2,710 diamond drill samples analyzed for TREO with grades ranging from 0.01%
TREO to a maximum of 26.42% TREO. Historically, core samples were selectively assayed based on visual confirmation of mineralization. Accordingly, many intervals in the hanging-wall and footwall of the mineralized zone were not assayed and thus,
assigned a -0.01 TREO grade in the MP database. These intervals were re-assigned a grade of 0.001 % TREO by SRK for the purposes of domain evaluation and estimation. Intervals which are entirely missing in
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
119 | |
terms of logging and assays are rare within the mine area and were omitted from
compositing and estimation. 
Individual sampling intervals range from 0.9 ft to a maximum of 21.5 ft, with an average of 5.14 ft. On
a percentage basis, more than 83% of the sample internal in the carbonatite are 5 ft with another 7% between 5 and 10 ft (Figure 11-2). A portion of the samples have also been tested for multi-element
geochemistry including P2O5, CaO, SrO, Fe2O3, PbO, SiO2, ThO, with a limited selection of lanthanide series elements assayed. Only
P2O5 was evaluated and estimated in the model to potentially aid in determination of where monazite may host the rare earth content, but
this is not reported in the mineral resource summary and is not utilized for reporting. 
Laring 17500 16000 10010 7500 5000 2500 0 Histogram of sample length in carbonatite Lithology 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 length 
Source: SRK, 2024 
**Figure 11-2: Sample Length Histogram Mineralized CBT**
There is limited
information available regarding drilling recoveries recorded on the original drill logs. Anecdotal information by site personnel indicates acceptable core recovery, and no relationship was historically observed between core recovery and TREO grade.
Zones of low or no recovery are noted in drilling logs and generally remain unsampled due to lost core. These intervals neither contribute to, nor are assigned grade on the basis of review of the drill logs and communication with site personnel. If
there was an issue with recoveries, SRK would expect this to be evident in the relationship between 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
120 | |
recovery and grade, as a result of the highest-grade ore being also highly friable. SRK recommends drill recovery to be reviewed in more detail in future campaigns. 
| 
11.3 | 
Geological Model | |
SRK modeled the geology in 2024 as 3D wireframes utilizing Leapfrog Geo. Downhole geological information has been compiled from
physical paper records for most of the historical drilling at Mountain Pass. In addition to the drilling, SRK registered an updated geological map completed in July 2024. Geologic contacts and mapped fault traces were digitized in Leapfrog and used
to inform the lithostructural model in areas where historical exploration drilling was relatively sparse in the pit area. This is shown in Figure 11-3. 
Plunge +88 Azimuth 000 Looking North 
Source: SRK, 2024 
**Figure 11-3: Geological Mapping and Fault Expressions July 2024**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
121 | |
| 
11.3.1 | 
Structural Model | |
SRK constructed a structural model including the five major faults observed in the open pit. SRK utilized structural mapping from July
2024 pit mapping as primary contacts for structures observed in the pit area. These include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Central Fault Structure trending NW along orientation of carbonatite (CBT). Not activated in geological model
due to minimal or no perceived offset but retained to inform geotechnical model development. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Middle Fault Zone Identified as a relatively wide damage zone dipping to the W from the pit area. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
QAL Fault Significant down-dropping W-NW fault exposed in south pit wall. Juxtaposes QAL with host rocks and
would offset CBT. No drilling has identified CBT south of this fault. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
F4 Fault Mapped as minor down-dropping fault trending W-NW. Likely sympathetic to Quaternary alluvium (QAL)
Fault Offsets and truncates CBT to the southF2 Arc Fault Appears to be NE trending minor splay of Middle Fault Zone with minimum offset. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
F3 Fault Mapped as a West East trending fault that truncates CBT in the southern portion of the pit. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
N Fault NW trending fault that limits the extents of CBT to the north. | |
Where possible, SRK projected these structures from pit measurements. Structural logging is inconsistent in the drilling and due to the
uncertainty of this data, it is not being utilized. It is likely that observations were not recorded which may correspond to other structures or that some observations should be ignored due to the same inconsistency. Relative interactions of the
structures noted above were reviewed with MP geology staff for consistency to the observed mapping and current geological interpretation. The resulting interactions effectively define fault blocks which are discrete from each other and bound the
lithological model. The lithology was modeled based on drill logging simplified to key units at a level commensurate with the relative consistency of the drilling and mapping information. Basic lithologies which could be grouped from the variable
historical logging were carbonatite (CBT), host rock (HOST - primarily gneiss with minor granite/shonkinite/syenite), and Quaternary alluvium (QAL). Although sub-lithologies are defined, the inconsistency of logging over various drilling campaigns
would result in inaccuracies and potential errors in the model. In addition, the relative importance of the definition of sub-lithologies is considered minor according to the current operational mine plan. The primary purpose of the geological model
at Mountain Pass is to define volumes of mineralization, differences in bulk density, waste rock geochemistry, slope stability, or other general engineering parameters. Thus, a more detailed lithological model was not deemed necessary by MP to
support mineral resources: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The QAL was defined as an erosional surface superseding all other lithologies as the most recent unit and is informed
primarily from drilling. Surface mapping of the distribution of the QAL is incorporated from 2013 geological mapping of the area. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Carbonatite was modeled primarily from the grouped logging codes which represent carbonatite logging information
generated over the various drilling campaigns. SRK notes that TREO grade was not utilized to generate the carbonatite shape, and that this was based purely on the geological logging or mapping conducted by MP or predecessors. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
122 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Host or country rocks are effectively the remaining volume not broken out for CBT or QAL. The host rocks are mixed and
generally understood to not vary significantly in terms of bulk density or other parameters relevant for the current operation. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
A fault damage zone was also constructed between the hanging-wall and footwall surfaces of the Middle fault zone and is
a separate lithology for the purposes of evaluating specific gravity, rock mechanics, hydrogeology, and other relevant disciplines. | |
A rotated view of the 3D geological model is shown in Figure 11-4. 
Source: SRK, 2024 
Faults shown as shaded linear features. 
**Figure 11-4: Plan View of 3D Geological Model**
| 
11.3.2 | 
Mineralogical / Alteration Model | |
No mineralogical or alteration model has been developed for the Project. In general, consistency in nomenclature of specific types of
carbonatites or alteration in the carbonatites or host rocks has been poor. MP has previously noted carbonatite types that may exist internal to the CBT orebody, primarily based on ore type designations including black
(high grade relatively friable CBT), blue (low grade CBT featuring chrysotile), and breccia (marginal or contact-altered CBT which is more friable and erratic in terms of REO distribution). The available drilling data is
inconsistent in its approach to defining these zones in the drilling or mapping, and SRK elected to not model these features. Anecdotal 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
123 | |
discussions with MP personnel noted that these types of carbonatite which may be observed are generally dealt with satisfactorily through the current blending strategy and generally have no
impact on overall metallurgical recovery or other economic/operational factors. 
SRK notes that ore typing within the CBT is
currently done solely on the basis of TREO grade, and that mineralogy or alteration are not considered in mine scheduling, mill feed, or downstream economics. If this changes over time, significant effort will need to be applied to either re-logging
historical drilling on a consistent basis for these details or utilizing other means to obtain and characterize this data. 
| 
11.4 | 
Exploratory Data Analysis | |
| 
11.4.1 | 
Resource Domains | |
The modeled CBT volume has been domained into high-grade (HG) and undifferentiated lower-grade (UNDIFF) domains. Based on exploratory
data analyses (EDA), SRKs opinion is that sub-domaining of the CBT is appropriate based on likely mineralization multiple phases or types of intrusion within the broader CBT volume. Unfortunately, the inconsistency of the geological data does
not provide a robust mineralogical or other categorical feature appropriate for producing a model of the phases internal to the CBT. SRK notes there are a number of published papers that have discussed the variable mineralogy and its relationship to
REO grades, but reasonable spatial models of these features have not been generated to date. 
A histogram of the REO grades internal
to the CBT unit is shown in Figure 11-5. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
124 | |
Histogram of REO, filtered by Lith_grp_simple = Carbonatite 
Source: SRK, 2024 
**Figure 11-5: Histogram of TREO% within Carbonatite Rock Type**
The bimodal nature of the
population distribution and a review of the spatial context of data shows a distinctly higher-grade interior portion of the CBT relative to a more erratic and undifferentiated lower grade outer zone of the CBT. This is consistent with in-pit
observations, as well as the local sectional interpretation of the CBT. SRK selected a nominal 5.0% TREO cut-off for the purpose of generating an indicator model of the higher-grade portion of the CBT. In addition to the threshold of 5.0% REO, a
probabilistic factor of 0.4 was used to assess intervals and areas for which the probability of exceeding the 5.0% TREO cut-off was greater than 40%. 
Other parameters defining this domain are as follows: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The same structural trends utilized for creation of the CBT unit itself were applied to the indicator. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The indicator was limited to samples only within the CBT internal structural domains, and each fault block defined from
the structural model constrained its own indicator. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Continuity was applied to the indicator for interpolation in Leapfrog. The range was set to 300 ft, and a nugget of 10%.
No drift was applied. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Discrete volumes less than 100,000 cubic feet (ft3) were discarded. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
125 | |
The results of the TREO grade-based domaining process provided a robust constraint on
grade distribution within the CBT which define a relatively contiguous core of TREO mineralization relative to the undifferentiated CBT. Performance statistics for the indicator also show robust dilution metrics of approximately 7.2%
of samples within the domain being lower than the defined CoG. It is SRKs opinion that this domain is acceptable for use in mineral resource estimation, and a reasonable approximation of the geological features and related grade distribution
of the deposit (Figure 11-6). 
REO a ResourceDo a Idiscrete mains simple Generalized Cross Section - Mountain Pass - Resource domains Unknown 7 (looking
southeast) waste 
Source: SRK, 2024 
Looking SE 
**Figure 11-6: Cross-Section Illustrating CBT Domains and TREO Grades**
| 
11.4.2 | 
Outliers | |
SRK performed an outlier analysis aimed at identifying high-grade outlier values that may adversely impact grade estimation. It was
determined that no capping was necessary for TREO but outlier influence restriction was utilized. Upper-end log probability plots for TREO within the two mineralized CBT domains are provided in
Figure 11-7 and Figure 11-8, respectively. Other capping scenarios were evaluated for each data population and demonstrated relatively low sensitivity to a
capping strategy in terms of impact to average grade or coefficient of variation (CV). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
126 | |
SRK elected to utilize a reduction of influence or a clamp for reducing the impact of
outliers on the grade estimation rather than a hard cap. For this, SRK assumed that the composite grade would be utilized for a relative distance of 30 ft (one block) after which the grade would be reduced to a nominal upper limit level as defined
in Table 11-1. This outlier restriction is applied during the estimation and successfully retains the local high grade as have been demonstrated to exist but reduces the impact on larger volumes and
distances which are not likely as supported based on the probability plots. SRK generated probability plots for the two mineralized domains and visually reviewed the consistency of populations at varying grade ranges to understand both the spatial
context of the outlier populations (i.e., what part of the CBT contains outliers) as well as the consistency of the populations to each other. 
**Table 11-1: TREO Influence Limitations**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Domain | 
| 
Outlier Threshold Level (%) | 
| 
Distance (ft) | 
| 
Percentile of Distribution | 
| 
| |
| 
HG Core CBT | 
| 
18.0 | 
| 
30 | 
| 
98.88 | 
| 
| |
| 
Undifferentiated CBT | 
| 
10.5 | 
| 
30 | 
| 
99.50 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2024 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
127 | |
Log Probability Plot REO4_2021 Cap=18 Capped=21 CV=0.43 Total Lost=0.3% Cumulative% 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 11-7: Log Probability Plot for TREO HG Core**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
128 | |
Log Probability Plot RE04_2021 Cap=l0.5 Capped=14 CV=0.9 Total Lost=0.3% 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 11-8: Log Probability Plot for TREO Undifferentiated CBT**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
129 | |
| 
11.4.3 | 
Compositing | |
All exploration assay data were composited into 10 ft downhole lengths. Composites were broken by the resource domains for use in grade
estimation. 
Blastholes were composited to their nominal 30 ft bench height, or 15 ft in selected older holes which were not drilled
to the full bench height. 
| 
11.5 | 
Bulk Density | |
For the purposes of determining the bulk density at the Mountain Pass deposit, SRK reviewed historical tonnage factors and collected
limited samples for specific gravity testing. For the purposes of calculating tonnages in the resource model, bulk density is considered the same as specific gravity. 
For all historical resource and reserve estimates, a tonnage factor of 10.0 ft3/ton
(specific gravity = 3.20) was applied to mineralized carbonatite, and a tonnage factor of 11.5 or 11.0 ft3/ton (SG = 2.79 to 2.91) was applied to the enclosing country rock (Cole, 1974; Couzens,
1997, Nason, 1991). Original documentation related to specific gravity cannot be located, although it was reported that IMC performed a truck weight study in the field on waste rock during prior operations. 
In order to validate the historical specific gravity assumptions, SRK collected a total of 10 samples for specific gravity determination,
and the results of this test work are provided in Table 11-2. Based on these results, SRK assigned a tonnage factor of 10.25 ft3/ton (specific gravity
= 3.13) for mineralized carbonatite, and 11.57 ft3/ton (specific gravity = 2.77) for the enclosing gneissic rocks, which is in reasonable agreement with historical assumptions. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
130 | |
**Table 11-2: 2009 Specific Gravity
Results - Carbonatite**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Sample ID | 
| 
Hole | 
| 
| 
Sample Depth (ft) | 
| 
| 
g/cm3 | 
| 
| 
ft3/ton | 
| 
| 
Rock Type | 
| 
Notes | |
| 
SGMP833531 | 
| 
| 
83-3 | 
| 
| 
| 
531 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.22 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.95 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite | 
| 
With red and brown flow foliation | |
| 
SG854224 | 
| 
| 
85-4 | 
| 
| 
| 
224 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.14 | 
| 
| 
| 
10.20 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite breccia | 
| 
Pink and white to pink and brown matrix with green amphibole clasts
altered to chlorite and sericite | |
| 
SG859233 | 
| 
| 
85-9 | 
| 
| 
| 
233 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.82 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.36 | 
| 
| 
Gneiss | 
| 
Fine grained biotite-qtz gneiss sparse red feldspar and crocidolite
mostly along veins | |
| 
SG8520427 | 
| 
| 
85-20 | 
| 
| 
| 
427 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.62 | 
| 
| 
| 
12.23 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite | 
| 
Dark yellow brown strong limonite replacement of carbonatite bastnaesite
rare | |
| 
SG8521437 | 
| 
| 
85-21 | 
| 
| 
| 
437 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.72 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.78 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite breccia | 
| 
With abundant syenite/shonkinite clasts | |
| 
SG882399 | 
| 
| 
88-2 | 
| 
| 
| 
399 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.29 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.74 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite breccia | 
| 
Blue to red brown matrix pink to brown barite, abundant
crocidolite | |
| 
SG9013464 | 
| 
| 
90-13 | 
| 
| 
| 
464 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.37 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.51 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite | 
| 
Pink barite and white to gray calcite | |
| 
SG9016244 | 
| 
| 
90-16 | 
| 
| 
| 
244 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.87 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.16 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite | 
| 
Pink barite and white calcite, iron pseudomorphs black ore
up to 60%, some violet barite | |
| 
SG9111153 | 
| 
| 
91-11 | 
| 
| 
| 
153 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.91 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.01 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite breccia | 
| 
Matrix supported breccia, matrix is light gray to maroon with salt and
pepper texture, abundant FeOx | |
| 
SG9111258 | 
| 
| 
91-11 | 
| 
| 
| 
258 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.65 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.78 | 
| 
| 
Carbonatite | 
| 
Pink to light gray mottled with clear to light pink barite
phenocrysts | |
Source: SRK, 2012 
| 
11.6 | 
Spatial Continuity Analysis | |
Variography was calculated to model the spatial continuity of TREO grades within the relevant domains (and data types) for the Mountain
Pass deposit. Orientations of the variograms were selected based on the overall geological continuity and generally follows a dip of 38 to an azimuth of 250, with a varying pitch depending on the domain. Orientations of the CBT intrusion
are known to vary locally, and SRK used broad orientation for directional variogram models given the use of variable search orientations in the estimation process. SRK modeled both semi-variograms and normal score transformed semi-variograms to
achieve improved continuity models for ordinary kriging interpolation. Back transforms for the normal score variography were done prior to estimation. Continuity ranges are between 400 to 500 ft, depending on the data set. Blastholes generally
demonstrate relatively shorter 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
131 | |
ranges compared to the exploration composites which is a function of both the closer spacing of the blastholes and the inherent variability of the blastholes relative to the more broadly
continuous exploration data. Blastholes demonstrate comparably better short-range continuity due to closer spacing. In general, both sets of variograms (Figure 11-9 and
Figure 11-10) show relatively steep rises to the sill, reaching 60% to 70% within 100 to 150 ft, with the remaining variability coming over an additional 200 to 300 ft. Nugget effects were modeled
independently using downhole variograms for each domain and data set, and generally range from about 5% to 20% of the sill. 
Back Transformed Variogram for REO Values NS 
Source: SRK, 2024 
| 
| 
Figure11-9: | 
Example of Directional Variogram Resource Drilling - TREO in the HG Core Carbonatite Domain (Back Transformed
modeled variogram from Normal Scores) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
132 | |
Variogram for REO Values NS 
Source: SRK, 2024 
| 
| 
Figure11-10: | 
Directional Variogram Blasthole Data TREO HG Core Carbonatite Domain (Back Transformed modeled
variogram from Normal Scores) | |
| 
11.7 | 
Block Model Limits | |
A sub-blocked model was created using Seequent Leapfrog EDGE with the origin and extent presented in
Table 11-3. The model features a total of 6,818,200 blocks and duplicates the geological volumes to within 0.2% of the wireframes in the model. Sub-blocking triggers in the block model include,
topography, site topography bounding the geological model, the geological wireframes, and the resource domain boundaries. Blocks are coded with geological model codes, domain codes, densities, estimated TREO grades, and relevant supporting
parameters derived from the estimation or classification process. All estimates were done at the parent block dimension, which is approximately 1/3 to 1/5 of the exploration drill spacing the majority of the deposit. 
**Table 11-3: Block Model Specifications**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Axis | 
| 
Minimum (ft) | 
| 
| 
Maximum (ft) | 
| 
| 
Number of Parent Blocks | 
| 
| 
Parent/Child Block Size (ft) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
X | 
| 
| 
2,200 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,840 | 
| 
| 
| 
188 | 
| 
| 
| 
30/7.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Y | 
| 
| 
7,800 | 
| 
| 
| 
13,200 | 
| 
| 
| 
180 | 
| 
| 
| 
30/7.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Z | 
| 
| 
2,510 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,300 | 
| 
| 
| 
93 | 
| 
| 
| 
30/7.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2024 
| 
11.8 | 
Grade Estimation | |
SRK estimated TREO from the composited assay values from both the exploration and blasthole data provided by MP Materials. Estimates were
compiled into a single TREO variable for reporting with priority assigned to estimates using Ordinary Kriging (OK) from exploration data over inverse distance 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
133 | |
weighting squared (IDW2) estimation using blasthole composites. A general description of the estimation process is below. 
SRK first conducted boundary analysis of the high-grade core and undifferentiated CBT domains and noted that (particularly for
blastholes) the domains appeared to be transitional over a relatively short distance (Figure 11-11). SRK elected to apply a soft boundary to the estimation process, by which each domain could use samples
from within a 10 ft buffer internal to the other, but not from outside of both. 
REO values in relation to HG Core domain 
Source: SRK, 2024 
**Figure 11-11: Domain Boundary Analysis HG Core Domain within CBT**
OK was used as
the primary interpolation method. Orientations for search ellipsoids varied as a function of the geometry of the deposit as reflected from digitized surfaces representing the hanging-wall and footwall of the carbonatite (Figure 11-12). This is commonly referred to as variable orientation modeling and adjusts both the search orientation as a function of the relationship to the geological controls on mineralization. This was
utilized for both the blasthole and exploration estimations. 
The normal scores back-transformed variograms were used to inform the
ordinary kriging estimate. Nested search neighborhood passes were used for exploration data estimates and were also utilized to assist in classification of mineral resources. Differences between the estimation relying on blastholes vs. exploration
data are noted in the section below. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
134 | |
Litho_grp_simp 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 11-12: Variable Orientation Surfaces for Estimation Orientation**
| 
11.8.1 | 
Blasthole Data | |
Due to portions of the carbonatite being supported by wide-spaced resource drilling, SRK used blasthole data to provide both geological
inferences and TREO grade estimation in localized, limited instances for the 2024 geological model. However, due to mining depletion that has occurred since the 2024 geological model was constructed, there are no remaining blocks that were estimated
using blasthole assay data. SRK acknowledges that the use of blasthole assay data is generally considered less reliable due to the inherent uncertainties associated with sampling, drill method, and larger composited samples. In the case of Mountain
Pass, SRK considers the inclusion of blasthole data to be acceptable, with conditions, and when accounted for in mineral resource classification to convey this additional uncertainty. 
In general, SRK utilized a single 60 ft x 60 ft x 30 ft search pass from a minimum of three and maximum of 15 blasthole composites.
Quadrant restrictions were applied to ensure that no estimates were unduly extrapolated beyond the tightly clustered blasthole data. This selection is not relevant to the blasthole variograms as the intent was to only allow the blastholes to affect
a maximum of two benches from the last data. This decision was made based on review of the inherent variability of the blasthole dataset relative to the exploration data and the naturally clustered data. 
SRK estimated grades from composite data using the 10 ft composites, within the relevant geological wireframes. Two nested search
neighborhood passes were used, with the first pass designed to estimate blocks within volumes considered well-informed by drilling data. The first pass uses between four and eight samples for estimation and only allows a maximum of two samples per
hole to contribute to the estimate. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
135 | |
The second pass neighborhood was designed to populate
un-estimated blocks from the first pass by selecting relatively fewer data at larger distances. Second pass searches increase the ellipsoid distances, use a minimum of two and maximum of 12 samples, and allow
estimation using a single drillhole. 
Outlier limitations or clamping were used on interpolation in the exploration data. The first
pass uses a nominal restriction of a value of 18% TREO or 10.5% TREO for the HG Core and Undifferentiated domains respectively, both to a distance of 10% of the search (30 ft = 1 bench) after which the original composite grade reverts to either of
the values noted above. Similar restrictions were placed on the second pass in terms of grades, but reduces the distance applied to 3.33% of the total search (30 ft = 1 bench). 
| 
11.9 | 
Model Validation | |
SRK performed model validation using several methods. These include a thorough visual review of the model grades in relation to the
underlying drillhole composite grades in section and plan, comparisons with other estimation methods (inverse distance weighting and nearest neighbor), and statistical comparisons between block and composite grades and volumes. SRK has also
reconciled the mineral resource model with production records as described in Section 11.10. 
Visual comparison between the
block grades and the underlying composite grades in plan and section views show close agreement, which would be expected considering the estimation methodology employed. An example cross section showing block grades, composite grades and resource
pit outline are provided in Figure 11-13. Swath plots show excellent agreement between mean composites and block estimates over the various orientations, and generally demonstrate that estimates are
respecting overall trends in grade with minimal smoothing as expected for a block estimate compared to composite drill data (Figure 11-14). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
136 | |
Mountain Pass Cross section (looking southwest) Blocks and drilling colored by TREO (%) 
Source: SRK, 2024 
| 
| 
Figure11-13: | 
NW-SE Cross-Section Showing Block Grades and Composite Grades for Visual
Validation | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
137 | |
Swathplot In X, 2 block spacing NN_REO_2024_HG_Core
NN_REO_2024_HG_Core OK_REO_2024_HG_Core P1 OK_REO_2024_HG_Core P1 12 15 West to East Swath Plot 
Source: SRK, 2024 
Red line represents block estimates TREO using OK with green line representing TREO nearest neighbor block estimates. Bar columns
represent blocks estimated by OK (red) and NN (green) by swath. 
**Figure 11-14: Swath
Plot Comparison Between TREO Estimated Grades**
| 
11.10 | 
Production Reconciliation | |
During 2020-2021, SRK performed a detailed reconciliation exercise between the resource block model and the grade control model
constructed and maintained by MP Materials staff. This exercise remains valid as the SRK resource block model input drilling data and estimation methodology remains consistent with the current model. This work continues to support the confidence and
classification of mineral resources at Mountain Pass. 
The blasthole samples are 15 ft bench composite samples collected on a regular
pattern with a spacing of approximately 12 ft. The TREO grades were estimated into the same block model framework using inverse distance weighting (IDW) method. SRK then analyzed the resultant grade distributions spatially and statistically. Figure 11-15 shows the grade distribution on two example benches. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
138 | |
Pit Bench 4692.5 ft RL MRE Block Model and Exploration
Drillholes Grade Control Block Model and Blastholes Pit Bench 4347.5 ft RL MRE Block Model and Exploration Drillholes Grade Control Block Model and Blastholes 
Source: SRK, 2021 
| 
| 
Figure11-15: | 
Spatial Comparison of Block Model Grade Distribution with Blasthole Grade Distribution | |
A regression plot showing resource model grade and blasthole model grade is shown in
Figure 11-16. A best fit line through the cloud of points shows that on average, in higher grade parts of the deposit, blasthole model values are higher grade than resource model values. For example,
where blasthole grades are around 14%, resource model grades are around 12%. This was expected and is considered 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
139 | |
satisfactory due to the differences in input data, estimation methodology, outlier handling, and the
fit-for-purpose nature of the two models. 
Block Model (TREO%) Best Fit Linear (Best Fit) Y=0.7759x + 0.9552 Resource Blasthole 
Source: SRK, 2020 
**Figure 11-16: Comparison of Resource and Grade Control Models**
In addition to the block
model comparison exercise, a reconciliation exercise was completed for material movement of tonnage and grade records based on production records from January 2020 to May 2020 (inclusive). Based on the block model comparison described above,
there is understood to be approximately 20% more TREO contained in the grade control model compared with the resource model at a 5% TREO CoG. 
The production tonnage (mined ex pit) records are based on truck weightometer readings. Based on dig lines in the pit which subdivided
each bench into mining shapes depending on blasthole grades, each truck was known to be carrying material belonging to one of the following grade categories: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
>9% TREO | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
7% to 9% TREO | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
5% to 7% TREO | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
140 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
2% to 5% TREO | |
The tonnages recorded include planned and unplanned mining dilution. The grades assigned to each ore type category are those reported in
the mines production records which come from the mines ore control (OC) model. Grades are based on blasthole data within practical mining dig lines representing each grade band, therefore incorporating planned dilution. 
The trucked tonnage is up to 25% greater than reported by the blasthole block model in the same January to May 2020 mining volume,
largely as a result of planned and unplanned dilution. The trucked grade is approximately 20% lower due to the dilution, and the contained TREO is some 10% higher. 
Combining these steps results in the trucked tonnage being 25% greater than the resource block model, and the TREO grade being higher
resulting in approximately 35% more contained TREO being trucked than predicted by the resource block model. MP has noted that trucked tonnages include moisture content and that this may affect the accuracy of the reconciliation. 
The direct crusher feed is blended with supplemental material sourced from stockpiles to achieve a planned mill feed grade. The planned
mill feed tonnage and grade typically agrees well with the actuals according to weightometer records and mill samples. Therefore, the trucked tonnage and grade estimate combined with the estimated stockpile loadings and depletions can be considered
robust. Despite the absence of routine QA/QC for the majority of resource drilling samples, SRKs reconciliation study demonstrates that the resource block model is considered satisfactory for long-term mine planning and mineral resource and
mineral reserve reporting. SRK does note that additional drilling is recommended to improve model performance along with timely model updates to maintain continuous reliability of the resource block model. 
| 
11.11 | 
Blasthole Bias | |
Subsequent to the reconciliation exercise noted above, SRK compared the 2019-2021 production blasthole data against the exploration
drilling datasets by estimating both data into the same volume of blocks using similar methods and reviewing the spatial context of the discrepancies in reference to observations in the pit. Figure 11-17
shows the three general areas where this comparison could be made, i.e., where both data types exist at spacings within an approximate 60 ft x 60 ft grid. Table 11-4 shows a global comparison of each
estimate within the same volume and supports the assertions from reconciliation to production that the blastholes are seen to predict higher grades than the exploration data. On review of this data spatially, SRK notes that much of this bias is
observed in selected areas which are characterized by wide-spaced exploration drilling data. 
Because ore control and operational
mining are informed by the blasthole data, benches are taken relative to the blastholes over the exploration data by default. Since mining also tends to favor focus on higher grade material over waste or lower grade, the bias trends positive in
conventional reconciliation. A percent difference calculation of the two check estimates supporting this review is noted in Figure 11-18, and shows these areas where the blastholes appear to have a high
bias in red vs. low bias in blue. The blue areas, by comparison, are shown to be comparably lower in the blastholes relative to the exploration data, and the reconciliation process has simply been biased by the effects of mining higher grades over
the relevant production period. Overall, SRK believes this indicates that the exploration data spacing may not be able to predict the local variability of grade (implying the necessity of a local grade control/short term drilling program), but this
is not adversely affecting mine production nor long term mine planning. This is one of the contributing factors in 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
141 | |
Mountain Pass not being assigned a Measured level of confidence in the in situ mineral resource estimation and is discussed in classification. 
REO 9 7 5 2 1 
Source: SRK, 2021 
**Figure 11-17: Previous Production Areas for Reconciliation Validation**
**Table 11-4: Blasthole vs. Exploration Comparison**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Resource Domains | 
| 
Mass (thousand sh. Ton) | 
| 
| 
Average Value (%) | 
| 
| 
Material Content (Mlb) | 
| |
| 
| 
REO Blastholes | 
| 
| 
REO Exploration | 
| 
| 
REO BH | 
| 
| 
REO EXP | 
| |
| 
CBT - HG CORE | 
| 
| 
3,513 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.89 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.91 | 
| 
| 
| 
624 | 
| 
| 
| 
556 | 
| |
| 
CBT LOW
GRADE | 
| 
| 
2,001 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.84 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.88 | 
| 
| 
| 
194 | 
| 
| 
| 
115 | 
| |
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
5,514 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.42 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.08 | 
| 
| 
| 
818 | 
| 
| 
| 
671 | 
| |
Source: SRK, 2021 
Differences may occur in totals due to rounding. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
142 | |
bh_vs_ex pl_pct_diff 
Source: SRK, 2021 
Warmer coloring indicates apparent high bias in blastholes vs. exploration, with cooler colors being the opposite. 
**Figure 11-18: Percent Difference Blasthole vs. Exploration Estimate**
SRK considers the following explanations for these outcomes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The blastholes are processed using industry standard methodology in terms of material preparation and analytical bias.
Moreover, MP Materials has noted in personal communications that blastholes generally agree with samples collected from the plant and stockpiles for production blending. Historically, the Mountain Pass Laboratory tended to underestimate higher grade
sample assay values, although there is no empirical evidence of this occurring and no adjustments have been made to historical assays from the internal lab. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Exploration drill core used for the resource model may not recover high-grade friable ore as well as blastholes due to
drilling method and sampling differences. However, there is no direct evidence of this and no adjustments are being performed. SRK recommends that future drilling record core recovery and RQD to aid in further assessing the relationship between
grade and core loss. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The wider spacing in the exploration drilling is insufficient to fully characterize the inherent local variability of
the deposit. SRK notes that this is likely the case based on observations from production areas that feature local discrepancies between what is predicted by exploration drilling and what is observed in the pit. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SRK notes that there is no guarantee that higher biased reconciliation will continue as a trend, and that the
exploration drilling is considered appropriate for long term resource estimation and not for short term production models. Additional tighter-spaced grade control drilling supports short and medium range planning for the operation to optimize local
understanding of TREO distribution and delineation of ore types. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
143 | |
| 
11.12 | 
Uncertainty and Resource Classification | |
All mineral resource estimates carry an inherent risk and uncertainty depending on a variety of factors, many of which influence or
compound the effects of others. Mountain Pass is an operating mine, which implies that a certain amount of inherent risk in mineral resource estimation has been borne in the sunk cost of the operation and ongoing production to date. This being
noted, uncertainty in the data collection and geological complexity of the deposit remain relevant to the estimation of mineral resources at Mountain pass. The primary mechanism utilized to minimize uncertainty for Mountain Pass has been
improvements and updates in the geological modeling and utilizing a more robust database and geological information repository than what has been used historically on the property. This includes robust geological logging (previously not included in
a database for modeling) and geological mapping from the pit. This has resulted in a detailed structural and lithological models which SRK notes show material differences from previous grade-based interpretations. Most importantly, SRK believes the
current resource model to be satisfactory to support the resource classification performed and disclosure of mineral resources on the property. 
SRK notes the following sources of uncertainty in the Mountain Pass resource model: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
The analytical QA/QC program at Mountain Pass is not considered consistent good industry practices. The limited
historical QA/QC information that does exist shows relatively acceptable performance, but ongoing improvements are recommended by SRK. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The exploration drilling has been sufficient to characterize a mineral resource at the classification applied and
described in this report. SRK notes that the exploration drilling is considered at insufficient spacing to report a Measured resource based on the variability observed in the tighter spaced blasthole data. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SRK notes that production reconciliation tends to show an underestimation of TREO grades in the resource block model. No
studies have been conducted in terms of sample representativity or other potential biases between drilling methods. SRK notes that this apparent bias may be explained by the local variability of higher grade zones within the HG domain not
intercepted during wider-spaced exploration drilling compared to that observed in blastholes. | |
SRK has dealt with
uncertainty and risk at Mountain Pass by classifying the contained resource by varying degrees of confidence in the estimate. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with the S-K 1300 regulations. The classification parameters are defined by geological understanding of the deposit, confidence in drilling locations, quality of QA/QC, distance to composite data, the number of drillholes
used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). The classification parameters are intended to encompass zones of reasonably continuous mineralization. The distances utilized for
resource classification are generally based on interpretation of the ranges based on the directional variography (Section 11.6). 
Classification is assigned using an iterative process which utilizes a script to categorize blocks based on the parameters below and
modified as necessary by the QP: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Measured mineral resources: Tonnages of stockpiles at surface for mill feed. Stockpiles resources, as of September 2025,
are based on detailed grade control, well-established bulk | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
144 | |
| 
| 
density and accurate survey data, and have been depleted according to a detailed short term mine plan and blending schedule. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
No Measured resources have been assigned to in situ resources at Mountain Pass. This is based on relatively inconsistent
QA/QC practices and the relatively poor reconciliations/observed blasthole vs. exploration comparison. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Indicated mineral resources: Blocks in the carbonatite geological domain estimated using a minimum of three drillholes
which are at maximum average distance of 300 ft, and for which the kriging efficiency of the estimate exceeds 0. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Kriging efficiency (KE) is used as a relative indicator of estimation quality. Even where the drill spacing may meet a
reasonable grid with the requisite number of holes, and the grade variance is relatively high, blocks may be assigned as Inferred resources based on the uncertainty this presents using a relatively poor kriging efficiency (KE). This was determined
from review of histograms of the KE and the spatial impact of filtering portions of this population on the grade continuity of the blocks. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Inferred mineral resources: Blocks in the model which have been estimated but do not meet the criteria for Indicated
resources within the mineralized carbonatite model. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Subsequent to this process, the results are manually contoured and smoothed to eliminate artifacts from the scripting
process. The final classification results are coded into the block model for reporting. | |
| 
11.13 | 
Cut-Off Grade and Pit Optimization | |
A CoG of 2.15% TREO has been calculated to ensure that material reported as a mineral resource can satisfy the definition of reasonable
potential for economic extraction (RPEE). CoG input assumptions are shown in Table 11-5. 
Pricing is based on a preliminary marketing study as summarized in Section 16 of this report, with an assumed 15% increase to the
long-term prices for the purposes of calculating the resources CoG. Additional costs and recovery considerations have been applied to the CoG assumptions as a result of this change. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
145 | |
**Table 11-5: Cut-Off Grade Input Parameters**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Production | 
| 
Value | 
| 
Units | 
| 
| |
| 
Concentrator Recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
Variable based on mined grade | |
| 
Target Concentrate Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
60.0 | |
| 
Mineral Resources Pricing | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd Oxide | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
154.66 | |
| 
SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
59.00 | |
| 
La Carbonate | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
1.68 | |
| 
Ce Chloride | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
7.61 | |
| 
Ore re-handling(1) | 
| 
US$/dst ex-pit ore mined | 
| 
2.96 | |
| 
Crushing | 
| 
US$/dst ore crushed | 
| 
4.68 | |
| 
Ore sorting | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to ore sorters | 
| 
1.57 | |
| 
Concentrator | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to concentrator | 
| 
51.28 | |
| 
General and administration | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to concentrator | 
| 
24.52 | |
| 
Separations | 
| 
US$/dst conc. processed onsite | 
| 
Variable(2) | |
| 
Finished product shipping | 
| 
US$/dst products sold | 
| 
176.46 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
(1) Pit mining costs and sustaining capital costs were excluded from the CoG
calculation because all resource blocks are constrained by an optimized economic pit shell. The pit optimization considered all costs, including mining costs and sustaining capital costs. 
(2) The separations cost per dry short ton (dst) of concentrate is dependent on the
quantity of processed concentrate per year (i.e., there is a fixed cost per year and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate fed to the separations plant). 
Mineral resources have been constrained within an economic pit shell based on reserve input parameters as defined in Table 12-1 of this report. Pit slope angles are variable based on geotechnical study inputs, and mining costs are variable based on haulage and pit depth. Pit optimizations were completed using Maptek Vulcan
Lerch-Grossman (LG) optimization algorithms. Various scenarios were evaluated yielding a range of revenue factors. For mineral resources, a revenue factor of 1.0 is selected which corresponds to a break-even pit shell at the nominal pricing shown in
Table 11-5. SRK notes that the pit selected for mineral resources has been influenced by setbacks relative to critical infrastructure such as the tailing storage facility and the REO concentrator. These
setbacks are approximately 200 ft, and heavy blocks or extreme densities were assigned to these areas in pit optimization to avoid the optimization mining these areas. Removal of these constraints would increase the overall volume of the pit and
thereby the resource. SRK is of the opinion that these constraints are reasonable and in line with the overall determination of RPEE. 
Figure 11-19 shows the extents of the optimized pit shape used for resources. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
146 | |
Planned crushing and ore sorting facility Concentrator Tailings 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 11-19: Extents of Optimized Pit Shape Relative to Surface Topography**
| 
11.14 | 
Mineral Resource Statement | |
Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items
601 and 1300 until 1305). Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Resource
modeling and reporting was completed by SRK and are summarized in Table 11-6. The reference point for the mineral resources is in situ material. Resources inclusive of the reserves are stated in Table 11-7. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
147 | |
| 
| 
Table11-6: | 
Mineral Resource Statement Exclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30,
2025 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
Resource
Type | 
| 
Cut-Off
TREO% | 
| 
| 
Mass (Mst) | 
| 
| 
Average Value (%) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TREO(1) | 
| 
| 
| 
La2O3(2) | 
| 
| 
| 
CeO2 | 
| 
| 
| 
Pr6O11 | 
| 
| 
| 
Nd2O3 | 
| 
| 
| 
Sm2O3 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Indicated | 
| 
Within the Reserve Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.33 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.76 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.16 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.10 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.28 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| |
| 
| 
Within the Resource Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.82 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.29 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.97 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.48 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Indicated | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.29 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.50 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.14 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.75 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.42 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.03 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Inferred | 
| 
Within the Reserve Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.80 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.44 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.77 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.71 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.23 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.66 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.05 | 
| |
| 
| 
Within the Resource Pit | 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.28 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.17 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.48 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total Inferred | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
14.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.65 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.52 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.32 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.56 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| |
Source: SRK 2025 
(1): TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a
99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses. 
(2):
Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO%
equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is
calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent
estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement. 
General Notes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves at a CoG of 2.15% TREO. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that
all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent
errors are insignificant. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2025, pit
topography. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Overall pit slope angles of 42 to 45 including ramps, were used in pit optimization. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following prices: PrNd Oxide US$154.66/kg, SEG+ Precipitate US$59.00/kg, La Carbonate
US$1.68/kg and Ce Chloride US$7.61/kg. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The
average REO distribution in the concentrate is PrNd (15.7%), SEG+ (1.8%), Lanthanum (32.3%) and Cerium (50.2%). Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are: PrNd Oxide (89.7%),
SEG+ Precipitate (97.9%), La Carbonate (74.9%) and Ce Chloride (8.9%). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following costs: mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.50/dst mined plus US$0.05/dst mined
for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, ore rehandling (US$2.96/dst of ex-pit ore mined); crushing (US$4.68/dst of ore crushed); ore sorting (US$1.57/dst ore fed to ore sorters), concentrating
(US$51.28/dst of ore fed to concentrator), general and administrative (US$24.52/dst of ore fed to the concentrator), separations (includes a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate processed on site), finished product
shipping ( US$176.46/dst shipped) and sustaining capital (US$32.38/dst of ore fed to the concentrator). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium,
praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historical data limitations
(see Section 9.1.5 for details). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
148 | |
| 
| 
Table11-7: | 
Mineral Resources Inclusive of Mineral Reserves for the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, September 30, 2025 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Material
Type | 
| 
Classification | 
| 
CoG(TREO%) | 
| 
Mass(Mst) | 
| 
TREO(1)
(%) | 
| 
La2O3(2) (%) | 
| 
CeO2
(%) | 
| 
Pr6O11
(%) | 
| 
Nd2O3
(%) | 
| 
Sm2O3
(%) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Stockpile | 
| 
Measured | 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16 | 
| 
1.36 | 
| 
2.08 | 
| 
0.18 | 
| 
0.50 | 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
In Situ | 
| 
Indicated | 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
32.99 | 
| 
5.67 | 
| 
1.85 | 
| 
2.83 | 
| 
0.24 | 
| 
0.69 | 
| 
0.05 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Inferred | 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
14.15 | 
| 
4.65 | 
| 
1.52 | 
| 
2.32 | 
| 
0.20 | 
| 
0.56 | 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
(1) TREO% represents the total of individually assayed light rare earth oxides on a
99.7% basis of total contained TREO, based on the historical site analyses. 
(2)
Percentage of individual light rare earth oxides are based on the average ratios; La2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 32.6% grade of TREO%
equivalent estimated grade, CeO2 is calculated at a ratio of 49.9% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Pr6O11 is calculated at a ratio of 4.3% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, Nd2O3 is
calculated at a ratio of 12.1% of TREO% equivalent estimated grade, and Sm2O3 is calculated at a ratio of 0.90% of TREO% equivalent
estimated grade. The sum of light rare earths averages 99.7%; the additional 0.3% cannot be accounted for based on the analyses available to date and has been discounted from this resource statement. 
General Notes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that
all or any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves estimate. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Resources stated as contained within a potentially economically minable open pit stated above a 2.15% TREO Equivalent cut-off. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral Resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, any apparent
errors are insignificant. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The Mineral Resource model has been depleted for historical and forecast mining based on the September 30, 2025, pit
topography. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Overall pit slope angles of 42 to 45 including ramps, were used in pit optimization. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following prices: PrNd Oxide US$154.66/kg, SEG+ Precipitate US$59.00/kg, La Carbonate
US$1.68/kg and Ce Chloride US$7.61/kg. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The
average REO distribution in the concentrate is PrNd (15.7%), SEG+ (1.8%), Lanthanum (32.3%) and Cerium (50.2%). Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are: PrNd Oxide (89.7%),
SEG+ Precipitate (97.9%), La Carbonate (74.9%) and Ce Chloride (8.9%). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following costs: mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.50/dst mined plus US$0.05/dst mined
for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, ore rehandling (US$2.96/dst of ex-pit ore mined); crushing (US$4.68/dst of ore crushed); ore sorting (US$1.57/dst ore fed to ore sorters), concentrating
(US$51.28/dst of ore fed to concentrator), general and administrative (US$24.52/dst of ore fed to the concentrator), separations (includes a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate processed on site), finished product
shipping ( US$176.46/dst shipped) and sustaining capital (US$32.38/dst of ore fed to the concentrator). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The mineral resource statement reported herein only includes the rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium,
praseodymium, and samarium (often referred to as light rare earths). While other rare earth elements, often referred to as heavy rare earths, are present in the deposit, they are not accounted for in this estimate due to historical data limitations
(see Section 9.1.5 for details). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
149 | |
| 
11.15 | 
Mineral Resource Sensitivity | |
In order to assess the impact of CoG on contained metal, tonnage, and grade were summarized within the TREO resource pit above a series
of TREO cut-offs (Table 11-8 and Table 11-9). As can be observed from these sensitivities, the resource is relatively
sensitive to CoG in the 3.0% to 5.0% TREO range, which is shown to be above the CoG range of economic interest. 
**Table 11-8: TREO Cut-off Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit Indicated Category**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CoG (TREO%) | 
| 
Short Tons Cut-off (Mst) | 
| 
Average Grade Cut-off (TREO%) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.25 | 
| 
37.8 | 
| 
5.13 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.50 | 
| 
37.7 | 
| 
5.15 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.75 | 
| 
37.4 | 
| 
5.19 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| 
36.9 | 
| 
5.24 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.25 | 
| 
36.3 | 
| 
5.31 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.50 | 
| 
35.6 | 
| 
5.38 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.75 | 
| 
34.7 | 
| 
5.48 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.00 | 
| 
33.7 | 
| 
5.59 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.25 | 
| 
32.5 | 
| 
5.72 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.50 | 
| 
31.0 | 
| 
5.88 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.75 | 
| 
29.4 | 
| 
6.06 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.00 | 
| 
27.7 | 
| 
6.26 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.25 | 
| 
26.1 | 
| 
6.45 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.50 | 
| 
24.6 | 
| 
6.63 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.75 | 
| 
23.1 | 
| 
6.83 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.00 | 
| 
21.7 | 
| 
7.02 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.25 | 
| 
20.3 | 
| 
7.21 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.50 | 
| 
19.1 | 
| 
7.40 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.75 | 
| 
17.9 | 
| 
7.58 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5.00 | 
| 
16.9 | 
| 
7.75 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Table 11-9: TREO CoG Sensitivity Analysis Within Resource Pit Inferred Category**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CoG (TREO%) | 
| 
Short Tons Cut-off (Mst) | 
| 
Average Grade Cut-off (TREO%) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.25 | 
| 
19.4 | 
| 
3.76 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.50 | 
| 
19.1 | 
| 
3.82 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
0.75 | 
| 
18.4 | 
| 
3.93 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| 
17.8 | 
| 
4.03 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.25 | 
| 
17.3 | 
| 
4.13 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.50 | 
| 
16.5 | 
| 
4.26 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1.75 | 
| 
15.8 | 
| 
4.38 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.00 | 
| 
14.9 | 
| 
4.53 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.25 | 
| 
13.8 | 
| 
4.72 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.50 | 
| 
12.8 | 
| 
4.90 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2.75 | 
| 
11.6 | 
| 
5.12 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.00 | 
| 
10.6 | 
| 
5.34 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.25 | 
| 
9.6 | 
| 
5.57 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.50 | 
| 
8.6 | 
| 
5.83 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3.75 | 
| 
7.7 | 
| 
6.09 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.00 | 
| 
6.5 | 
| 
6.51 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.25 | 
| 
5.6 | 
| 
6.91 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.50 | 
| 
5.0 | 
| 
7.19 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4.75 | 
| 
4.6 | 
| 
7.44 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5.00 | 
| 
4.1 | 
| 
7.70 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
150 | |
In addition to the sensitivity noted above, SRK notes that pit optimization selection
does demonstrate sensitivity to those parameters. At the current pricing, recovery assumptions, infrastructure setbacks, and other parameters, the resource pit excludes mineralized blocks above the CoG and typically located at depth. These blocks,
which do not meet the constraining criteria for a mineral resource but are estimated above the economic CoG, are termed mineralized material. The relationship to the pit shape and non-resource,
above CoG blocks are shown in Figure 11-20. A summary of mineralized material above CoG and external to the constraining resource pit is summarized in
Table 11-10. 
**Table 11-10: Mineralized
Material External to Resource Pit**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Resource Shell | 
| 
Relative Confidence | 
| 
Cut-Off TREO (%) | 
| 
Mass (Mst) | 
| 
Average Value TREO
(%) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
External | 
| 
Indicated | 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
3.6 | 
| 
3.55 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Inferred | 
| 
2.15 | 
| 
4.8 | 
| 
3.90 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Mineralized material does not meet the SEC definition for mineral resources. 
The terms indicated and inferred are not a measure of relative confidence in block tons and grade and do not
suggest the material meets the definition for a mineral resource. 
Resource Pit Shell Mineralized Material outside Resource Pit Shell 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 11-20: Mineralized Material >= 2.15% TREO and External to Resource Pit Shell**
| 
11.16 | 
Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods | |
SRK uses a comprehensive set of assay analyses and ratio assumptions for individual light rare earth oxides to manually back-calculate
rare earth grades, as described in Section 9.1.4. Based on a statistical review of these analytical data, SRK is of the opinion that the low variances and numerical ranges of these ratios provide a reasonable assessment of individual metals
within the TREO estimate, and that these calculations are suitable for resource reporting. 
The mineral resource reported herein is
subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and pricing assumptions as disclosed in this report. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
151 | |
Extraction of this resource is dependent on modification of current permitted
boundaries for the open pit. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be successful in modifying these permit conditions. In SRKs opinion, MP Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
A portion of the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holders concession. This portion of the pit would only
include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that
aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement. 
SRK is of the opinion that the reported mineral resources would not be materially affected by current environmental, permitting, legal,
title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or any other relevant factors. Should any of these factors change in the future, it is SRKs expectation that the mineral resources may be impacted. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
152 | |
| 
12 | 
Mineral Reserve Estimate | |
SRK developed a LoM plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. MP Materials is ramping up the on-site separations facility at Mountain Pass that allows the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride).
From Q1 2027 onward, it was assumed for economic modeling purposes that the separations facility will operate at full capacity producing separated products, with relatively small amounts of excess concentrate being stockpiled and processed during
later periods (refer to Section 10.5 of this report for the ramp up schedule). Forecast economic parameters are based on current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of
future mining costs. Forecast revenue from individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study commissioned by MP Materials, as discussed in Section 16 of this report. 
From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed based on long term prices that were established by the preliminary market study. The
results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for the LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit
are sequenced for the full 28 year LoM (Q4 2025 through Q1 2053). 
The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining,
processing, sustaining capital, transportation, and administrative costs. 
Processing recovery for concentrate is variable based on a
mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade. The calculated CoG for the reserves is 2.50% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided by economic pit
optimization. 
| 
12.1 | 
Conversion Assumptions, Parameters, and Methods | |
All conversion assumptions, such as mining dilution, mining recovery, CoG calculation, pit optimization, and costs were taken into
consideration to calculate the reserve estimate. 
The following steps were used to calculate the reserves: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Apply mining dilution to resource block model (using 3D techniques). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Compile and confirm costs and process recoveries. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Input optimization parameters into pit optimizer to calculate nested pits using different rare earth concentrate selling
prices (only indicated resources were included in the evaluation). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Choose a pit optimization shell based on strip ratio, revenue, grade distribution, discounted cash flow, cash costs,
equipment sizes, pit footprint, depth of pit, minimum mining widths, CoG, processing plant size, and other factors. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Detailed phase design with ramp access to all benches | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Multiple trade-off mine plans based on different mining rates | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Detailed truck haulage estimates | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Detailed mine cost estimates based on detailed mine plan | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Discounted cash flow based on all capital and operating cost inputs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Choose final mine plan and cash flow followed by reported reserves. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
153 | |
The following sections provide a description of how mining dilution was applied and how
the in-pit CoG was calculated. 
| 
12.1.1 | 
Model Grade Dilution and Mining Recovery | |
The SRK resource block model is based on a sublocked 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft x 7.5 ft block size. The sublocked block model has approximately
3.5% estimated dilution. SRKs selected SMU is 15 x 15 x 30 ft. SRK ran a comparison between the original block model and the final reserves and determined that dilution is approximately 7.1% and the mining recovery from the reblocking is
approximately 95%. Based on site reconciliation, SRK has noted that the grades have been higher than predicted. In SRKs opinion, there is a potential opportunity to reduce dilution by modeling consistently with the 15 ft x 15 ft x 15 ft SMU
however the current mining methodology is based on 30 ft bench height. Figure 12-1 shows side by side comparison of the original sublocked model (pre-diluted) and
the final 15x15x30 ft SMU selected diluted block model. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2021 
| 
| 
Figure12-1: | 
Side by Side Comparison Non-Diluted (Left) Block Model and Diluted (Right)
Block Model | |
It is SRKs opinion that the reblocking exercise added sufficient dilution to support the
Probable category that has been used for the reserves statement. There is a risk that unmodeled internal dykes could increase dilution locally in some areas; however, the current resource drilling information does not have enough resolution to
identify these dykes. MP Materials takes care in the mining operations to exclude dyke material from the ore to the extent possible. Dyke material is identifiable in the blasthole cuttings that are used for grade control, and it is visually
identifiable by the loader operators. 
| 
12.1.2 | 
Cut-Off Grade Calculation | |
Table 12-1 shows the parameters used for pit optimization. The design of the ultimate
reserves pit was guided by economic pit optimization. Indicated blocks mined from within the reserves pit were included in the reserves tabulation if they have sufficient value to pay for ore rehandling, processing (including separations), G&A,
and product shipping costs. The CoG that meets this value threshold is 2.50% TREO. SRK notes that pit mining costs and sustaining capital were excluded from the CoG calculation because all reserve blocks are constrained by a designed ultimate pit.
The designed ultimate pit was based on economic pit optimization that considered all costs, including mining costs and sustaining capital costs. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
154 | |
**Table 12-1: Pit Optimization Inputs**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Parameter | 
| 
Unit | 
| 
Value | |
| 
Mining Parameters | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mining
Dilution(1) | 
| 
% | 
| 
0 | |
| 
Mining
Dilution Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
0 | |
| 
Mining
Recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
100 | |
| 
Grade range of
ore scheduled for pre-concentration (ore sorting) | 
| 
%TREO | 
| 
2.5 to 5.0 | |
| 
Interramp Slope Angles(2) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Azimuth 0
to 110 | 
| 
degrees | 
| 
46.0 | |
| 
Azimuth
110 to 270 | 
| 
degrees | 
| 
47.0 | |
| 
Azimuth
270 to 300 | 
| 
degrees | 
| 
45.0 | |
| 
Azimuth
300 to 0 | 
| 
degrees | 
| 
44.0 | |
| 
Processing Parameters | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Concentrator
Processing Rate | 
| 
dst/y | 
| 
867,314 | |
| 
Target
Concentrate Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
60.0 | |
| 
Concentrate
Moisture | 
| 
% | 
| 
8.0 | |
| 
Avg. % Dist of REOs in Conc. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd | 
| 
% | 
| 
15.7 | |
| 
SEG+ | 
| 
% | 
| 
1.8 | |
| 
Lanthanum | 
| 
% | 
| 
32.3 | |
| 
Cerium | 
| 
% | 
| 
50.2 | |
| 
Ore Sorter Pre-Concentration | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Fines % not
advanced to ore sorters | 
| 
% | 
| 
22.6% | |
| 
Ore sorter
upgrade factor | 
| 
| 
| 
1.9x | |
| 
Ore sorter
recovery | 
| 
% | 
| 
90.0 | |
| 
Concentrator Recovery | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
<1.5%
TREO | 
| 
% | 
| 
0.0 | |
| 
1.5% to 2.1%
TREO | 
| 
% | 
| 
22.0 | |
| 
2.1% to 10.5%
TREO | 
| 
% | 
| 
Variable(3) (26.7% to 77.7%) | |
| 
>10.5%
TREO | 
| 
% | 
| 
77.7 | |
| 
Separations Plant Overall Recovery | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd
Oxide | 
| 
% | 
| 
89.7 | |
| 
SEG+
Precipitate | 
| 
% | 
| 
97.9 | |
| 
La
Carbonate | 
| 
% | 
| 
74.9 | |
| 
Ce
Chloride | 
| 
% | 
| 
8.9 | |
| 
Prices | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd
Oxide | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
134.49 | |
| 
SEG+
Precipitate | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
51.30 | |
| 
La
Carbonate | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
1.46 | |
| 
Ce
Chloride | 
| 
US$/kg | 
| 
6.62 | |
| 
Costs | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ore re-handling | 
| 
US$/dst expit ore mined | 
| 
2.96 | |
| 
Crushing | 
| 
US$/dst ore crushed | 
| 
4.68 | |
| 
Ore
sorting | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to ore sorters | 
| 
1.57 | |
| 
Concentrator | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to concentrator | 
| 
51.28 | |
| 
General and
administration | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to concentrator | 
| 
24.52 | |
| 
Separations | 
| 
US$/dst conc. processed onsite | 
| 
Variable(4) | |
| 
Finished
product shipping | 
| 
US$/dst products sold | 
| 
176.46 | |
| 
Sustaining
capital | 
| 
US$/dst ore fed to concentrator | 
| 
32.38 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
dst/y: dry short tons per year 
(1): Mining dilution is already built into the resource model and no further dilution was applied. 
(2): An azimuth of zero degrees corresponds to north. 
(3): For concentrator feed grades ranging from 2.1% to 10.5% TREO, the concentrator recovery ranges from 26.7% to 77.7%. 
(4): The separations cost per dry short ton (dst) of concentrate is dependent on the quantity of processed concentrate per year (i.e.,
there is a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate fed to the separations plant). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
155 | |
| 
12.2 | 
Reserve Estimate | |
The pit optimization considered only the indicated mineral resource category. The revenue factor 1.0 pit shell is the optimized pit shell
that corresponds to 100% of the selling prices selected for reserves estimation. The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue factor (RF) 0.40 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and
the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp angles (IRA) used for the mine design are based on operational-level geotechnical studies and range from 44 to 47. 
Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to probable reserves by
applying the appropriate modifying factors, as described herein, to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM reserves pit are treated as waste. 
The mine design process results in in situ open pit probable mining reserves of 28.16 Mst with an average grade of 5.96% TREO.
Additionally, there are 1.05 Mst of proven mineral reserves in stockpiles with an average grade of 4.16% TREO. The mineral reserve statement, as of September 30, 2025, for Mountain Pass is presented in
Table 12-2. The reference point for the mineral reserves is ore delivered to the integrated crushing and ore sorting facility. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
156 | |
**Table 12-2: Mineral Reserves at
Mountain Pass as of September 30, 2025, SRK Consulting**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Category | 
| 
Description | 
| 
RoM Mst (dry) | 
| 
TREO% | 
| 
MY% | 
| 
Concentrate Mst (dry) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Proven | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16% | 
| 
4.30% | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Proven Totals | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16% | 
| 
4.30% | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Probable | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
6.86% | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Probable Totals | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
6.86% | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Proven +
Probable | 
| 
Current Stockpiles | 
| 
1.05 | 
| 
4.16% | 
| 
4.30% | 
| 
| 
0.04 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
In situ | 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
6.86% | 
| 
| 
1.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Proven +Probable Totals | 
| 
29.21 | 
| 
5.90% | 
| 
6.77% | 
| 
| 
1.98 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves stated as contained within an economically minable open pit design stated above a 2.50% TREO CoG. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral reserves tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may
not add due to rounding. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MY% calculation is based on 60% concentrate grade of the product and the ore grade dependent metallurgical recovery. MY%
= (TREO% * Met recovery)/60% concentrate TREO grade. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Indicated mineral resources have been converted to Probable reserves. Measured mineral resources have been converted to
Proven reserves. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves are diluted at the contact of the 2% TREO geological model triangulation (further to dilution inherent to the
resource model and assume selective mining unit of 15 ft x 15 ft x 30 ft).Mineral reserves tonnage and grade are reported as diluted. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Overall pit slope angles of 42 to 45 including ramps, were used in pit optimization. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following prices: PrNd Oxide US$134.49/kg, SEG+ Precipitate US$51.30/kg, La Carbonate
US$1.46/kg and Ce Chloride US$6.62/kg. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The
average REO distribution in the concentrate is PrNd (15.7%), SEG+ (1.8%), Lanthanum (32.3%) and Cerium (50.2%). Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are: PrNd Oxide (89.7%),
SEG+ Precipitate (97.9%), La Carbonate (74.9%) and Ce Chloride (8.9%). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization is based on the following costs: mining cost at the pit exit of US$1.50/dst mined plus US$0.05/dst mined
for each 15 ft bench above or below the pit exit, ore rehandling (US$2.96/dst of ex-pit ore mined); crushing (US$4.68/dst of ore crushed); ore sorting (US$1.57/dst ore fed to ore sorters), concentrating
(US$51.28/dst of ore fed to concentrator), general and administrative (US$24.52/dst of ore fed to the concentrator), separations (includes a fixed annual cost and a variable cost of US$1,080.59/dst of concentrate processed on site), finished product
shipping ( US$176.46/dst shipped) and sustaining capital (US$32.38/dst of ore fed to the concentrator). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The topography used was from September 30, 2025. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves contain material inside and outside permitted mining but within mineral lease. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Reserves assume 100% mining recovery. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The strip ratio was 5.8 to 1 (waste to ore ratio). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The mineral reserves were estimated by SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. | |
In the opinion of SRK as the QP, the conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves has been completed in accordance with CFR 17,
Part 229 (S-K 1300). 
| 
12.3 | 
Relevant Factors | |
The reserve estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized
in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will ramp up its on-site separations facilities to full capacity by Q1 2027. It is further assumed that MP Materials will install an integrated crushing and ore
sorting facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. 
Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current
permitted boundaries for the open pit. Failure to achieve modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be
successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRKs opinion, MP Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
A portion of the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining mineral right holders concession. This portion of the pit would only
include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
157 | |
extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be
stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement. 
SRK is not aware of other existing environmental, permitting, legal, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other factors that might
materially affect the open pit mineral reserve estimate. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
158 | |
| 
13 | 
Mining Methods | |
The Mountain Pass deposit is mined by open pit mining methods. Surface mining operations include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drilling and blasting to remove overburden material | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Loading and haulage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
General maintenance and services | |
The mine requires blending of mill ore to ensure that the mill receives a head grade within the operating range of the mill. The MP
Materials mining equipment fleet includes wheel loaders, trucks, dozers, and graders. Maintenance shops are available at the mine site to service mine equipment. 
The open pit is located in gently undulating topography intersecting natural drainages that require small diversions to withstand some
rainfall events during the summer months. Waste dumps are managed according to the AP, are located on high ground, and are designed for control of drainage (contact water) if required. Some small diversions are already in place; however, additional
diversions will need to be established. 
The open pit that forms the basis of the mineral reserves and the LoM production schedule is
approximately 3,100 ft from east to west and 3,700 ft from north to south with a maximum depth of 1,300 ft. Total LoM pit mining is estimated at 192.5 Mst comprised of 28.2 Mst of ore and 164.4 Mst of waste, resulting in a strip ratio
of 5.8 (waste to ore). Additional mill feed is sourced from existing stockpiles (1.0 Mst). LoM mill feed grade averages 7.07% TREO yielding over 1.98 million dst of recoverable 60% TREO concentrate. 
SRK designed seven pit pushbacks that adhere to proper minimum mining widths (Phases 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 8, 9 and 10). Bench sinking rates
average approximately four benches per year per push back, with a maximum sinking rate of eight benches in one phase in one year of the mine plan. 
Figure 13-1 illustrates the site layout and final pit design. 
SRKs evaluation included: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Open pit block model incorporating dilution and other required mining variables | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit optimization analysis and sensitivities | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit and phase designs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Bench-based LoM production schedule integrated with the processing schedule | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Low-grade stockpile design | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Waste dump design | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Quarterly progression of pit and waste dumps for developing annual haulage cycle time estimation | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Fleet estimation of open pit equipment based on the mining production schedule | |
Results developed included estimated equipment fleet requirements, sustaining capital costs, and operating costs. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
159 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 13-1: Final Pit Design and Site Layout**
| 
13.1 | 
Parameters Relevant to Mine or Pit Designs and Plans | |
| 
13.1.1 | 
Geotechnical | |
For pit optimization and phase design, SRK used recommendations for pit slope inter-ramp angles (IRA) between 44 and 47 for all
phases. These angles are based on results of a geotechnical study that was prepared by Call & Nicholas, Inc. in 2022 (CNI, 2022). Figure 13-2 shows the final IRA recommended by CNI, 2022 for the
phase and final pit designs. SRKs mine design work was based on these IRAs, as presented in Table 13-1. 
The recommended slope angles are controlled by the bench and inter-ramp stability, for all design sectors with the exception of the
northwest (azimuth 300-0). An 80% catch bench reliability for the 60 ft high double bench configuration was used to determine the bench and inter-ramp slope angles. Overall slope wall factor of safety
(FoS), as analyzed by CNI, exceeds an acceptance criteria of 1.5 for large open pits. CNI has recommended that no critical infrastructure be placed within 200 ft of the final pit crest. SRK has reviewed and concurs with these recommendations.
Locally, a minimum FoS was calculated for critical surfaces in the upper 2 to 3 benches of alluvium. All FoS calculated meet or exceed the guidelines for open pit slope stability guidance for wall stability (Read & Stacey, 2009). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
160 | |
Source: CNI, 2022 
ISA is equivalent to IRA 
**Figure 13-2: Recommended Double Bench IRA from CNI**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
161 | |
**Rock Mass Characterization**
The rock mass consists of several different engineering geologic properties, including Carbonatite, Breccia, and Gneiss/Schist. The
carbonatites are strong, dense, coarsely crystalline rocks and carbonatites which comprise most of the north, east, and south walls. The rock mass is strongly foliated with a dip to the west-southwest at approximately 50 to 70. Distinct
sets of cross joints are observed orthogonal to the main foliation; however, the orientation of these joints varies over short distances. 
Intact strengths have been estimated by both point load testing (Vector, 1995) and by uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) testing of
surface samples conducted by CNI in 2011. Intact UCS values range from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi). 
**Rock
Quality Designation/Rock Mass Rating**
The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranges from 20 to 80 as observed by both CNI and
Golder in the pit slope walls. An average RQD value of 50 is appropriate for characterizing the rock mass. A full Rock Mass Rating (RMR), including analysis of drill core at depth in the final walls, has not been completed but is estimated by SRK to
be in the range of RMR 50 to 60. Four geotechnical studies with a defined rock mass for stability analyses have been completed to date on the Project. These studies include studies by Call & Nicholas, in 2011, 2020, and 2022. Prior work was
done by Golder Associates in 2002 and Vector Engineering in 1995. 
SRK has reviewed CNI slope angle recommendations (CNI, 2022) and
consider them valid and appropriate for slope design. Pit slope angles have been determined using the recommendations from the CNI report assuming an 80% catch bench reliability. 
SRK conducted a site visit on September 25, 2019, to observe the conditions of the Mountain Pass open pit. Key observations included
successful double benching on the west wall with greater than 80% catch reliability in slopes excavated by MP Materials. 
**Open
Pit Mine Design Parameters**
The recommended slope angles for the Mountain Pass open pit were developed from the review of
the 2022 CNI slope stability report and a review of the slope conditions of the west wall excavated by MP Materials. The recommended slope design parameters are listed in Table 13-1, and the slope design
sectors are graphically illustrated on Figure 13-2. 
**Table 13-1: Recommended Slope Design Parameters**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Open Pit Parameters | 
| 
| |
| 
Bench increment | 
| 
15 ft | 
| 
| |
| 
Bench
height | 
| 
30 or 60 ft | 
| 
| |
| 
Bench face/batter angle (BFA) | 
| 
66 to 68 | 
| 
| |
| 
Design bench/berm
width (60 ft high bench) | 
| 
30 to 36 ft | 
| 
| |
| 
Minimum bench width (modified Ritchie Criteria, 30
and 60 ft high) | 
| 
15 to 24 ft | 
| 
| |
| 
Maximum IRA by design sector | 
| 
44 to 47 | 
| 
| |
| 
Maximum overall
slope angle (OSA) | 
| 
45 | 
| 
| |
| 
Design Criteria | 
| 
| |
| 
Minimum factor of
safety (FoS) | 
| 
1.5 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2023 
Slope design constraints assume a 15 ft model block height. Mining production will be conducted primarily on 30 ft bench heights. Most
areas of the mine are in competent rock mass, and it is envisioned that in these areas the mining in the final wall will be finished to a 30 ft bench or a 60 ft 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
162 | |
bench height. Using a multiple-bench final wall configuration permits a steeper IRA in competent ground. The maximum inter-ramp slope height (bench stack height) is 500 ft. A geotechnical berm,
or haul ramp, with a minimum width of 65 ft is required between bench stacks. 
The minimum catch bench width is developed using
the modified Ritchie Criteria (Ryan and Pryor, 2000). The minimum catch bench width for a 60 ft high bench face is 24 ft using the Ritchie Criteria. For a 30 ft high bench, the minimum width is 15 ft. 
Bench face angles vary by sector and are based on average obtained values by mapping. The measured bench face angle using highwall
controlled blasting procedures results in average bench face angles ranging from 66 to 68. For the given slope design parameters and limited subsurface data, dual ramp access is required to ensure access to ore material for each mining
phase. With the ramps and the recommended IRAs, the final wall overall slope angle maximum is 45. Stability of the pit slope, including hydrogeological inputs, is documented in the CNI, 2022 report. SRK has reviewed the results, and stability
of the pit slope using these design parameters meets a slope acceptance criterion with a minimum FoS of greater than 1.5. These FoS results are within the guidelines of the current reclamation plan, and also meet the criteria outlined in Guidelines
for Open Pit Slope Design (Read & Stacey, 2009). 
Table 13-2 lists the CNI
recommended slope design parameters by wall sector, as illustrated on Figure 13-2. 
**Table 13-2: CNI Final Recommended Slope Design Parameters by Design Sector**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mine PlanningAzimuth | 
| 
Wall DDR(Clockwise) | 
| 
BenchHeight(ft) | 
| 
DesignIRA() | 
| 
BFA() | 
| 
Design LayoutBench Width(ft) | 
| 
| |
| 
Start | 
| 
| 
End | 
| 
Start | 
| 
End | |
| 
| 
110 | 
| 
| 
270 | 
| 
290 | 
| 
90 | 
| 
60 | 
| 
47 | 
| 
70 | 
| 
34.1 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
270 | 
| 
| 
300 | 
| 
90 | 
| 
120 | 
| 
60 | 
| 
45 | 
| 
71 | 
| 
39.3 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
300 | 
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
120 | 
| 
180 | 
| 
60 | 
| 
44 | 
| 
68 | 
| 
37.9 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
0 | 
| 
| 
110 | 
| 
180 | 
| 
290 | 
| 
60 | 
| 
46 | 
| 
68 | 
| 
33.7 | 
| 
| |
Source: CNI, 2022 
MP Materials has been using controlled wall blasting in order to achieve the recommended bench configurations. Trim shots are used
against final walls. In SRKs opinion, the blasting procedures in place are sufficient to achieve the recommended slope design parameters. 
CNI recommended a slope offset for mine facilities, including the concentrator, filtered tailings plant, process plant, and water storage
tanks, of 200 ft. CNI recommends if the pit crest is within 200 ft of critical infrastructure, the recommended IRA is 44 for at least four benches (120 ft). Below these benches, the IRA may be increased to 46. SRK concurs with this
recommendation. 
As a part of the CNI Geotechnical study (CNI, 2022), Three multi-level piezometers with a total of nine transducers
were reviewed to characterize the current phreatic surface elevation. An Environmental Impact Report written in 1996 (ENSR, 1996) shows that groundwater flows Northwest to Southeast in the pit area. The stability analysis incorporates modeled pore
pressures based on the piezometric data. 
**Geotechnical Recommendations and Slope Monitoring**
CNI performed a site visit in 2025 and did not observe any change in conditions that warrant a revision to the 2022 recommended pit slope
design parameters. CNI continues to conduct annual site visits to 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
163 | |
assess slope conditions, and no significant deformation has been observed during the most recent inspections. Routine geotechnical slope monitoring and visual observations should continue as
mining progresses. To supplement observations from mine personnel, CNI has recommended the review of historical InSAR data to evaluate whether any long-term or low-magnitude deformation trends are present.
InSAR is a satellite-based observation technique and is well-suited to this task. Additionally, a drone-based photogrammetry program is recommended to support change detection, high-resolution wall mapping, and the identification of incipient
instability. 
CNI has developed a geotechnical drilling program to support the planned pit expansion, including six additional core
holes in the final pit walls. The core data will be used to update the geotechnical and structural models and to continue to confirm or refine the pit slope angles and design parameters. SRK has reviewed and concurs with CNIs recommendations
for InSAR monitoring, drone photogrammetry, and additional geotechnical core data. 
| 
13.1.2 | 
Hydrogeological | |
Groundwater in the vicinity of the mine occurs within coarse unconsolidated alluvial sediments and within underlying fractured
Precambrian bedrock. In general, most of the groundwater flows eastward through the alluvium toward the Ivanpah Valley and westward toward the Shadow Valley as shown schematically in Figure 13-3. 
Source: Draft EIR (1996) 
**Figure 13-3: Idealized Cross-Section Through Mine Area and Adjacent Valleys**
The surface geology of the site is characterized by partially lithified, cemented Tertiary to Quaternary age alluvial deposits and
debris flows in the southwest and central areas, Precambrian gneissic bedrock outcropping in the north, east, and southeast, and by Precambrian gneiss, terrace gravels, and recent alluvial deposits in the wash areas in the northwest, east and
southeast. Bedrock at the site consists of Precambrian metamorphic and younger intrusive rocks. The older metamorphic rocks consist primarily of granitic and mafic gneiss. The main igneous bodies at the site, which have intruded the older
metamorphic complex, consist of shonkinite and syenite stocks and associated carbonatites. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
164 | |
The dominant structural fabric as represented by faulting, foliation, jointing, and
fracture-controlled dikes, trends northwest and dips steeply to the northeast or southwest. 
Extensive faulting in the mountain
ranges is also hydrologically significant. Several lateral transverse faults have been mapped in the area. This can lead to sharp contrasts in bedrock permeability-fracturing can be extensive along fault zones and affect permeability. Often faults
act as barriers normal to flow and as groundwater conduits parallel to flow. 
Major faults were identified and incorporated into the
numerical groundwater model developed by Geomega in 2000 (Geomega, 2000) for the early stage of open pit excavation. The model simulated several faults as flow barriers, including two in the pit area: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Clark Mountain fault, a normal/reverse fault | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
South fault, a left lateral fault | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
North fault, a left lateral fault | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Middle fault, a left lateral fault | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
East Ore Body fault, a normal fault | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
P-16 Fault, a normal fault | |
Additionally, the Geomega model simulated the Celebration fault, a left lateral fault with some normal movement, as a conduit to flow.
The location of these faults is shown in a simplified surface geological map and conceptual hydrogeologic cross-section made by
Geomega (2000) in Figure 13-4 and Figure 13-5, respectively. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
165 | |
Source: Geomega (2000) 
**Figure 13-4: Simplified Surface Geology**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
166 | |
Source: Geomega (2000) 
**Figure 13-5: Conceptual Hydrologic Cross-Section**
In 2025, CNI conducted hydrogeological field data collection in the pit area. Five core holes were drilled. Their locations are shown in
Figure 13-6. The ongoing hydrogeological study includes packer isolated testing in the completed core holes and installation of multi-level vibrated wire piezometers (VWP). 
The hydrogeological study is ongoing and therefore the field characterization report, summarizing the completed study and data analysis,
was not available to SRK at the time of preparation of this report. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
167 | |
Source: CNI, 2025 
**Figure 13-6: Location of 2025 Core Holes with Completed Slug Tests and VWP Installations**
Hydraulic conductivity values of sediments and bedrock units exhibit considerable variability depending on the lithology and
the degree of cementation, fracturing, or other secondary permeability development. Groundwater permeability within the bedrock is fracture-controlled. Hydraulic conductivity values in fractured zones range up to 17 feet per day (ft/d), while those
in less fractured zones range up to 0.04 ft/d (GSi/water, 1991). Within the older alluvium, variation may result from differing degrees of cementation and clay content associated with alternating sequences of alluviation and debris flows. The older
alluvium deposits are significantly less permeable than the recent alluvium, exhibiting hydraulic conductivity values on the order of 0.03 to 0.003 ft/d (GSi/water, 1991). The recent wash deposits are the most permeable at the site, exhibiting
hydraulic conductivity values in the order of tens of ft/d (SRK, December 1985). 
The hydraulic parameters of the hydrogeological
units were tested by pumping tests, slug tests, and packer testing. Table 13-3 summarizes statistics of the measured hydraulic conductivity values.**** 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
168 | |
**Table 13-3: Summary of Measured
Hydraulic Conductivity Values**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hydrogeological Unit | 
| 
Number of Tests | 
| 
Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/d) | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
Min | 
| 
Max | 
| 
Average | 
| 
Geomean | 
| 
| |
| 
Shallow Alluvium | 
| 
2 | 
| 
15.6 | 
| 
85.0 | 
| 
50.3 | 
| 
36.4 | 
| 
| |
| 
Old Alluvium | 
| 
27 | 
| 
0.003 | 
| 
6.8 | 
| 
1.1 | 
| 
0.16 | 
| 
| |
| 
Bedrock | 
| 
45 | 
| 
0.002 | 
| 
56.7 | 
| 
3.5 | 
| 
0.41 | 
| 
| |
Source: Compiled by SRK using data in Geo-Logic (March 2023)
Figure 13-7 shows the distribution of measured hydraulic conductivity values per depth:
Source: Compiled by SRK using data in Geo-Logic (March 2023)
Error bars show tested intervals. 
**Figure 13-7: Measured Hydraulic Conductivity Values per Depth**
CNI completed several falling head slug tests in 2025 in the holes PZ25-02, PZ25-03, and PZ25-05, drilled at depths of 774 ft to 1,090 ft (elevations between 3,385 and 3,536 ft amsl). The estimated bedrock hydraulic conductivity ranged between 0.1
ft/d and 1 ft/d, consistent with previously estimated data for the shallower depths. 
Table 13-3, Figure 13-7, and the new 2025 data
indicate: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Large variability in hydraulic parameters (up to four orders of magnitude) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Relatively large hydraulic conductivity for bedrock where the open pit is being excavated (geometric mean is about 0.4
ft/d) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Relatively elevated hydraulic conductivity with depth (to the depth of the proposed bottom of the pit) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
169 | |
The groundwater levels around open pit and other mine facilities have been observed by
monitoring wells. Their location, measured water table elevation, and direction of groundwater flow are shown in Figure 13-8. 
CNI installed five strings of VWPs in five core holes in 2025 for a total of 15 new sensors. Drilling of core holes indicated that the
measured water table is about 24 ft below the current pit bottom elevation. 
The currently measured water levels in the pit area in
newly installed VWPs are shown in Figure 13-9. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
170 | |
Source: Geo-Logic (July 2023) 
**Figure 13-8: Location of Monitoring Wells, Measured Water Table Elevation, and Direction of Groundwater Flow
(as of Q2 2023)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
171 | |
Source: CNI, 2025 
**Figure 13-9: Location of VWPs and Measured Water Levels in Pit Walls by CNI in 2025**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
172 | |
Figure 13-8 and
Figure 13-9 indicate: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Groundwater generated by recharge from precipitation at the Clark Mountains north of the mine flows to the southeast and
discharges in alluvial fan deposits of the Ivanpah Valley and Shadow Valley to the east and west, respectively | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The open pit creates a local cone of drawdown due to pumping from two pit dewatering wells. The estimated lowest water
table elevation within the pit is about 4,260 ft amsl | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Measured groundwater levels at the site reflect a continued long-term decreasing trend, and several have become dry. The
steady decline in water levels extends back to a particularly wet year in 2005, when there was a marked increase in water levels at the site | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Presence of a downward hydraulic gradient in the center of the pit | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The pit bottom approaches the measured water table (currently it is only about 20 ft above the water table), and there
will possibly be wet conditions on the next bench mined. | |
The location of industrial and domestic water supply
wells (both historic and existing) with the mine facilities is shown in Figure 13-10. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
173 | |
Source: Geo-Logic (July 2023) 
**Figure 13-10: Location of Industrial and Domestic Water Supply Wells and Mine Facilities**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
174 | |
**Mine Dewatering**
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine pit dewatering is accomplished using one or two dewatering wells at the bottom of the mine pit. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Historically, dewatering of the open pit was done by one dewatering well. The pumping rate was about 36 gallons per
minute (gpm) during 1987 through 1991. From June to November 1993 the pit well pumped an average 127 gpm to depress the water table below the 4,510 ft mining level. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Two extraction dewatering wells (PEW-1 and
PEW-2, location is shown in Figure 13-6 above) were installed at the bottom of the pit within fractured bedrock in 2018 and drilled to the depths of 705 ft (215 m) and
531 ft (162 m), respectively. The screen depth intervals in PEW-1 are from 377 ft (115 m) to 702 ft (214 m), and in PEW-2 are from 197 ft (60 m) to 525 ft (160 m). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
A summary of pit water production during the first half of 2025 is provided in Table
13-4. Pit dewatering yielded approximately 18 million gallons (Mgal) during the first half of 2025 (approximately 29 percent less than the same period in 2024). The pumping rate varied from 22 to 103
gpm with an average rate of about 69 gpm. The pit water was used exclusively for dust control on the mines roads. Pumping from wells PEW-1 and PEW-2 allows the
mine to maintain local containment of groundwater and keep the pit dry. | |
**Table 13-4: Summary of Pit Water Production in the First Half of 2025**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Monthof 2025 | 
| 
The Volume of Pumped Water
(gal) | 
| 
Average Pumping Rate
(gpm) | |
| 
| 
| 
January | 
| 
991,000 | 
| 
22.2 | |
| 
| 
| 
February | 
| 
2,036,100 | 
| 
50.5 | |
| 
| 
| 
March | 
| 
2,576,600 | 
| 
57.7 | |
| 
| 
| 
April | 
| 
3,968,900 | 
| 
91.9 | |
| 
| 
| 
May | 
| 
3,940,700 | 
| 
88.3 | |
| 
| 
| 
June | 
| 
4,452,400 | 
| 
103.1 | |
| 
| 
| 
Average | 
| 
2,994,283 | 
| 
68.9 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
The proposed deepening of the bottom of the pit to the ultimate elevation of 3,710 ft amsl will increase dewatering rates compared to
the currently observed rates. The major sources of groundwater inflow into the proposed pit would be: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Fractured zones of the bedrock (the location of these zones at depth is currently unknown). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Old alluvium sediments to the southeast; these sediments need to be dewatered by pumping well(s) to avoid groundwater
spillover into the pit. | |
Most likely, pit dewatering can be handled by a system of bedrock pumping wells (in pit,
similar to existing wells PEW-1 and PEW-2, or perimeter wells drilled to the greater depths) and residual passive inflow captured by
in-pit sumps. Installation of an additional dewatering well is needed to keep the excavation of the pit in dry conditions. 
It should be noted that the numerical groundwater model of the mine area developed by Geomega in 2000 has not been updated to allow the
prediction of: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Dewatering requirements during future mining conditions | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pit lake infilling during post-mining conditions | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
175 | |
SRK recommends that MP Materials: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Summarize the completed hydrogeological study by CNI in a report identifying the conceptual hydrogeological model, its
elements, and dewatering targets. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Identify dewatering strategy - mining dry (additional pumping wells would be required) or mining wet (continuing pumping
from two existing wells) and handling residual passive inflow (RPI) by sumping at the pit bottom. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Update or develop a new numerical groundwater flow to predict inflow to the proposed pit and better define: | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Dewatering requirements | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pore pressures in pit walls and the potential necessity to reduce them by installation of horizontal drain holes from
pit benches (if required by geotechnical conditions of the slopes) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Propagation of the drawdown cone during both mining and post-mining conditions (including pit lake infilling) to
evaluate the potential impact on the groundwater system because of the continued deepening of the open pit | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drill the pilot test holes and install an additional deeper pumping well with a long screen. Conduct a proper pumping
test and spinner logging within the screen interval of these pumping wells. This is required to increase the total pumping rate from the dewatering wells to minimize or eliminate RPI | |
**Water Supply**
MP Minerals maintains and operates two water supply wellfields for portable and process water. The Ivanpah well field, established in
1952, is located on private land eight miles east of the mine site and consists of six freshwater-producing wells, three booster stations, and associated pipelines. The Shadow Valley well field, established in 1980, is located 12 miles west of the
mine site and consists of four wells, of which three are on public land one is on private land, a single booster station, and associated pipelines. The water supply wells are completed within coarse alluvial sediments. 
The amount of freshwater consumed by the facility in 1996 was approximately 850 gpm from both wellfields. The five year annual average
between 1993 and 1997 was 795 gpm. As part of the comprehensive plan for continued operations, MP Materials placed emphasis on on-site management and treatment of process water and maximizing reuse (SRK,
2010). While both wellfields are available, the facility currently relies on the Shadow Valley wellfield for its water supply needs. 
Given the established capacity of the water supply systems and MP Materials ongoing focus on process water management and reuse,
water availability is not anticipated to be a concern for continued operations. 
| 
13.2 | 
Pit Optimization | |
SRK completed a pit optimization exercise to provide the basis for the final LoM reserve pit design. This process utilizes initial
approximated assumptions for the LoM production such as an average overall slope angle, typical production costs and typical process recoveries, as discussed below. It is important to note that these parameters do not exactly reflect the final
reserve assumptions as this process is an interim step that precedes these final reserve calculations. Therefore, there are typically small differences between initial pit optimization assumptions and final reserve assumptions on items such slope
design and costs, which are calculated as part of the final mine design process. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
176 | |
For the purposes of this analysis, SRK utilized Whittle software which uses a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm to produce a series of nested pit shells which are derived by incrementally changing revenue assumptions. These incremental changes are referred
to as Revenue Factors (RF) with, for example, a RF 1.0 reflecting a pit requiring 100% of the assumed base case revenue to be economic. In comparison, a RF 0.9 pit only requires 90% of the base case revenue to be economic, and this pit is inherently
smaller than the RF 1.0 pit and hence is nested within it. 
| 
13.2.1 | 
Mineral Resource Models | |
The current block model block sizes are 15 ft x 15 ft x 30 ft (Table 13-5). SRK applied
dilution to the edge blocks based on the percentage of waste material within this block. This was done by performing a reblocking calculation on all the blocks. SRK is of the opinion that the grades will vary considerably at the local scale when
mining. 
**Table 13-5: Block Model Block Sizes**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Item | 
| 
Main Pit Area | 
| 
| |
| 
X(ft) | 
| 
15 | 
| 
| |
| 
Y(ft) | 
| 
15 | 
| 
| |
| 
Z(ft) | 
| 
30 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2023 
The resource block model was imported into Whittle and Maptek Vulcan LG and
verified against the original mineral resource block model (block model), created in Vulcan. The Vulcan block model subsequently
was coded in preparation for optimization. This included diluting the block model to account for mining practices. The verification process indicated no material changes to the block model tonnages and grade during the process of importing into
Whittle. 
| 
13.2.2 | 
Topographic Data | |
SRK was provided a September 30, 2025, topography to be used in the reserve calculation. The site uses a DJI Phantom 4 RTK Drone,
Pix4D, and Mapteks I-Site software to provide detailed surveys. 
| 
13.2.3 | 
Pit Optimization Constraints | |
The Mountain Pass pit design combines current site access, mining width requirements, and generalized geotechnical parameters to evaluate
the possibility for full extraction of resources through open pit techniques. Restrictions were placed on the pit optimization to prevent the optimized pit shell from encroaching on the concentrator and tailings storage facility. 
The optimization process was restricted to indicated resources. There are no pit resources classified as measured. For the purpose of the
optimization, there were no production or processing limits used within Whittle, and all material not classified as indicated was treated for calculation purposes as waste. 
| 
13.2.4 | 
Pit Optimization Parameters | |
**Mining Dilution**
The block model is based on 15 ft x 15 ft x 30 ft blocks. Where the interpretation of the mineralized rock intersects a block model block
centroid, the block within the mineralized shape is recorded. The flagging of ore type is based on block centroid and accounts for the location and placement of the ore 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
177 | |
contact. Because the contact of waste and ore is not always clearly visible, dilution is expected and has been accounted for. Average dilution across the deposit results in a 3.5% reduction in
ore grades. 
The Whittle optimization software used settings of 0% mining
dilution and 100% ore recovery (as this was pre-coded into the block model). These parameters were supplied by the client but are considered by SRK to be reasonable because the imported block model was already
diluted. 
**Discount Rate**
The pit optimization process used a 6% discounting factor. Inflation was not factored into the costs or the selling price used in the
analysis. 
**Geotechnical Parameters**
For the pit optimization, SRK used a variable overall slope angle between 42 and 45, which approximates the inclusion of ramps
(the pit optimization process cannot include actual ramp design so this must be approximated). The final pit design, including the location of the ramps will differ slightly from the pit optimization initial assumptions. 
**Revenue**
Revenue is based on the value realized from sales of the four individual REO products produced from the onsite separations facility. The
prices used for pit optimization are consistent with the prices established by the preliminary marketing study as discussed in Section 16 of this report: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
PrNd Oxide US$134.49/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SEG+ Precipitate US$51.30/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
La Carbonate US$1.46/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Ce Chloride US$6.62/kg | |
**Royalties**
No royalties have been applied to the optimization. 
**Mining Costs**
SRK reviewed MP Materials recent actual costs and modified the pit optimization costs based on prior experience with similar
projects. A base mining cost per short ton at the pit exit elevation has been applied for all material. The base mining cost is US$1.50/st. For each 15 ft bench that is mined above or below the pit exit elevation, an incremental cost of US$0.05/st
was added. Additionally, costs were included for the rehandling of ore from stockpiles and for the rehandle associated with the crushers, ore sorters, and filtered tailings plant. Subsequent to pit optimization, SRK prepared a first principles
mining cost model, the results of which were used for economic modeling. 
**Recoveries**
Pit optimization is based on concentrator recovery that varies based on the grade of the ore fed to the concentrator. The average REO
distribution in the concentrate for PrNd is 15.7%, for SEG+ is 1.8%, for Lanthanum is 32.3% and for Cerium is 50.2%. Overall recoveries at the onsite separations plant (as applied to concentrate containing on average 60% TREO) are 89.7% for PrNd
Oxide, 97.9% for SEG+ Precipitate, 74.9% for La Carbonate and 8.9% for Ce Chloride. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
178 | |
**Other Input Parameters**
Table 12-1 presents the full list of pit optimization parameters. 
| 
13.2.5 | 
Optimization Process | |
As a result of the pit optimization, the relationship of potential pit shells is based on stripping ratio variability and subject to the
selected base case selling prices. By looking at the relationship of ore to waste and the associated best-case and worst-case cash flows generated at each incremental pit, the risk profile and revenue generating potential of the deposit can be
estimated. 
To estimate the LoM pit utilized as the basis for the final reserve pit design, a series of nested pit shells were
calculated over a range of Revenue Factors (RF). Each of the nested pit shells were generated based on the maximum pit value calculated for the applicable RF. The generated nested pit shells increase in size as the RF and maximum pit value also
increase. 
The final pit design will not exactly match this optimization output and will often include some material outside of this
estimated LoM pit. 
| 
13.2.6 | 
Optimization Results | |
Pit optimization results are presented in Table 13-6. The optimized pit shell selected to
guide final pit design was based on a combination of the RF 0.40 pit (pit shell 5, used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (pit shell 17, used on the south half of the deposit). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
179 | |
**Table 13-6: Mountain Pass Pit
Optimization Result Using Indicated Classification Only**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Pit | 
| 
| 
RevenueFactor | 
| 
| 
Strip Ratio
(waste:ore) | 
| 
| 
Total Mined
(Mst) | 
| 
| 
Ore
(Mst) | 
| 
| 
Waste
(Mst) | 
| 
| 
ConcentrateProduced
(thousand st) | 
| 
| 
Mined Grade
(diluted TREO%) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.02 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
16.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.25 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.49 | 
| 
| 
| 
29.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
17.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,032.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.19 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.30 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.12 | 
| 
| 
| 
65.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
20.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
44.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,601.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.51 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.35 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.90 | 
| 
| 
| 
101.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
25.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
75.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,847.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.40 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.28 | 
| 
| 
| 
116.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
27.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
89.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,903.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
6.03 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.45 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.18 | 
| 
| 
| 
150.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
29.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
121.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,975.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.93 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.50 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.58 | 
| 
| 
| 
165.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
29.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
135.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,004.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.89 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.55 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.74 | 
| 
| 
| 
171.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
29.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
141.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,011.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.88 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.60 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
175.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
29.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
145.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,015.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.87 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.65 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.89 | 
| 
| 
| 
176.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
146.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,016.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.86 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.70 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.99 | 
| 
| 
| 
180.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
150.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,019.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.86 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.75 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.07 | 
| 
| 
| 
182.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
152.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,021.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.86 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
13 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.80 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.13 | 
| 
| 
| 
184.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
154.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,022.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
187.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
157.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,024.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.90 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.22 | 
| 
| 
| 
187.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
157.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,024.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.95 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.34 | 
| 
| 
| 
191.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
161.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,026.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.84 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.00 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.46 | 
| 
| 
| 
196.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
30.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
166.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,036.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.84 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source SRK, 2025 
The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the RF 0.40 pit (pit shell 5 (blue row), used on
the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (pit shell 17 (yellow row), used on the south half of the deposit) 
Figure 13-11 shows the results of pit optimization in a pit-by-pit graph. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
Pit value is pre-tax and assumes a 6% discount rate. 
The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the RF 0.40 pit (pit shell 5 used on the north
half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (pit shell 17 used on the south half of the deposit). 
**Figure 13-11: Mountain Pass Pit by Pit Optimization Result**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
180 | |
Figure 13-12 shows the mineral reserves
(red line) vs. the mineral resources (magenta line) pit optimization shells. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 13-12: Mountain Pass Mineral Reserves Pit (Red) and Mineral Resources Shell
(Magenta Line) Surface Intersection**
| 
13.3 | 
Design Criteria | |
| 
13.3.1 | 
Pit and Phase Designs | |
Phase designs for the deposit are largely driven by the effective mining width and its influence on access to the resource. The same
design parameters used in the final pit design have been incorporated into the phase designs. A total of seven phase designs were created for the Mountain 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
181 | |
Pass pit, all of which fall within the selected optimized pit shell (Phases 5, 6, 7A,
7B, 8, 9 and 10). Figure 13-13 and Figure 13-14 show the location of each phase. 
Source SRK, 2025 
Phases 1 through 4 were previously mined. 
**Figure 13-13: Phase Design Locations**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
182 | |
Source SRK, 2025 
Phases 1 through 4 were previously mined. 
**Figure 13-14: Cross-Section through Pit Phases (looking north)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
183 | |
To ensure proper ore exposure and access to different TREO grades, SRK created multiple
mining phases. To improve the economics of the Project, phases were divided by following pit optimization shells to ensure that the higher profit pit shells were being mined first. 
Figure 13-15 shows the September 30, 2025, starting reserve topography. Figure 13-16 shows the final pit design. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 13-15: Reserve Starting Topography, September 30, 2025**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
184 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 13-16: Final Pit Design**
| 
13.4 | 
Mine Production Schedule | |
The current LoM plan has pit mining that spans approximately 22 years (Q4 2025 through Q3 2047), followed by approximately 6 years of
processing long-term ore stockpiles (Q4 2027 through Q1 2053). The entire reserve is mined by the LoM plan. The average strip ratio is 5.8. A tabulation of annual mining and processing physicals is presented in Section 19 (specifically, Table 19-8). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
185 | |
| 
13.4.1 | 
Mine Production | |
Figure 13-17 to Figure 13-24 present the LoM
production schedule outputs for the Mountain Pass mine. The production schedule is used as the basis of the technical economic model (TEM) and comprises mill feed ore and waste. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
186 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October December 
VLG is
used to denote very low grade material (=>2.0% TREO but < 2.5% TREO) that is tracked separately in the mining schedule but is treated as waste. 
**Figure 13-17: Total Mined Material from the Open Pit (Ore and Waste)**
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-18: Ore Mined from the Open Pit**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
187 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-19: Mined Ore Grade**
| 
| |
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-20: Rehandled Ore from Stockpiles**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
188 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-21: Mill Concentrate Production**
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-22: Mill Feed Grade**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
189 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-23: Number of Benches Mined**
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 includes only October - December 
**Figure 13-24: Long-Term Ore Stockpile End of Period Balance**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
190 | |
**Grade Control**
Grade control provides critical control to ensure that ore and waste are identified at a high resolution prior to mining and then hauled
to the appropriate destination (i.e., primary crusher, stockpile, or waste dump). The grade control process is as follows: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
All blastholes will be sampled near the mineralized zones. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
For the 30 ft mining bench height, drillers/samplers will gather cuttings and define them by their drillhole number and
pattern number. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Samples will be analyzed in a laboratory set up on-site. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The geologist / mine engineer will build outlines based on the analyzed grade range. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The geologist and surveyors will place flags in the pattern based on the grade control outlines. | |
| 
13.5 | 
Waste and Stockpile Design | |
| 
13.5.1 | 
Waste Rock Storage Facility | |
The waste rock storage for the Mountain Pass operation has been designed to limit the vertical expansion of the waste dumps and have dump
toes located for control of surface run-off. The dumps have also been located in areas that will not be impacted by potential future mining operations. 
The total estimated waste rock storage requirement associated with the mine plan is approximately 170 Mst (including reject material from
the ore sorter). Mountain Pass will route all waste material from phases 5, 6 and 7a to the North dump and waste rock from phases 7b, 8, 9 and 10 to the East dump. All ore sorter reject material will be sent to the North dump. Total estimated waste
rock capacities for each dump are provided in Table 13-7. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
191 | |
**Table 13-7: Estimated Remaining Storage Capacity for
Waste Rock**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Dump | 
| 
Crest Elevation | 
| 
| 
Volume (million 
ft3) | 
| 
| 
Mst | 
| 
| 
Years Active | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
North | 
| 
| 
4,850 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,900 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,950 | 
| 
| 
| 
41.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
96.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,050 | 
| 
| 
| 
130.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,100 | 
| 
| 
| 
143.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,150 | 
| 
| 
| 
119.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,200 | 
| 
| 
| 
77.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
4.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5250 | 
| 
| 
| 
31.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
North Total | 
| 
| 
| 
643.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
39.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
East | 
| 
| 
4,450 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,500 | 
| 
| 
| 
57.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,550 | 
| 
| 
| 
139.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,600 | 
| 
| 
| 
216.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
13.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,650 | 
| 
| 
| 
318.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
19.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,700 | 
| 
| 
| 
405.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
24.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,750 | 
| 
| 
| 
390.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
23.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,800 | 
| 
| 
| 
330.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
20.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,850 | 
| 
| 
| 
262.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
16.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,900 | 
| 
| 
| 
192.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
11.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4,950 | 
| 
| 
| 
5.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
57.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
East Total | 
| 
| 
| 
2,576.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
157.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
All | 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
| 
3,220 | 
| 
| 
| 
196.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Figure 13-25 shows the locations of the waste dumps and long-term ore stockpile. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
192 | |
Source SRK, 2025 
**Figure 13-25: Final Pit Design and Waste Dump Locations**
| 
13.5.2 | 
Stockpiles | |
The long-term ore stockpile will hold approximately 5 Mst of ore, all of which will eventually be sent to processing. The long-term ore
stockpile is located to the northwest of the pit. 
The current operation uses four
low-capacity RoM blending stockpiles in front of the primary crusher. These stockpiles are small, and the total capacity for all of them is typically less than 50,000 st. The operation plans to continue this
practice in the future. 
| 
13.6 | 
Mining Fleet and Requirements | |
| 
13.6.1 | 
General Requirements and Fleet Selection | |
Mountain Pass is an open pit mine using front-end wheel loaders loading haul trucks for waste and
ore haulage. The operations are described further in the following sections. 
Mining activities include drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling and support activities. Ore will be sent to the RoM stockpiles for near-term blending or to long-term stockpiles for processing later in the mine life. Waste dumps will be used for material below the CoG. 
The loading, hauling, and support equipment operations are performed with a fleet that is owned and operated by MP Materials. Drill and
blast operations are performed by a contractor, and this will continue for the foreseeable future. The primary loading equipment is front-end loaders (17
yd3), which were selected for operational flexibility. Rigid frame haul trucks (102 wet st) were selected to match with the loading units. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
193 | |
The mine equipment fleet requirements are based on the annual mine production schedule,
the mine work schedule, and shift production estimates. The equipment fleet requirements are further discussed in the individual sections that follow in this report. All mine mobile equipment is diesel-powered to avoid the requirement to provide
electrical power into the pit working areas. 
The mine operations schedule includes one 12 hour day shift, seven days per week for
365 days per year. Mine productivity and costing included estimating the productive shift operating time. Non-productive time includes shift change (travel time), equipment inspections, fueling, and operator
breaks. SRK estimated that the total time per shift for these items will be 2.25 hours. The scheduled production time (scheduled operating hours) was therefore estimated at 9.75 hours per shift, representing a (shift) utilization of 81.3% of the 12
hour shift period (and excludes mechanical availability and work efficiency factors). 
In addition, allowances were made for work
efficiencies including equipment moves (production delays while moving to other mining areas within the pit), and certain dynamic operational inefficiencies. These work efficiencies are further discussed in the respective sections for loading and
hauling. 
Equipment fleet mechanical availability was estimated for the various major mine equipment fleets. Replacement equipment
units for units that have reached their useful life are assumed to be new. 
Table 13-8
shows the mining equipment fleet requirements for the mine plan. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
194 | |
**Table 13-8: Mining Equipment Requirements**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Equipment
Units | 
| 
Model | 
| 
| 
Size | 
| 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
2032 | 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
2034 | 
| 
| 
2035 | 
| 
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
2037 | 
| 
| 
2038 | 
| 
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
2040 | 
| 
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
2045 | 
| 
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
2048 | 
| 
| 
2049 | 
| 
| 
2050 | 
| 
| 
2051 | 
| 
| 
2052 | 
| 
| 
2053 | 
| |
| 
Loading | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Wheel loader | 
| 
| 
988 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.6 yd3 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Wheel loader | 
| 
| 
992 | 
| 
| 
| 
17.0 yd3 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| |
| 
Hauling | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Haul truck | 
| 
| 
775 | 
| 
| 
| 
70 wst | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Haul truck | 
| 
| 
777 | 
| 
| 
| 
102 wst | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
13 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Other
Mine Equip | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Track dozer | 
| 
| 
D9 | 
| 
| 
| 
405 hp | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Motor grader | 
| 
| 
GD655 | 
| 
| 
| 
218 hp | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Motor grader | 
| 
| 
14M3 | 
| 
| 
| 
238 hp | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Excavator | 
| 
| 
352 | 
| 
| 
| 
306 hp | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Water truck | 
| 
| 
775G | 
| 
| 
| 
15,000 gal | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Water truck | 
| 
| 
HM400 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,000 gal | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Support Equip | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Track dozer | 
| 
| 
D6 | 
| 
| 
| 
150 hp | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Wheel loader | 
| 
| 
988 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.6 yd | 
3 | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Haul truck | 
| 
| 
740 | 
| 
| 
| 
40 wst | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| |
| 
Fuel/Lube
truck | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
HD mech
truck | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Welding
truck | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Flatbed
truck | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Pumps /
generators | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Personnel
bus | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Pickup trucks | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| |
| 
Light plant | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
The number of units required in a
given year is a calculated number based on the production schedule and may be equal to or lower (i.e., not higher) than the number of units on hand in the same year. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
195 | |
| 
13.6.2 | 
Drilling and Blasting | |
MP Materials has contracted for drilling and blasting services. The contractor will provide all equipment, supplies, and labor to
complete the services. It is MP Materials intention to continue with contractor drilling and blasting services for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, SRK has included a provision in the mining cost estimate for drilling and blasting
services for the LoM timeframe. 
Drilling is based on a 15 ft blasthole spacing and a 15 ft burden. The designed hole depth is 30 ft
with a 4 ft subdrill. Dry blastholes will be loaded with ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO). It is assumed that there will be 20% additional holes for pre-splitting, and 10% of blastholes will be loaded with
emulsion (wet conditions). 
The blasting contractor transports blasting accessories to site and stores these separately in a suitable
explosives magazine. The blasting contractor has an explosives truck (ANFO/emulsion), which delivers bulk explosives to the open pit blast sites during daylight hours. Stemming material is 34 inch rock. The blasting contractor manages and conducts the blasting operations. 
| 
13.6.3 | 
Loading | |
The main loading equipment fleet for the mining operations is two front-end loaders (17.0
yd3 bucket capacity). This equipment loads a fleet of seven rigid frame haul trucks (102 wet st capacity). 
The main loading equipment fleet for the mining operations will be assisted by two smaller front-end loaders (7.6 yd3 bucket capacity), two smaller rigid frame haul trucks (70 wet st capacity), and two articulated haul trucks (40 wet st capacity). 
The dry density for waste was estimated to be 0.0829 st/ft3 (2.66 metric tonne/m3). The dry density for ore was estimated to be 0.0975 st/ft3 (3.12 metric tonne/m3). Rock
moisture content was estimated to be 2% on average and swell in loading blasted rock to be 40%. 
Table 13-9 shows selected loading statistics for the loading units when operating in waste.
**Table 13-9: Loading Statistics by Unit Type in Waste**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Equipment Type | 
| 
Unit | 
| 
Large Loader | 
| 
| 
Small Loader | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Bucket Size | 
| 
yd3 | 
| 
| 
17.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Matched Truck Rated
Size | 
| 
wet st | 
| 
| 
102 | 
| 
| 
| 
70 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Number of Passes(1) | 
| 
passes | 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Truck Loading
Time | 
| 
min | 
| 
| 
2.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Moving and Delay Time | 
| 
min/op hr | 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Waste Prod. Per Unit (100% Available) | 
| 
dst/op hr | 
| 
| 
1,893 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,127 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
(1) Average 2% moisture assumed. 
The total truck loading times included a truck spotting (initial positioning of the trucks for loading) time of 48 seconds. 
Table 13-10 shows selected loading productivity information in waste for the planned loading
equipment. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
196 | |
**Table 13-10: Loading Productivities by
Unit Type in Waste**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Equipment Type | 
| 
Unit | 
| 
Large Loader | 
| 
| 
Small Loader | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Waste Prod. per Unit (100% Available) | 
| 
dry t/op hr | 
| 
| 
1,893 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,127 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Planned Operating
Hours per Shift | 
| 
scheduled op hrs | 
| 
| 
9.75 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.75 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Planned Operating Hours per Year | 
| 
scheduled op hrs | 
| 
| 
3,559 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,559 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Estimated Mechanical
Availability | 
| 
op hrs % | 
| 
| 
85% | 
| 
| 
| 
85% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Actual Operating
Hours per Year | 
| 
op hrs | 
| 
| 
3,025 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,025 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Annual Waste Production Capacity per Unit | 
| 
dry Mst/yr | 
| 
| 
6.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.8 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
As part of the mining operations, an allowance was made for re-handling crushed ore between the
crusher and the mill with 17.0 yd3 loaders and 102 ton haul trucks. There is also an allowance for 7.6 yd3 loaders to be used for
rehandling material at the integrated crushing and ore sorting facility. 
| 
13.6.4 | 
Hauling | |
Waste is hauled to the waste dumps. Ore is hauled to RoM stockpiles or, alternatively, to long-term stockpiles. 
The main hauling equipment fleet for the pit mining operations is composed of seven 102 wet short ton capacity rigid frame haul trucks,
two smaller rigid frame haul trucks (70 wet short ton capacity) and two articulated haul trucks (40 wet short ton capacity). 
The
Maptek Vulcan haulage module was used to calculate the cycle times and distances. Routes were drawn from every bench for each pit phase to the destinations, and one-way distances reported. 
Various haul profiles were developed for different time periods, and
haulage cycle times from the pits were estimated for waste and ore. Base haul cycle times were estimated using the software, and these were factored for practical operational hauling aspects to reflect realistic cycle times. 
Truck spot, load, and dump times were then added to the factored haul cycle times to make up total haul cycle times. 
Table 13-11 shows selected hauling productivity information for waste haulage. 
**Table 13-11: Hauling Statistics by Unit Type in Waste**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hauling Equipment Type | 
| 
Unit | 
| 
Large Truck | 
| 
| 
Small Truck | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rated Truck Size | 
| 
wet st | 
| 
| 
102 | 
| 
| 
| 
70 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Truck Fill Factor by Weight | 
| 
wet tonnage basis % | 
| 
| 
100% | 
| 
| 
| 
100% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Typical Total Truck Loading Time (1) | 
| 
min | 
| 
| 
2.60 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.05 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Truck Dumping Time | 
| 
min | 
| 
| 
1.20 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.20 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Production per Unit (100% Available) | 
| 
st/op hr | 
| 
| 
Variable based
on haul profile | 
| 
| 
| 
Variable based
on haul profile | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
(1) Includes truck spotting time; large trucks loading with 17 yd3 loader and small trucks loading with 7.6 yd3 loader. 
Table 13-12 summarizes the factored truck haulage cycle times from the pit for each year.
These cycle times are the total truck cycle times and include truck spotting, loading and dumping times. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
197 | |
**Table 13-12: Pit Haulage Cycle Times
(minutes)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Year | 
| 
Waste | 
| 
| 
Ore to Crusher | 
| 
Ore to Stockpile | 
| 
| |
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
12.0 | 
| 
| 
22.3 | 
| 
20.8 | 
| 
| |
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
11.2 | 
| 
| 
20.8 | 
| 
21.1 | 
| 
| |
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
16.2 | 
| 
| 
21.6 | 
| 
21.9 | 
| 
| |
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
19.0 | 
| 
| 
17.2 | 
| 
22.6 | 
| 
| |
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
19.2 | 
| 
| 
20.2 | 
| 
19.4 | 
| 
| |
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
11.9 | 
| 
| 
22.5 | 
| 
19.5 | 
| 
| |
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
14.1 | 
| 
| 
22.1 | 
| 
20.5 | 
| 
| |
| 
2032 | 
| 
| 
13.7 | 
| 
| 
22.3 | 
| 
15.5 | 
| 
| |
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
17.9 | 
| 
| 
22.0 | 
| 
19.6 | 
| 
| |
| 
2034 | 
| 
| 
14.2 | 
| 
| 
25.1 | 
| 
16.7 | 
| 
| |
| 
2035 | 
| 
| 
10.2 | 
| 
| 
22.5 | 
| 
21.8 | 
| 
| |
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
8.4 | 
| 
| 
24.1 | 
| 
24.4 | 
| 
| |
| 
2037 | 
| 
| 
11.3 | 
| 
| 
26.1 | 
| 
25.9 | 
| 
| |
| 
2038 | 
| 
| 
16.9 | 
| 
| 
27.9 | 
| 
23.8 | 
| 
| |
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
12.8 | 
| 
| 
29.7 | 
| 
23.7 | 
| 
| |
| 
2040 | 
| 
| 
13.5 | 
| 
| 
28.4 | 
| 
27.4 | 
| 
| |
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
15.0 | 
| 
| 
32.4 | 
| 
23.3 | 
| 
| |
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
15.1 | 
| 
| 
18.0 | 
| 
23.7 | 
| 
| |
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
14.7 | 
| 
| 
20.2 | 
| 
23.3 | 
| 
| |
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
18.2 | 
| 
| 
22.2 | 
| 
24.3 | 
| 
| |
| 
2045 | 
| 
| 
22.8 | 
| 
| 
26.4 | 
| 
27.5 | 
| 
| |
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
25.4 | 
| 
| 
28.8 | 
| 
29.9 | 
| 
| |
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
28.6 | 
| 
| 
31.2 | 
| 
31.9 | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Total factored haul truck cycle times including loading, spotting and dumping. 
Truck hauling productivities were calculated for each year of the mining operations and were used to estimate respective fleet hauling
operating hours required, which were then used as the basis for determining the truck fleet requirements. 
| 
13.6.5 | 
Auxiliary Equipment | |
Other major mining operations support equipment was previously shown in Table 13-8. The
Caterpillar D9 track dozer is used for drill site preparation, road and ramp development, and maintenance of loading areas and waste dumps. The graders and water trucks maintain ramps, haul roads, and operating surfaces. The excavator performs site
development work including pioneering and drainage diversion ditch development. The major mining equipment fleet size for roads and dumps is based on the general production level and allowance for general site conditions (including annual
precipitation). 
Annual operating hours were estimated for all of the major mining support equipment units, in general, between 1,512
and 3,025 operating hours per unit per year were scheduled for support mining equipment operation. 
The Caterpillar D6 track dozer is
used for handling filtered tailings. Other mining equipment involved in the handling of the filtered tailings includes a 7.6 yd3 loader and 40-ton capacity
articulated dump trucks (ADT) which haul the filtered tailings to the tailings area for the dozer to then place. 
Mining support
equipment includes equipment maintenance units such as a fuel/lube truck, which delivers fuel to equipment in the field from the fuel station, heavy duty mechanics truck, and welders truck. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
198 | |
Mine site operations and development utilize a flatbed truck, various moveable
generators/pumps, light plants, transport van, and various service pickup trucks. 
Dewatering is required for the pit. A combination
of precipitation falling within the outer perimeter of the pit (normally only a few inches of rain per year) and groundwater inflows into the pit account for the total volume of water that is handled by the dewatering equipment. 
| 
13.6.6 | 
Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor | |
The mine has salaried staff for mine administration, supervision of mine operations, supervision of mine equipment maintenance, and for
technical services (geology and mining departments). These positions are on a permanent day shift. Operations employees fill mining production, mining support functions, and mining equipment maintenance positions. 
The mine administration and operations supervision staff totals seven positions, and the technical services staff totals six positions.
The total staff includes 14 positions. The operations, mine equipment maintenance, and technical services positions include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine administration includes a Senior Vice President Mining. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine operations includes two shift foremen. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mobile maintenance includes a maintenance superintendent, two maintenance shift foreman and a maintenance planner. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine geology includes a geologist and a senior geologist. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine engineering includes technical services manager, a mine planner, a chief surveyor and two survey assistants. | |
Equipment operator labor positions are based on the number of mining equipment units required, and on the
assumption that most of the operators are cross-trained (i.e., when operators are not required to be on one type of heavy equipment, they will be able to operate another type of equipment). 
Operator positions are estimated for each year of operation. Required pit loading, hauling, and other support fleet equipment operators
are based on the annual operating hours required. The operations assigned to the mining department also include filtered tailings loading and hauling, crusher feed loader, and loading and hauling crushed ore to the mill. Estimated annual labor costs
include overtime allowances and burdens (33%). 
A maintenance group is staffed with mobile equipment mechanics, electricians,
welders, and other maintenance personnel. 
The mining operations and maintenance labor requirements are shown in Table 13-13. The peak number of operations and maintenance personnel is 76, which occurs in 2044. The mine department staffing levels are reduced significantly during the later years of the mine life because
pit mining concludes in 2047 and only stockpile rehandling occurs from 2048 through 2053. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
199 | |
**Table 13-13: Mining Operations and Maintenance Labor Requirements**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Category | 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
2032 | 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
2034 | 
| 
| 
2035 | 
| 
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
2037 | 
| 
| 
2038 | 
| 
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
2040 | 
| 
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
2045 | 
| 
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
2048 | 
| 
| 
2049 | 
| 
| 
2050 | 
| 
| 
2051 | 
| 
| 
2052 | 
| 
| 
2053 | 
| |
| 
Loading Operators | 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| |
| 
Truck
Drivers | 
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
30 | 
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| |
| 
Other Mine Equipment | 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Support
Activities | 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| |
| 
Total Mining
Ops | 
| 
| 
43 | 
| 
| 
| 
47 | 
| 
| 
| 
49 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
55 | 
| 
| 
| 
49 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
53 | 
| 
| 
| 
53 | 
| 
| 
| 
49 | 
| 
| 
| 
47 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
55 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
53 | 
| 
| 
| 
55 | 
| 
| 
| 
55 | 
| 
| 
| 
55 | 
| 
| 
| 
59 | 
| 
| 
| 
53 | 
| 
| 
| 
45 | 
| 
| 
| 
34 | 
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| |
| 
Senior
Mech/Elec | 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Mech/Elec | 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| |
| 
Assistant
Mech | 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total
Maintenance | 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
13 | 
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| |
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
58 | 
| 
| 
| 
61 | 
| 
| 
| 
65 | 
| 
| 
| 
69 | 
| 
| 
| 
61 | 
| 
| 
| 
65 | 
| 
| 
| 
65 | 
| 
| 
| 
67 | 
| 
| 
| 
67 | 
| 
| 
| 
61 | 
| 
| 
| 
59 | 
| 
| 
| 
64 | 
| 
| 
| 
70 | 
| 
| 
| 
65 | 
| 
| 
| 
67 | 
| 
| 
| 
69 | 
| 
| 
| 
69 | 
| 
| 
| 
69 | 
| 
| 
| 
76 | 
| 
| 
| 
67 | 
| 
| 
| 
57 | 
| 
| 
| 
42 | 
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Support activities include filtered tailings loading and hauling, crusher feed loader, and loading and hauling crushed ore to the mill. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
200 | |
| 
14 | 
Processing and Recovery Methods | |
| 
14.1 | 
Historic Production | |
Over a 50 year operating history MP Materials predecessor companies successfully produced bastnaesite flotation concentrates on a
continuous basis for sale and/or further on-site processing. Table 14-1 presents the historic mill production from 1980 to 2002. During this period REOTREO recovery
ranged from about 52% to 69% from ore that ranged from 7.18% to 9.74% TREO. 
**Table 14-1: Historic Mill Production, 1980 to 2002**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Year | 
| 
Milled
(st) | 
| 
| 
Mill Feed Grade
(TREO %) | 
| 
| 
REOTREO Recovery
(%) | 
| 
| 
Flotation Concentrate
(lb TREO) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
2002 | 
| 
| 
183,487 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.91 | 
| 
| 
| 
67.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,616,000 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
2001 | 
| 
| 
175,010 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.09 | 
| 
| 
| 
62.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
17,845,000 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
2000 | 
| 
| 
No operation | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1999 | 
| 
| 
No operation | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1998 | 
| 
| 
321,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1997 | 
| 
| 
424,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.43 | 
| 
| 
| 
57.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
41,117,711 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1996 | 
| 
| 
544,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
-- | 
| 
| 
| 
-- | 
| 
| 
| 
42,513,000 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1995 | 
| 
| 
537,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.01 | 
| 
| 
| 
52.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
49,029,000 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1994 | 
| 
| 
508,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.68 | 
| 
| 
| 
56.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
49,726,403 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1993 | 
| 
| 
433,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.31 | 
| 
| 
| 
55.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
39,722,150 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1992 | 
| 
| 
409,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.80 | 
| 
| 
| 
60.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
42,800,327 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1991 | 
| 
| 
336,344 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.74 | 
| 
| 
| 
59.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
35,143,870 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1990 | 
| 
| 
480,161 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.81 | 
| 
| 
| 
60.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
50,943,008 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1989 | 
| 
| 
418,446 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.96 | 
| 
| 
| 
62.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
46,613,913 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1988 | 
| 
| 
221,764 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.74 | 
| 
| 
| 
60.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
26,135,080 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1987 | 
| 
| 
358,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.31 | 
| 
| 
| 
58.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
38,962,866 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1986 | 
| 
| 
225,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
9.47 | 
| 
| 
| 
57.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
24,414,453 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1985 | 
| 
| 
253,000 | 
| 
| 
| 
8.15 | 
| 
| 
| 
75.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
31,193,018 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1984 | 
| 
| 
543,354 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.82 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
58,176,586 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1983 | 
| 
| 
371,252 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.85 | 
| 
| 
| 
67.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
39,224,489 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1982 | 
| 
| 
391,417 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.30 | 
| 
| 
| 
69.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
38,581,897 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1981 | 
| 
| 
370,207 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.43 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
37,659,763 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
1980 | 
| 
| 
360,068 | 
| 
| 
| 
7.18 | 
| 
| 
| 
68.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
35,243,503 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: Mountain Pass Monthly Operational Reports, 1980 through 2002 
| 
14.2 | 
Current Operations | |
MP Materials initiated the operation of a 2,000 st/d flotation concentrator during December 2017. The concentrator flowsheet includes
crushing, grinding, rougher/scavenger flotation, cleaner flotation, concentrate thickening and filtration, and tailings thickening and filtration followed by dry stack tailings disposal. The generalized process flowsheet is shown in Figure 14-1, and each unit operation is briefly discussed in this section. Site infrastructure that supports the processing operations (e.g., power and water supply) is discussed in Section 15. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
201 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
Note: The term overburden denotes below CoG material that is hauled to the waste rock storage facilities. 
**Figure 14-1: MP Materials Concentrator Flowsheet**
| 
14.2.1 | 
Crushing | |
RoM ore is truck-hauled and stockpiled at the crusher in three separate stockpiles dependent upon grade. A
front-end loader pulls from each stockpile as needed to achieve a target ore blend grade of approximately 8% to 9% TREO. The blended ore is crushed through a three-stage crushing circuit that includes a
Svedala jaw crusher and two Terex cone crushers (MVP-380). Ore is crushed at the rate of 180 st per hour to produce a final -3/8 inch crushed product that is stockpiled in multiple 20,000 st stockpiles. 
| 
14.2.2 | 
Grinding | |
Crushed ore is truck-hauled to stockpiles beside the concentrator and then trammed with a
front-end loader to the ore feed hopper from which it is conveyed to the grinding circuit. The grinding circuit consists of a 3.8 m diameter by 7.1 m EGL ball mill (2,500 horsepower (hp)), which is operated in
a closed circuit with a cluster of Cavex-Weir cyclones to produce a final grind size of 80% passing (P80) 45 microns (m). 
| 
14.2.3 | 
Reagent Conditioning and Flotation | |
The cyclone overflow from the grinding circuit is advanced to a four-stage conditioning circuit in which the required flotation reagents
are sequentially conditioned at 135F. The mineral collectors are added in the second and third conditioner. Froth modifiers are stage-added to the fourth conditioner. The conditioned slurry is then advanced to the rougher/ scavenger flotation
circuit, which consists of two banks of tank cells. The resulting rougher/scavenger flotation concentrate is then advanced to multiple stages of cleaner/cleaner scavenger flotation. The final cleaner flotation concentrate is thickened to over 70%
solids in a 35 ft diameter thickener and then filtered to about 8% moisture in a 1,500 mm x 1,500 mm 20/16 Siemens filter press. The filtered concentrate is either advanced to the on-site 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
202 | |
separations facility or, in periods where the capacity of the separations plant is
exceeded, stockpiled for processing in future periods. The rougher and cleaner scavenger flotation tailings are combined as the final concentrator tailing, which is pumped to the filtered tailings plant where it is filtered to about 15% moisture and
then truck-hauled to the northwest tailing disposal facility (NWTDF). 
| 
14.2.4 | 
Filtered Tailings Plant | |
Concentrator tailings are pumped to the filtered tailings plant, which is remotely located near the dry stack NWTDF. At the filtered
tailings plant, the concentrator tailings are thickened to about 65% solids and then filtered in three fully automatic filter presses (Siemens 1,500 mm x 2,000 mm 60/50) to about 15% moisture. In order to achieve a clear thickener overflow, a
coagulant is added, followed by the addition of a slightly anionic flocculant at the thickener mix box. Tailings are conveyed to a stockpile outside the filtered tailings plant and then hauled to the NWTDF, which is discussed in Section 15.
| 
14.2.5 | 
Metallurgical Control and Accounting | |
Ore feed tonnage to the concentrator is obtained from a belt scale on the ball mill feed conveyor, and operational performance of the
concentrator is monitored by manually sampling the feed, final flotation concentrate, and final tailings every two hours, which are then prepared and analyzed by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) for %TREO. This
information is used to monitor the concentrator performance and to make any required adjustments to the process. This information is also used to calculate a metallurgical TREO recovery and metric tonnes of bastnaesite flotation concentrate
produced. 
Based on experience, MP Materials has determined that bastnaesite at Mountain Pass contains approximately 50% CeO2, and from this they are able to calculate the total %TREO content of the concentrate. There is reasonable agreement between the metallurgical TREO recovery reported by the concentrator (which is
determined by XRF analyses of concentrator samples) and packaged recovery (which historically was determined by actual shipments of TREO concentrate). 
| 
14.2.6 | 
Concentrator Performance | |
Concentrator performance for 2024 is summarized in Table 14-2, and concentrator performance for
2025 (YTD September) is summarized in Table 14-3. 
During 2024, the concentrator
processed 763,356 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.55% TREO and recovered 70.1% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 61.0% TREO. During this period 45,455 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total
13,700 metric tonnes were roasted and advanced to the separations plant. The remainder of the TREO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrate: Product Code 4000 (30,116 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (1,639 metric
tonnes TREO). 
During 2025 (YTD - September), the concentrator processed 611,704 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.45%
TREO and recovered 76.0% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 62.5% TREO. During this period 38,609 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total, 18,158 metric tonnes TREO was roasted and advanced to the separations
plant. The remainder of the REO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrates: Product Code 4000 (20,308 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (143 metric tonnes TREO). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
203 | |
**Table 14-2: Concentrator Production Summary
- 2024**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Month | 
| 
Feed | 
| 
Concentrate | 
| 
TREO Tonnes Produced | |
| 
| 
4000 | 
| 
4050 | 
| 
WIP | 
| 
Total | |
| 
| 
Tons ¹ | 
| 
Tonnes ¹ | 
| 
TREO (%) | 
| 
TREO (tonnes) | 
| 
TREO (%) | 
| 
Recovery (%) | 
| 
Unroasted | 
| 
Roasted | 
| 
Roasted | |
| 
January | 
| 
80,327 | 
| 
72,921 | 
| 
8.40 | 
| 
6,025 | 
| 
61.3 | 
| 
63.4 | 
| 
2,272 | 
| 
643 | 
| 
906 | 
| 
3,821 | |
| 
February | 
| 
72,913 | 
| 
66,190 | 
| 
8.40 | 
| 
5,430 | 
| 
60.2 | 
| 
64.5 | 
| 
2,176 | 
| 
451 | 
| 
874 | 
| 
3,501 | |
| 
March | 
| 
77,163 | 
| 
70,049 | 
| 
8.70 | 
| 
5,937 | 
| 
60.1 | 
| 
64.1 | 
| 
2,937 | 
| 
83 | 
| 
809 | 
| 
3,829 | |
| 
April | 
| 
60,166 | 
| 
54,619 | 
| 
8.90 | 
| 
5,242 | 
| 
60.0 | 
| 
60.3 | 
| 
2,386 | 
| 
168 | 
| 
605 | 
| 
3,159 | |
| 
May | 
| 
34,235 | 
| 
31,079 | 
| 
8.50 | 
| 
2,846 | 
| 
57.6 | 
| 
69.4 | 
| 
1,325 | 
| 
42 | 
| 
608 | 
| 
1,975 | |
| 
June | 
| 
76,418 | 
| 
69,372 | 
| 
8.64 | 
| 
5,874 | 
| 
61.9 | 
| 
67.2 | 
| 
2,685 | 
| 
14 | 
| 
1,250 | 
| 
3,949 | |
| 
July | 
| 
80,078 | 
| 
72,695 | 
| 
8.60 | 
| 
6,154 | 
| 
61.3 | 
| 
77.0 | 
| 
3,493 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
1,244 | 
| 
4,737 | |
| 
August | 
| 
80,158 | 
| 
72,767 | 
| 
8.50 | 
| 
6,088 | 
| 
63.0 | 
| 
72.6 | 
| 
2,845 | 
| 
183 | 
| 
1,393 | 
| 
4,421 | |
| 
September | 
| 
73,881 | 
| 
67,069 | 
| 
8.37 | 
| 
5,524 | 
| 
62.0 | 
| 
83.0 | 
| 
3,003 | 
| 
41 | 
| 
1,541 | 
| 
4,585 | |
| 
October | 
| 
56,290 | 
| 
51,100 | 
| 
8.40 | 
| 
4,224 | 
| 
61.4 | 
| 
72.7 | 
| 
1,816 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
1,254 | 
| 
3,070 | |
| 
November | 
| 
72,942 | 
| 
66,217 | 
| 
8.63 | 
| 
5,623 | 
| 
61.3 | 
| 
72.0 | 
| 
2,426 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
1,620 | 
| 
4,046 | |
| 
December | 
| 
76,513 | 
| 
69,459 | 
| 
8.53 | 
| 
5,830 | 
| 
59.6 | 
| 
74.8 | 
| 
2,752 | 
| 
14 | 
| 
1,596 | 
| 
4,362 | |
| 
Total | 
| 
841,084 | 
| 
763,536 | 
| 
8.55 | 
| 
64,797 | 
| 
61.0 | 
| 
70.1 | 
| 
30,116 | 
| 
1,639 | 
| 
13,700 | 
| 
45,455 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
1 Reported as wet tons (2,000 lbs) and wet tonnes (2,204.62 lbs) 
**Table 14-3: Concentrator Production Summary - 2025
(YTD-Sept)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Month | 
| 
Feed | 
| 
Concentrate | 
| 
TREO Tonnes
Produced | 
| 
Total | |
| 
| 
4000 | 
| 
4050 | 
| 
WIP | |
| 
| 
Tons ¹ | 
| 
Tonnes ¹ | 
| 
TREO (%) | 
| 
TREO (tonnes) | 
| 
TREO (%) | 
| 
Recovery (%) | 
| 
Unroasted | 
| 
Roasted | 
| 
Roasted | |
| 
January | 
| 
73,856 | 
| 
67,046 | 
| 
8.69 | 
| 
5,712 | 
| 
59.7 | 
| 
70.8 | 
| 
2,325 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
1,717 | 
| 
4,042 | |
| 
February | 
| 
71,631 | 
| 
65,027 | 
| 
8.45 | 
| 
5,398 | 
| 
61.7 | 
| 
72.1 | 
| 
1,942 | 
| 
42 | 
| 
1,907 | 
| 
3,891 | |
| 
March | 
| 
79,178 | 
| 
71,878 | 
| 
8.35 | 
| 
5,907 | 
| 
61.6 | 
| 
72.5 | 
| 
2,453 | 
| 
28 | 
| 
1,798 | 
| 
4,279 | |
| 
April | 
| 
57,894 | 
| 
52,556 | 
| 
8.35 | 
| 
4,323 | 
| 
62.0 | 
| 
78.9 | 
| 
1,785 | 
| 
14 | 
| 
1,613 | 
| 
3,412 | |
| 
May | 
| 
80,469 | 
| 
73,050 | 
| 
8.81 | 
| 
6,339 | 
| 
63.4 | 
| 
80.1 | 
| 
3,128 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
1,950 | 
| 
5,078 | |
| 
June | 
| 
77,904 | 
| 
70,721 | 
| 
8.32 | 
| 
5,798 | 
| 
62.7 | 
| 
80.3 | 
| 
2,564 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
2,090 | 
| 
4,654 | |
| 
July | 
| 
77,268 | 
| 
70,144 | 
| 
8.22 | 
| 
5,664 | 
| 
63.4 | 
| 
76.0 | 
| 
2,034 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
2,273 | 
| 
4,307 | |
| 
August | 
| 
80,127 | 
| 
72,739 | 
| 
8.22 | 
| 
5,870 | 
| 
63.8 | 
| 
77.7 | 
| 
2,006 | 
| 
59 | 
| 
2,495 | 
| 
4,560 | |
| 
September | 
| 
75,504 | 
| 
68,543 | 
| 
8.59 | 
| 
5,763 | 
| 
63.3 | 
| 
76.1 | 
| 
2,071 | 
| 
0 | 
| 
2,315 | 
| 
4,386 | |
| 
Total | 
| 
673,831 | 
| 
611,704 | 
| 
8.45 | 
| 
50,774 | 
| 
62.5 | 
| 
76.0 | 
| 
20,308 | 
| 
143 | 
| 
18,158 | 
| 
38,609 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
1 Reported as wet tons (2,000 lbs) and wet tonnes (2,204.62 lbs) 
| 
14.3 | 
Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | |
MP Materials is planning to install an ore sorting circuit to upgrade low grade ore containing 2.5% to 5.0% TREO to about 6% to 8% TREO
based on the test work conducted by Tomra in 2023 (Section 10.4), which indicates that low grade ore can be upgraded by a factor of 1.9 with about 90% REO recovery into the ore sorter product. MP Materials expects the integrated crushing and ore
sorting facility to begin ramping up operations during Q1 2027 and plans to conduct further test work to determine whether even lower grade material (<2.5% TREO) is potentially amenable to ore sorting. 
As part of the new ore sorter installation, MP Materials will decommission the existing crushing plant and construct two new crushing
facilities. Crushing plant 1, which is shown in Figure 14-2 has been designed to process RoM ore at the maximum rate of 598 short tons per hour (st/h) and will serve to crush mill-grade RoM ore to -3/8 inch for delivery to the concentrator. Crushing plant 2, which is shown in Figure 14-3 has been designed to process low grade ore at the maximum rate of 950 st/h and will
be integrated with the ore sorter circuit. Crushing plant 2 will crush low grade ore into three separate size fractions (-3 inch + 1.25 inch, -1.25 inch + 3/8 inch and -3/8 inch). The -3 inch +1.25 inch size fraction 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
204 | |
will be processed through the coarse feed ore sorter at the maximum rate of 411 st/h and the -1.25 inch + 3/8 inch size fraction will be processed through
the fine feed ore sorter at the maximum rate of 311 st/h. The -3/8 inch fraction, which represents about 23% of RoM low grade ore, is too fine for ore sorter processing and will be stockpiled and
transported to the low grade stockpile for processing later in the mine life. The upgraded products from both the coarse and fine ore sorters will be hauled to one of three RoM ore stockpiles at crushing plant 1 where they will be crushed to -3/8 inch and stockpiled pending transport to the concentrator. A general arrangement drawing for the new crushing and ore sorting facilities is shown in Figure 14-4 and a
list of major equipment is shown in Table 14-4. 
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
**Figure 14-2: Crushing Plant 1 Flowsheet**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
205 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
**Figure 14-3: Crushing Plant 2 Flowsheet**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
206 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
| 
| 
Figure14-4: | 
General Arrangement for Crushing Plant -1 and the Integrated Crushing Plant 2
and Ore Sorting Circuit. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
207 | |
**Table 14-4: Crushing Plants and Ore Sorter
Circuit Equipment List**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Equipment
Number | 
| 
Description | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Crushing Plant 1 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
Rock Box | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
Breaker Stand | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
Jaw Crusher | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
Jaw Under Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
42 inch x 100 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
Dual 8 ft x 20 ft Screen Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
42 inch x 40 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
42 inch x 125 Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
Dual K400 Cone Crusher & Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
42 inch x 40 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
36 inch x 80 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
36 inch x 125 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
13 | 
| 
K400 Cone Crusher & Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
36 inch x 125 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
8 ft x 20 ft Screen Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
36 inch x 100 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
36 inch x 180 ft Overland Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
36 inch x 60 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
19 | 
| 
RSC 36 inch x 150 ft Radial Stacker | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Crushing Plant 2 and Ore Sorter Circuit | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
SPF1014 - Bin Feeder | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
21 | 
| 
36 inch x 60 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
36 inch x 80 ft HDS Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
23 | 
| 
RSC 36 inch x 100 ft Radial Stacker | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
SPF1014 - Bin Feeder | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
25 | 
| 
36 inch x 60 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
36 inch x 80 ft HDS Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
27 | 
| 
RSC 36 inch x 100 ft Radial Stacker | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
Rock Box | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
29 | 
| 
Breaker Stand | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
30 | 
| 
Jaw Crusher | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
Jaw Under Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
32 | 
| 
42 inch x 100 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
33 | 
| 
Dual 8 ft x 20 ft Screen Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
34 | 
| 
36 inch x 60 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
35 | 
| 
42 inch x 125 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
36 | 
| 
K400 Cone Crusher and Structure | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
37 | 
| 
42 inch x 40 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
38 | 
| 
36 inch x 30 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
39 | 
| 
36 inch x 80 ft Fixed Stacker | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
36 inch x 30 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
41 | 
| 
36 inch x 100 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
42 | 
| 
36 inch x 100 ft Conveyor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
43 | 
| 
Air Compressor | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
44 | 
| 
Electrical Gear | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
45 | 
| 
Ore Sorters | 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
208 | |
| 
14.4 | 
Significant Factors | |
The following significant factors for the crushing and concentrating operations have been identified: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
MP Materials conducted flotation studies to evaluate TREO recovery vs. ore grade and developed a mathematical
relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade. This relationship has been used to estimate TREO recovery from lower grade ores later in the mine life. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MP Materials has operated a flotation concentrator since December 2017 to recover a bastnaesite concentrate. Significant
improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since inception of operations, which are attributed primarily to the installation of a boiler that has enabled flotation to be conducted at a constant higher temperature, as well as ongoing
reagent testing and incremental improvements in the concentrator. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
During 2024, the concentrator processed 763,356 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.55% TREO and recovered
70.1% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 61.0% TREO. During this period 45,455 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total 13,700 metric tonnes were roasted and advanced to the separations plant. The remainder of
the TREO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrate: Product Code 4000 (30,116 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (1,639 metric tonnes TREO). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
During 2025 (YTD - September), the concentrator processed 611,704 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.45% TREO
and recovered 76.0% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 62.5% TREO. During this period 38,609 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total, 18,158 metric tonnes TREO was roasted and advanced to the separations
plant. The remainder of the REO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrates: Product Code 4000 (20,308 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (143 metric tonnes TREO). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MP Materials is planning to install an ore sorting circuit to upgrade low grade ore containing 2.5% to 5.0% TREO to
about 6% to 8% TREO based on the test work conducted by Tomra in 2023, which indicates that low grade ore can be upgraded by a factor of 1.9 with about 90% REO recovery into the ore sorter product. | |
| 
14.5 | 
Individual Rare Earth Separations | |
The discussion in Section 14.5 has been prepared by SGS. MP Materials has determined that SGS meets the qualifications specified
under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR 229.1300. 
MP Materials produces four main products from its on-site rare earth separations facility, which is currently ramping up, with full design capacity expected to be achieved by approximately Q1 2027. The four products are PrNd oxide, lanthanum carbonate, cerium
chloride, and an SEG+ precipitate. The specifications are as shown in Table 14-5. 
**Table 14-5: Product Specifications**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Product | 
| 
Compound | 
| 
w/w % TREO | 
| 
Purity | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd Oxide | 
| 
75% Nd2O3 + 25%
Pr6O11 (+/-2%) | 
| 
99% | 
| 
99.5%+ PrNd/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
- | 
| 
25% to 45% | 
| 
99% SEG+/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Lanthanum Carbonate | 
| 
La2(CO3)3 | 
| 
99% | 
| 
99% La/TREO | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Cerium Chloride | 
| 
CeCl3 | 
| 
45% | 
| 
85% Ce/TREO | 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2024 
w/w % is the weight concentration of the material. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
209 | |
The current rare earth concentrate production of approximately 50,090 metric tonnes of
TREO in the twelve months trailing September 2025 supports this plan. 
To achieve the individual production and purity targets, the
process flow combines traditional processing methods applied successfully at Mountain Pass for decades with unique circuits designed for efficiency or to reduce environmental impact. 
Figure 14-5 serves as the basis for the rare earth distribution in the concentrate being fed
into the downstream separations facilities. These values are based on recent concentrate production and historical values. The rare earth distribution in the ore coming out of the mine, and the resulting concentrate produced from milling &
flotation, has been very consistent throughout the decades of operations at Mountain Pass. These values fall within recently and historically reported values. 
Source: MP Materials, 2021 
**Figure 14-5: Rare Earth Distribution in Flotation Concentrate**
**Concentrate Thickening and Filtration**: The Stage 2 optimization includes a new like-in-kind filter press and ancillary equipment. This modification was added primarily for material handling considerations rather than for technical ones. The previous filter press from which the
new press was designed was successfully operated. However, the handling of semi-damp filter cake on a batch basis into the dryer was expected to have created a challenge in its existing location. Hence a redundant press was designed to
minimize conveyance risks. 
**Concentrate Drying and Calcining**: The direct-fire natural gas dryer was designed to manage the
batch flow of concentrate from the filter press. The function of low temperature drying is to reduce the cake moisture from 7% to 10% down to less than 1%. This dried material feeds a storage bin that continuously feeds the electric fired calciner.
The multiple electric heating elements are designed to maximize temperature control and stability throughout the rotary kiln so that the targeted LOI (loss on ignition) is achieved in the concentrate prior to leaching. The discharge of the calciner
includes a cooling screw and storage and cooling tanks with up to two days of capacity. There is also the ability to automatically package calcined concentrate. 
**Leach and Scrubber**: The concentrate is pneumatically conveyed into a dissolution tank where it is cooled to ambient temperature in
chilled water. Temperature is maintained by application of a glycol chiller system. The concentrate is continuously fed into the Leach 2.0 reactor tanks where HCl is added at different concentrations to maximize trivalent REO recovery and cerium
rejection. Temperature is maintained by the chiller and heat exchangers. The additional mass flow as compared to the predecessor system and the insolubility of the cerium results in the production of chlorine gas that is scrubbed using the new,
larger scrubber system combined with an existing venturi system. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
210 | |
**Leach Thickening and Filtration**: A new three stage countercurrent decantation
tank system has been installed. This installation mirrors the leaching process from the 1970s. The countercurrent motion of overflow and underflow and multiple flocculent addition points are designed to ensure clean overflow and minimal loss
of soluble REEs to the underflow. The final underflow slurry passes through a filter press. The cake is then washed to remove remaining rare earth chloride solution and then either packaged for sale or reslurried and comingled with beneficiation
tailings for disposal. 
**Impurity Removal**: Removal of soluble impurities begins in this block that was recommissioned with
minimal change. Initially, the solution passes through three existing ion exchange columns containing a standard resin. Substantially all iron and uranium is removed and sent to the brine recovery circuit. The solution then undergoes pH adjustment
to remove certain non-REE impurities. The solid precipitates in a new thickener to replace temporary assets previously operated. A filter aid was added from a new bulk handling system. This addition increases
the propensity to settle and enhance the ease of filtration. To capture all fine solids as well as minimize the production of hazardous waste, a new pressure leaf filter was installed prior to existing cartridge filters. The new filter press was
installed in place of previously operated temporary filter presses. In the next step, REE is separated from the remaining impurities. The waste is sent to brine recovery and the high-concentrate REE feed goes to SXH. 
**Brine Purification**: Brine feeds from impurity removal stages, various finished product solid/liquid separation steps, and water
treatment plant converge at the existing brine purification circuit. Two existing thickeners are operated with soda ash, flocculant, and caustic soda to adjust pH and maximize settling of impurities. A second filter press, relocated from another use
at Mountain Pass, was installed to help balance the filtration needs. A new pressure leaf filter was installed to assist in removal of any fines from the filtrate feeding the crystallizer, to which the clean brine is sent. 
**SXH**: The purified rare earths are pumped to the existing SXH circuit. SXH is a series of small mixer/settlers utilized to perform
a bulk extraction of heavy rare earths (from samarium and heavier) from the light rare earths (La, Ce, Pr, Nd). Minor upgrades were made to the existing assets to increase automation control. The cleaner feed stream supplying SXH ensures a cleaner
separation between Nd and Sm. 
**SEG+ Finishing**: The pregnant solution from SXH contains the SEG+ chloride solution. This is
sent to the existing finishing circuit in the Specialty Plant. An oxalic solution is added to the SEG+ chloride solution to produce SEG+ oxalate. The oxalate is maintained in an agitated tank before passing through a centrifuge. The
thick slurry is then washed, dried, and packaged in recommissioned, existing assets. The mother liquor is returned to the leach circuit as low acid solution or sent to brine purification for neutralization. 
**SXD**: The raffinate from SXH travels to the existing SXD circuit. The custom-designed mixer/settlers will ensure clean separation
between PrNd and La and the remaining Ce. Certain additions are made to allow for the subsequent production of high-purity (greater than 99.5%) lanthanum product and a greater than 80% Ce (20% La) cerium chloride product to be produced. The cerium
product solution is directly packaged from this circuit. No additional changes were made. 
**PrNd Finishing**: The PrNd finishing
circuit was constructed to ensure maximum on-specification production of PrNd oxide. No new technology was implemented, but redundancy and enhanced quality control capability were included in the design. The
initial step is the precipitation reactors. The new reagent handling system produces the precipitant solution which mixes with the PrNd chloride solution. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
211 | |
This mixture then feeds a new 2-tank CCD
thickener to ensure maximum PrNd recovery with maximum disentrainment of chloride from rare earths. The rare earth underflow feeds a belt filter equipped with multiple washing steps to remove remaining chlorides. The cake is then repulped in RO
water and fed to a new filter press. The filter cake feeds a new gas-fired rotary dryer. The dry product is pneumatically conveyed into a new rotary calciner to produce the oxide. Finally, the cooled oxide is
automatically packaged. At each step there will be QA/QC tanks, hold points, and automatic blending capability. Between the dyer and the calciner is a large rotary mixer to allow for blended batches to be thoroughly mixed to meet
specifications. 
**La Finishing**: The La finishing circuit starts with the lanthanum chloride from the SXD raffinate. This
solution is pumped to the existing precipitation tanks in the specialty plant. Here soda ash solution from the central tank farms new soda ash system is mixed to produce a lanthanum carbonate precipitate. This solution is pumped to the new 2
tank CCD thickener system to remove the lanthanum carbonate in the underflow while minimizing REE loss to the overflow. The carbonate undergoes the same belt filter, repulp, filter press steps as the PrNd, using identical assets. The filter cake is
fed to a new rotary dryer. The dry carbonate is packaged directly. A minority of customers may prefer lanthanum oxide over lanthanum carbonate, so a new pneumatic conveyance line was installed to transport the dry carbonate to the existing lanthanum
calciner. The previous feed system was modified to account for the improved handling conditions (dry carbonate vs wet cake). 
**Brine Evaporation**: The clean brine from the brine purification process feeds the existing brine evaporation system. This process
was upgraded to manage the new service to feed the crystallizer (rather than chlor-alkali installation). The four heat effects concentrate the brine to 300 g/L NaCl from approximately 100 g/L NaCl, thereby maximizing the crystallizer capacity. 
**Salt Crystallizing**: A thermal vapor recompression (TVR) crystallizer was installed to evaporate the high-concentration brine,
remove the salt, and condense the high-purity water for re-use. The unit is designed to operate using the excess steam from the combined heat and power plant (CHP), thereby reducing the energy footprint. 
**Water Softening / RO Water Treatment**: The existing Water Treatment Plant (WTP) was in operation from 2012-2015 and was
recommissioned in fall 2021. It has the capability to make triple-pass RO water from potable water, with the retentate discharge being sent to brine recovery. RO water from this plant can be used to feed the leach, SX, product finishing, and CHP
requirements. Condensate from the crystallizer and CHP provide the vast majority of pure water needs, resulting in minimal use of the WTP. 
**CHP**: The CHP operated safely and reliably from 2012-2015. It has undergone a large recommissioning effort overseen by a specialty
power plant recommissioning group. It has been in full operation in island mode over the last several years. In addition, a new load bank, back-up generator, and dump condenser were installed and commissioned.
The plant was put into full service at the end of 2021. The two single-cycle generators with heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) are each capable of producing 12-13MW. The two turbines in operation will more
than adequately cover the power needs of the site while producing sufficient steam for the crystallizer, flotation plant, and various other heating needs across the facility. 
**Stage 2 Related Infrastructure:**In addition to the captive power and water treatment plant, general site services include a
centralized bulk reagent tank farm with storage for HCl and NaOH. Bulk handling for soda ash and other reagents were buttressed as part of the Stage 2 project. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
212 | |
| 
15 | 
Infrastructure | |
The Project is in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15
(I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, California (Figure 3-2). 
The nearest major city is Las Vegas, Nevada, located 50 miles to the northeast on I-15. The
Project lies immediately north of I-15 at Mountain Pass and is accessed by the Bailey Road Exit (Exit 281 of I-15), which leads directly to the main gate. The mine is
approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line in an otherwise undeveloped area, enclosed by surrounding natural topographic features. 
Outside services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified
contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry). 
Access to the site, as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. There is no
public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary. 
MP
Materials has fully developed an operating infrastructure for the Project in support of extraction and concentrating activities. A manned security gate is located on Bailey Road for providing required site-specific safety briefings and monitoring
personnel entry and exit to the Project. 
Substantially all the power to the Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility with two natural gas-fired turbines capable of producing up to 26 MW of power combined. In
addition, the site is served by a 12-kV line from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. 
Water is supplied through active water wells located eight miles west of the project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water
tanks and pumps. 
The site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, access and haul roads,
explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area, administrative and office buildings, surface water control systems,
evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system. 
Site logistics are straightforward with the concentrate product historically shipped in supersacks within a shipping container by truck
approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers were loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers. Since mid-2025, concentrate is now being stockpiled and
processed at the on-site rare earth separations facility Refined products are shipped in supersacks and intermediate bulk containers (IBC tote).Rail transshipment infrastructure is available in Henderson, NV
and Barstow, CA less than two hours drive from the site. 
| 
15.1 | 
Access and Local Communities | |
The Project is located in San Bernardino County, California, north of and adjacent to Interstate 15
(I-15), approximately 15 miles southwest of the California-Nevada state line and 30 miles northeast of Baker, 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
213 | |
California. The site is accessed via I-15 and leaving the highway at exit 281 onto Bailey Road north of the interstate for less than 1 mile. 
The majority of the employees live in Las Vegas, Nevada 50 miles northeast of the site via I-15.
Las Vegas is a major metropolitan area with approximately 650,000 people in the city and 2.2 million in the metropolitan area. Major services to support the Project including vendors, contractors, and services are available in Las Vegas as well
as approximately four hours southwest in the Los Angeles (LA), California metropolitan area. Baker California, population of approximately 700, is the next nearest town 37 miles southwest along highway toward LA on
I-15. 
Air access to the Project is provided at McCarran International Airport located
approximately 47 miles northeast of the project in south Las Vegas. Other airports are available in the Los Angeles area. 
Employees
drive or carpool to work and park in the company parking lots on site. Full emergency facilities are available in Las Vegas with emergency dispatch in Primm, NV and Baker, CA. 
| 
15.2 | 
Site Facilities and Infrastructure | |
| 
15.2.1 | 
On-Site Facilities | |
The Project has fully developed operating facilities and facilities necessary to support the current operations. The general layout of
the facilities is shown in Figure 15-1. 
Source: MP Materials, 2022 
**Figure 15-1: Facilities General Location**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
214 | |
The currently operating facilities include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Maintenance shop | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Truck shop | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Warehouse | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Administrative building/offices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Change house | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Explosives storage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mechanical and electrical shops | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mobile maintenance shop | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Fuel storage tanks and fueling system | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Multiple laydown areas | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Core storage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Water evaporation ponds | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mineral processing facilities (concentrator) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
REE separations facility | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Laboratory | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Fuel storage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Fire system including fire tank and pumps | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Water supply system | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Tailings filter plant | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Lined tailings storage facilities | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Waste rock storage | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Security building and site fencing | |
The LoM plan includes the planned relocation of key infrastructure to support ongoing operations. The existing crusher will be replaced
with an integrated crushing and ore sorting facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. The construction of this new facility will allow the existing crusher to be removed, thereby accommodating the northern expansion of the pit. Additionally,
in 2033, the filtered tailings plant and water tankscurrently situated northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration plantwill be relocated. Capital cost provisions for these infrastructure projects are accounted for in the
economic model. 
| 
15.2.2 | 
Explosives Storage and Handling Facilities | |
The site has two explosives storage locations. Contractors manage the ANFO storage and emulsion storage locations. 
| 
15.2.3 | 
Service Roads | |
The Project has a completely developed system of on-site access roads to all process facilities,
tailings storage area, and a system of auxiliary roads for the mining, processing and on-site operations. 
| 
15.2.4 | 
Mine Operations and Support Facilities | |
The open pit mine has a full complement of haul roads, ramps, and auxiliary roads with access to the pit, waste storage area, shops, and
crusher area. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
215 | |
| 
15.2.5 | 
Waste and Waste Handling (Non-Tailings/Waste Rock) | |
The Project has established waste handling procedures and does not store waste on site, except for the
permitted rock storage and tailings facilities. Waste other than tailings and mine waste rock is handled as follows. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Solid Waste (non-toxic) Waste is stored
on-site in roll off containers, and a contractor hauls the containers to permitted third party landfills near Las Vegas. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Septic The site has septic systems for the facilities. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Toxic or hazardous waste Very little hazardous or toxic waste is generated at the Project. The small volumes of
materials have a separate storage area. The materials are removed by a qualified contractor and disposed of in approved disposal areas. | |
| 
15.2.6 | 
Waste Rock Handling | |
Mine waste rock is stored in designated mine rock storage areas. Waste rock is discussed in detail in Section 13. 
| 
15.2.7 | 
Power Supply and Distribution | |
Substantially all the power to the Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility with two natural gas-fired turbines capable of producing up to 26 MW of power combined. In addition, the site is served by a 12-kV line from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. 
| 
15.2.8 | 
Natural Gas | |
The Project has access to natural gas through an 8.6 mi, 8 inch-diameter pipeline, extending from the Kern River Gas Transmission Company
mainline. It has a capacity of 24,270 dekatherms per day. A new gas meter was installed in 2021 to provide flexibility for high and low gas usage. 
| 
15.2.9 | 
Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Fuel | |
The site has multiple fuel storage tanks and fuel delivery systems for the large mining equipment and smaller vehicles. Fuel for the
mining equipment is supplied through the mining contractor who receives the fuel from a vendor located in Las Vegas. MP Materials can contract the fuel directly in the future. There are tanks for diesel near the pit and near the processing facility.
Additional tanks are used for unleaded fuel for the vehicles. 
The site has several diesel and gasoline storage tanks that are for
Project use. The tanks are fueled by contractor fuel trucks from Las Vegas. Tank storage is more than adequate for the Project needs. 
| 
15.2.10 | 
Other Energy | |
There are several compressed air systems on the site used for process and maintenance. The site also has several small propane tanks used
for miscellaneous minor heating needs at the various facilities. 
| 
15.2.11 | 
Water Supply | |
MP Materials maintains and operates two water supply well fields for potable and process water. The Ivanpah well field, established in
1952, is located on private land 8 miles east of the mine site and 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
216 | |
consists of six freshwater producing wells, three booster pumping stations, and
associated pipelines. This well field is available to supply water but is currently used only to provide water to the Mojave National Preserve Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Research Facility. The Shadow Valley well field, established in 1980, is located 8
miles west of the mine site, consists of four wells of which three are on public land and one on private land, a single booster pumping station, and associated pipelines. The water supply wells are completed within coarse alluvial sediments. 
The amount of freshwater consumed by the facility in 1996 was approximately 850 gpm from both wellfields. The five year annual average
between 1993 and 1997 was 795 gpm. As part of the comprehensive plan for continued operations, MP Materials placed emphasis on-site management and treatment of process water and maximizing reuse (SRK, 2010).
As the water supply systems have consistently produced much larger amounts of fresh water for the facility in the past, water supply is not anticipated to be problematic. 
Additional water is supplied from recovery well water from legacy operations, pit water, and natural precipitation. The site also has
water storage tanks that store water for use as needed on site. The site has a net-positive site water balance with excess water evaporated as necessary in the evaporation ponds. The water supply system can be
seen in Figure 15-2. 
Source: Molycorp Mine Reclamation Plan Revised, 2015 
**Figure 15-2: Water Supply System**
The site has installed surface water control drainage channels and ponds, including lined evaporation ponds and a lined tailings water
control pond. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
217 | |
| 
15.3 | 
Tailings Management Area | |
The Project handles tailings through use of a filtered tailings facility located adjacent to the pit to the north and west of the primary
crushing facility and northwest of the existing open pit adjacent to the pit to the northwest and east of the overburden stockpile. The Project manages concentrator tailings through use of a facility that produces filtered tailings. The concentrator
generates tailings that are piped to the filter plant via pipeline. The filtered tailings plant then filters the tailings to approximately 15% moisture content. The filtered tailings are moved on a conveyor to a temporary storage facility where the
tailings are stacked out near the tailings plant and then loaded by front end loader (FEL) into articulated mine trucks that transport the tailings approximately 1 mile to the lined tailings facility known as the Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility
(NWTDF). After the material is dumped by the trucks, a small dozer levels the tailings and prepares the material for the next truck lift. 
At the rare earths separations plant, the brine reject is filter pressed and the filter pressed cake is transported by truck to the
NWTDF. 
The NWTDF is a lined containment facility designed to receive and store tailings material. At full buildout, it will cover
approximately 90 acres (36 hectares) and extend partially onto the north face of the west overburden stockpile. The project has utilized approximately 5.3 Mst of NWTDF capacity as of September 30, 2025. The facility will have a remaining
capacity of approximately 16.3 Mst which will provide approximately 19 years of storage. The current facility covers about half the overall acreage and abuts the waste rock pile. Future expansion can be easily achieved by installing additional
liner followed by the placement of additional tailings. The facility design at full buildout is shown in Figure 15-3. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
218 | |
Source: Molycorp Mine Reclamation Plan Revised, 2015 
**Figure 15-3: Northwest Tailings Disposal Facility**
The tailings site was designed by Golder. MP Materials personnel have been doing design and placement reviews with Golder. There is
compaction information being taken, but the program at this point is not fully developed. 
MP Materials will expand the existing
tailings facility to the northwest in approximately 2043 to provide additional storage capacity. A capital cost provision has been included in the economic model for this expansion. 
| 
15.4 | 
Security | |
The site is fully enclosed by fencing and secured through a controlled access point at the main entrance, which includes a security
building and guard gate. Security operations are managed by MP Materials employees, who oversee access control and conduct perimeter patrols to ensure site safety. 
| 
15.5 | 
Communications | |
The site communications are fully developed and functioning, including a fiber line to site. Additionally, a strong cell phone signal is
available due to placement of a third-party cell phone tower on a peak near the site. The site has telephone, internet, and all necessary infrastructure to support needed communications. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
219 | |
| 
15.6 | 
Logistics Requirements and Off-Site Infrastructure | |
| 
15.6.1 | 
Rail | |
Rail is not currently used at the site. Union Pacific has a rail line located approximately 16 miles away by paved road to the east of
the Project near Nipton, California. There are existing double track sections near the Nipton warehouse and loading platforms are still in place but have not been used or maintained. Rail transshipment infrastructure is available in Henderson, NV
and Barstow, CA less than two hours drive from the site. 
| 
15.6.2 | 
Port and Logistics | |
Site logistics are straightforward with the concentrate product historically shipped in supersacks within a shipping container by truck
approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers were loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the final customers. Since mid-2025, concentrate has been stockpiled and
processed at the on-site rare earth separations facility. Refined products are shipped in supersacks and intermediate bulk containers (IBC tote). 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
220 | |
| 
16 | 
Market Studies and Contracts | |
This section of the Technical Report Summary discusses market studies and contracts and was prepared by Adamas Intelligence Inc. (Adamas
Intelligence). It is primarily based on an Adamas authored preliminary market study titled MP Materials SK 1300 Market Study Update dated November 28, 2025 (Adamas, 2025). Adamas prepared the preliminary market study for MP Materials. MP
Materials has determined that Adamas meets the qualifications specified under the definition of qualified person in 17 CFR 229.1300. 
| 
16.1 | 
Abbreviations | |
The following abbreviations (Table 16-1) are relevant to the discussion of market studies
and contracts. 
**Table 16-1: Abbreviations for Market Studies and Contracts**
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Elements | 
| 
Organizations | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ce - Cerium Dy - Dysprosium | 
| 
MIIT - Ministry of
Industry and Information Technology (China) MOFCOM Ministry of Commerce (China) | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Er - Erbium Eu - Europium | 
| 
USEPA - United States
Environmental Protection Agency WTO - World Trade Organization | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Gd - Gadolinium Ho - Holmium | 
| 
Other
CAGR - compound annual growth rate | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
La - Lanthanum Lu - Lutetium | 
| 
NdFeB - neodymium iron
boron PrNd praseodymium/neodymium mixed product | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Nd - Neodymium Pr - Praseodymium | 
| 
OEM - original equipment
manufacturer TC/RC - treatment charge/refining charge | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd - Didymium Sm - Samarium | 
| 
VAT - value added
tax EV - electric vehicle | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Tb - Terbium Th - Thorium | 
| 
Units and
Measurements kg - kilogram | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Tm - Thulium Y - Yttrium | 
| 
Mgal - million
gallons Mgal/d - million gallons per day | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Yb - Ytterbium U - Uranium | 
| 
$ - US dollars (unless
stated otherwise) | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rare Earth Element Abbreviations | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
REE - rare earth element LREE - light rare earth
element | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
HREE -
heavy rare earth element REO - rare earth oxide | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
TREO - total rare earth oxide
SEG - samarium europium gadolinium | 
| 
| |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
| 
16.2 | 
Introduction | |
On the Periodic Table of Elements, rare earth elements (REEs) include the lanthanide series, with atomic numbers 57 to 71, plus yttrium,
which bears similar physical and chemical properties to the lanthanides and thus is often hosted by many of the same minerals. 
Despite the misleading moniker, rare earth elements are not remarkably rare in nature but rather are rarely concentrated into
economically significant amounts for extraction and processing owing to certain physical and chemical properties that promotes their broad dispersion throughout most rock types. 
REEs occur together in host minerals in different relative proportions, depending on the host mineral, deposit type and other factors. As
a result, REEs are mined and processed together, up to the stage of 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
221 | |
REE precipitate production (e.g., mixed rare earth carbonate). They are then chemically separated into individual elements and compounds for use in a wide array of different industries and
applications. For example, the main REEs used in rare earth permanent magnets are neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr), while the main elements used in catalysts are cerium (Ce) and lanthanum (La). 
Owing to these different end use profiles, individual rare earth elements have different demand growth rates, but are supplied in
proportions dictated by orebody composition, giving rise to the so-called balance problem. 
Over the past decade, rare earth producers globally have sacrificially overproduced certain low value REEs, such as cerium, to keep up
with rapidly growing demand for other higher value elements, such as neodymium and praseodymium known as didymium (PrNd) in combined form. This balance problem fundamentally shapes rare earth market trends and impacts the economics of
producers. 
Since the mid-1980s, China has grown to become the largest producer and consumer
of rare earth elements globally. In the 1980s and 1990s, China accelerated exports of low-priced rare earth materials resulting in the economic displacement of production elsewhere. More
recently, China has leveraged its control of upstream REE supply, coupled with aggressive policies and government support, to establish control of downstream REE value chains that convert mine outputs into oxides, metals, magnets, motors, and more.
However, rapid global demand growth of rare earth permanent magnets for electric vehicles, wind power generators, robotics and other
applications, combined with strong government support for development of alternative rare earth supply chains, indicate that Chinas dominance is likely to erode over the coming decade. 
Towards that end, the past 36 months have seen more momentum to establish alternative mine-to-magnet supply chains in North America and Europe than the past 10 years combined. Over the past three years, strong rare earth magnet demand growth coupled with a wave of incoming rare earth oxide
supply has helped de-risk the business case for downstream investments in metals, alloy, and magnet production capacity, spurring public and private sectors into action. More recently, Chinas
implementation of export controls on a suite of rare earth elements, including high-performance rare earth magnets, in April 2025 further galvanized the resolve of governments and end users alike to support the expedited development of alternative
supply chains connecting the Americas, Europe, Australia, Africa, and beyond. 
Below, Adamas provides considerations on the rare
earth market in terms of the products presently produced by MP Materials Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility. Based on expected product specifications as discussed by SGS in Sections 10.5.5 and 14.5 of this Technical Report
Summary, which appear reasonably achievable, MP Materials will likely be able to market products at forecasted prices. These product specifications are based on the opinion of MP Materials and SGS, which are in turn based on test work and prior
operations using the existing infrastructure as well as ongoing production from MPs recently recommissioned facility. 
All
prices shown and discussed below are in REO terms, unless stated otherwise. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
222 | |
| 
16.3 | 
General Market Outlook | |
| 
16.3.1 | 
Historical Pricing | |
Historically, rare earth prices have occasionally been tied to geopolitical events. 
For example, on September 7, 2010, a Chinese fishing trawler operating in disputed waters near the Senkaku/Diayu Islands collided
with one or more Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats, resulting in the detention of the trawlers skipper. The detention sparked a major diplomatic dispute between China and Japan, leading China to unofficially restrict and eventually halt rare
earth element exports to Japan, its largest customer, for several months. Consequentially, global rare earth prices, controlled by China, soared to record levels in 2011 resulting in unprecedented cost increases for rare earth consumers worldwide.
Starting in the early 2000s, Chinas Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) began imposing export restrictions
that over time limited the amount of rare earths available to foreign manufacturers. At the same time, China imposed export duties on refined rare earth products and implemented tax policies to limit the volume of semi-processed rare earths leaving
the country with the aim of luring foreign manufacturers (such as NdFeB magnet producers) to move their operations and/or transfer their technology to China. 
These practices prompted the U.S., EU, and Japan to initiate a WTO dispute in 2012, which ruled in their favor in 2015, leading to the
abolishment of Chinas rare earth export quotas and duties. 
Annual PrNd oxide price volatility since 2008 is shown in Figure 16-1. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
YTD = January through October 
**Figure 16-1: Annual PrNd Oxide Price Volatility**
In the second half of 2010,
Chinas Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) slashed the export quota allotted to domestic rare earth suppliers, effectively limiting the amount of material available for consumption outside of the nation. As of August 2010, the constrained
availability of rare earth elements for export in China had already begun to propel prices higher. The subsequent Senkaku/Diayu Islands incident 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
223 | |
the following month exacerbated the markets concerns and fueled a buying frenzy
into mid-2011 that pushed rare earth prices to record high levels. 
From January 2010 through
July 2011, the China export price of cerium oxide increased by 3,528% while that of lanthanum oxide, neodymium oxide, praseodymium oxide and yttrium oxide increased by 2,619%, 1,640%, 1,167%, and 1,341%, respectively, over the same period. 
The political dispute was resolved soon after prices spiked, leading most rare earth prices to fall back to historical normal levels in
the ensuing 24 months. In the aftermath, global supply and demand contracted, the latter the result of demand destruction as rattled manufacturers outside of China looked to reduce the mass of rare earths used in their products. 
Since that period, demand for PrNd oxide the main rare earth input material for high strength NdFeB permanent magnets has
returned to strong year-over-year growth on the back of electric vehicle traction motors, wind power generators, consumer electronics, industrial robots, and more. In response to this demand growth, global production of PrNd oxide has more than
tripled and prices have appreciated overall. 
As a consequence of the balance problem and the pervasive overproduction of some rare
earth elements (e.g., cerium) to keep up with rapidly growing demand for other rare earth elements (e.g., PrNd oxide), prices have diverged in recent years with the latter increasing and the former falling overall since 2017. 
For the sake of comparability and consistency, prices of products sold by MP Materials are presented in terms of oxide or oxide
equivalent herein. Concentrate prices are a function of the individual rare earth elements they contain and thereby tend to follow an aggregate value trend. 
**PrNd Oxide**
Five year prices for PrNd oxide can be broken down into four trends: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Relatively flat prices from January 2019 to July 2020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sudden, rapid increase in prices from October 2020 to February 2022. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Steady decrease in prices from February 2022 to March 2024 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Modest increase from March 2024 to July 2025 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Sudden, rapid increase in July 2025 and relatively steady prices since | |
From 2019 to February 2022, PrNd oxide prices more than tripled, from US$45/kg to over US$150/kg. 
The rapid increase in PrNd oxide prices was underpinned by growing demand for NdFeB magnets and the relatively limited supply of PrNd
oxide available to produce these magnets. 
In early 2022, following complaints from rare earth users and industry, Chinese
authorities encouraged major producers in the nation to reduce prices, resulting in a 35% drop in PrNd oxide price by year end. 
In
2023 and 2024, the price of PrNd oxide fell another 40% and 27%, respectively, on oversupply from Myanmar and weak economic conditions in China. 
Through the first 11 months of 2025, the price of PrNd oxide has increased 51% overall following Chinas restriction of rare earth
exports in April. 
Figure 16-2 shows PrNd oxide price history since 2019. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
224 | |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
YTD = January through October 
**Figure 16-2: PrNd Oxide Price History**
**SEG+ Oxide**
The five year history for SEG+ oxide (which includes Sm, Eu, Gd, through to Y) follows a similar trend to that of PrNd oxide, though
average annual prices have increased overall by 108%, from US$9.13/kg to US$19.00/kg, lifted higher by a rise in prices of dysprosium and terbium, which are minor but valuable components of the mixture. SEG oxalate with specifications of MP
Materials product mix have a higher sales price, as will be discussed, but follows the same trend as most quoted SEG concentrates. 
Driven by dysprosium and terbiums use in high performance permanent magnets for electric vehicles, wind power generators,
robotics, and other applications, their prices have performed strongly overall since 2020, translating to a comparable uptick in SEG concentrate prices overall. 
Figure 16-3 shows SEG oxide price history since 2019. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
225 | |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
YTD = January through October 
**Figure 16-3: SEG Oxide Price History**
**Lanthanum Oxide**
As a casualty of the balance problem, La oxide prices have broadly followed the same downward trend as cerium prices since 2019, dragging
down the price of La carbonate at the same time. Much like Ce oxide, the decline in the prices of La oxide and La carbonate is due to pervasive overproduction (i.e., the balance problem) as a consequence of the supply side trying to keep up with
rapid demand growth for PrNd oxide. 
Figure 16-4 shows La oxide price history since
2019. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
YTD = January through October 
**Figure 16-4: La Oxide Price History**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
226 | |
**Cerium Oxide**
Cerium is the most abundantly produced rare earth element globally, accounting for approximately 40% of all production. As the main
applications of cerium (predominantly in catalytic converters and abrasives) are growing slower than magnet-related applications, cerium has been chronically overproduced for nearly two decades. However, cerium is currently finding uses and
applications, including in lower performance permanent magnets, but is still in significant oversupply globally. 
As such, since
2019, both La oxide and Ce oxide prices have fallen below the cost of production. 
Figure 16-5 shows Ce oxide price history since 2019. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
YTD = January through October 
**Figure 16-5: Ce Oxide Price History**
| 
16.3.2 | 
Market Balance | |
Chinese rare earth production quotas doubled over the past five years, from 127 thousand metric tonnes in 2019 to 254 thousand
metric tonnes in 2024, leading global mine production of PrNd oxide to increase by 102%. Over the same period, global demand for NdFeB magnets increased by a lower 67% overall, resulting in PrNd oxide oversupply. Adamas expects a relatively balanced
market in 2025 but from 2026 through 2030, the market will experience a pervasive deficit, resulting in the drawdown of historically accumulated inventories. 
Adamas expects the start-up of several new projects will result in minor overproduction between
2030 and 2034 but production will increasingly struggle to keep up with demand growth in the years thereafter. 
Figure 16-6 shows the base case PrNd market balance. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
227 | |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
| 
| 
Figure16-6: | 
Supply Gap Growth to Accelerate from Mid-2030s without Sufficient New
Production | |
In Figure 16-7, Adamas shows the long-term market
balance for its upside demand growth scenario that sees accelerated demand growth for NdFeB magnets for electric vehicle traction motors, wind power generators, robotics, advanced air mobility, and other applications. 
In this scenario, Adamas expects underproduction from 2025 through 2030, followed by a balanced market from 2030 through 2032, followed
by a growing deficit from 2033 through 2040. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
| 
| 
Figure16-7: | 
Adamas Upside Demand Growth Scenario Envisages Moderately Balanced Market Until Early 2030s Before Deficit Growth
Accelerates | |
The price response to the expected market deficit is uncertain, but historically minerals and
commodity markets experience upward price reactions when supply is unable to meet demand. As such, if expected 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
228 | |
conditions materialize, rare earth inputs for NdFeB magnets namely PrNd, Dy,
and Tb are likely to experience price increases. 
As shown in Figure 16-8,
Adamas expects the price of PrNd oxide to increase from US$65 to US$75/kg this year to US$100 to US$110/kg in the late-2020s. While the outlook is uncertain, in a rational market we would expect these price increases to induce investment in new
production capacity. However, owing to the long lead times to develop new rare earth supplies and the lack of advanced, financially committed projects in the pipeline today, Adamas sees potential for pervasive deficits to push prices above required
inducement levels (estimated at US$100 to US$150/kg in the long term). 
By 2035, Adamas projects that EVs, wind power generators,
robots, advanced air mobility, and other energy-efficient motors, pumps, and compressors will drive more than 60% of global rare earth permanent magnet demand. 
This evolution is noteworthy as it implies that the future of magnet rare earth demand will be less sensitive to price than that of the
past because future demand will be increasingly driven by applications in which the use of rare earth permanent magnets imparts an economic benefit at the system level. 
Be it through battery cost thrifting in an electric vehicle, maintenance cost savings in a wind farm or robot fleet, or electricity cost
savings in an industrial facility, grocery store or hotel, the economic upsides enabled by using technologies based on rare earth permanent magnets allow for a significant rise in magnet rare earth prices going forward before it would be
economically justifiable to switch to a REE-free alternative. 
As such Adamas expects that
the future of rare earths demand (at least in the case of PrNd, Dy, and Tb) will be more robust, more resilient and less sensitive to price than demand of the past and present, which is still largely driven by consumer and legacy automotive
applications. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
**Figure 16-8: Adamas Base Case PrNd Oxide Price and Market Balance Forecast**
In 2025, Adamas expects that global PrNd oxide demand will exceed global production by 6% but by 2026 the market will underproduce by 9%
resulting in the drawdown of historically accumulated 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
229 | |
inventories, the accelerated consumption of cerium and gadolinium as alternatives, and
ultimately, a pervasive deficit through the end of the decade. 
In the early 2030s, the
start-up of several new projects will result in minor overproduction between 2030 and 2034 but production will increasingly struggle to keep up with demand growth in the years thereafter. 
Overall, for the global market to effectively balance production and demand over the long-term will require the gradual addition of
another 200,000 to 250,000 tonnes-per-annum of LREO-rich production by the end of the forecast period,
over-and-above the production growth already forecasted, which is unlikely to happen in Adamas view. 
**Long Term Balance**
The long-term market balance for the collective REE suite is expected to be in oversupply due to the balance problem (i.e., the
sacrificial overproduction of some rare earth elements, such as cerium, to keep up with rapidly growing demand for other elements and compounds, such as PrNd). 
Figure 16-9 shows the market balance forecast for Ce oxide versus PrNd oxide. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
**Figure 16-9: Rare Earth Market Balance Forecast**
Looking forward, while markets for magnet rare earths (namely PrNd, Dy and Tb) are expected to experience long-term deficits, markets
for cerium, lanthanum, and yttrium are expected to be in relative oversupply as a consequence of strong magnet rare earths demand growth. Increasingly, Adamas expects magnet rare earth prices will appreciate to account for the losses producers are
chronically incurring by necessarily overproducing other surplus rare earth elements. 
| 
16.3.3 | 
Costs | |
Globally, rare earth production costs are a function of multiple factors, including geology, mineralogy, operational logistics,
processing infrastructure, process design, and regulatory regime. 
The opacity of rare earth production costs and reporting in China,
the worlds largest production center, make a transparent comparison between producers challenging. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
230 | |
Through the lens of several key production cost drivers, MP Materials presents apparent
advantages and disadvantages relative to major producers in China. On balance, the factors point to MP Materials being a global low-cost producer of rare earth concentrate and oxide. 
**Geology and Mineralogy**
The MP Materials Mountain Pass mine contains Mineral Reserves at an average grade of approximately 6% TREO versus 4% to 6% TREO at
the Bayan Obo mine in China, the nations largest, highest-grade source of production and host to over 80% of Chinas known rare earth reserves. The generally higher grade at Mountain Pass and relatively high recovery rates and higher
concentrate grade reduces MP Materials handling and processing volumes and reduces reagent consumption per ton of ore relative to most major producers. 
**Logistics**
Logistically, the co-location of mining and processing assets at Mountain Pass presents another
potential cost advantage for MP Materials versus competitors that ship intermediate products to processing facilities offsite or offshore. This eliminates a precipitation, packaging, shipping, and redissolution steps relative to most non-collocated peers. 
Conversely, the availability and cost of chemical reagents used to process
rare earths is a potential cost disadvantage for MP Materials relative to major producers in China, where reagent costs are lower, and availability is higher. A future restart of chlor-alkali production facilities at Mountain Pass may help reduce
this cost disadvantage. 
**Production Assets**
The relatively straightforward ease of beneficiation of Mountain Pass ore, high asset throughput, and high automation help leverage
production assets and minimize labor costs. 
Conversely, the scheduling of preventative maintenance plans and the costs and logistics
of maintaining spare parts and inventory presents a potential cost disadvantage for MP Materials versus major producers in China pursuing a failure-based approach to maintenance. 
**Regulatory Regime**
Relative to major producers in China, Mountain Pass is subject to higher wastewater management and environmental compliance costs owing
to a stricter regulatory regime in the U.S., presenting a potential cost disadvantage for MP Materials. 
However, at Mountain Pass
the dewatering of tailings prior to storage means that over 95% of water used on site comes from recycled sources on site, helping offset the potential cost disadvantage. 
| 
16.4 | 
Products and Markets | |
| 
16.4.1 | 
Mineral Concentrate | |
**Market Overview**
Mineral concentrates are a first-stage beneficiation product yielded along the rare earths value chain. Rare earth mineral concentrates
vary from producer to producer according to the nature of the deposit, the minerals being recovered, and the relative abundance of each rare earth element in those minerals. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 231 | |
Mineral concentrate is yielded at a stage prior to separation of rare earth elements
from each other and as such contains all individual rare earth elements present in the deposit. 
As the largest rare earths producer
and processor globally, China is home to a fluid and active market for rare earth mineral concentrate and other downstream products. Over the past five years, processors and traders in China have actively imported growing volumes of rare earth
mineral concentrates from abroad and invested in development of foreign sources of supply. 
Outside of China, third-party imports and
processing of mineral concentrates have been relatively limited to-date owing to limited processing capacity. While MP Materials supply to China grew substantially from 2020 through 2024, the company
halted exports to China in the first half of 2025 while accelerating the ramp up of in-house processing and production of separated PrNd oxide in the U.S. 
Figure 16-10 shows the mineral concentrate price forecast. 
Mineral Concentrate Price Forecast USD/KG REO contained $- $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
Note: Forecast specific to MP Materials Mineral Concentrate 
**Figure 16-10: Mineral Concentrate Price Forecast**
Adamas expects a rare earth mineral concentrate with MP Materials composition and purity (62% REO with and PrNd oxide distribution
of 15.7%) will have a long-term average price of US$11.51/kg of contained REO. The mineral concentrate price will be principally driven by trends in PrNd oxide price, with expected PrNd oxide price movements to be mirrored by concentrates. 
**Buyers**
At present, buyers are owners and operators of Chinese processing and separation facilities. According to Adamas data, there are over 30
separate legal entities in China with notable processing and separation capacity. These entities purchase mineral concentrate, crack and leach into a chemical solution, and then separate into individual rare earth products according to
market-desired specifications. Producers of separated La, Ce, and PrNd products often also yield a mixed Sm-Eu-Gd-HREE chemical
precipitate which is sold to HREE-focused separation plants with the required production lines. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 232 | |
**Sellers**
Sellers are rare earth mining operations producing a mineral concentrate. In recent years, the only known significant mining operation
supplying this market outside of China was MP Materials Mountain Pass Mine and smaller byproduct monazite producers. With MP Materials halting mineral concentrate exports in the first half of 2025 and accelerating its downstream processing
ramp up, byproduct monazite producers remain the only major suppliers outside China. In Adamas view, the majority of incoming rare earths production capacity in the near-term will aim to produce a mixed rare earth chemical precipitate (e.g.,
mixed rare earth carbonate) or even separate the product themselves. 
**Traders**
Key traders of rare earth mineral concentrates reside mainly in China due to the presence of abundant capacity and a merchant processing
industry there. Shenghe Resources is known to be an active importer and trader of rare earth mineral concentrate, which it distributes to processing and separation facilities in China. 
**Required Product Specifications**
In order to be economical, concentrate grades require a minimum relative abundance of high value elements. Generally, for a LREE-rich
mineral concentrate, a relative abundance of PrNd oxide above 10% is acceptable, however, this depends on the entire basket distribution since elevated concentrations of dysprosium and terbium, for example, could reduce this threshold. 
The REO grade for commercially traded mineral concentrates varies from around 15% to 73%. 
**Typical Sales Terms**
Sales terms are based on the value of contained rare earths in the concentrate, minus a discount for value added tax (VAT), implied
processing costs, profit margin and other relevant penalties, as discussed below. 
**Treatment Charges / Refining Charges**
Due to the opaque nature of concentrate markets, the terms for treating concentrates are relatively uncertain. The number of
concentrate transactions globally is relatively small, and the terms for custom concentrate treatment are generally not disclosed by market participants. 
In general, Adamas analysis shows that high purity rare earth mineral concentrates in China trade at a price level equal to 30% to 40% of
the rare earth oxide value they contain, whereas some mineral concentrates imported into China sell at a higher 50%+ of contained value because they bear preferential properties (e.g., pre-roasted, high grade,
low presence of acid consuming minerals, etc.) or because processors have dialed in their facility for that particular feedstock. This implies a treatment charge of US$4 to US$10/kg. 
**Typical Penalty Adjustments**
Penalty adjustments can be applied if concentrates contain high levels of non-REE material.
Examples include thorium and/or uranium content in monazite mineral concentrates. At above 0.2% thorium and/or uranium content by weight, monazite concentrates may need to be exported under specific restrictions as they will be treated as
Class 7 radioactive material. Provincial-level disposal facility charges may apply for radioactive by-product and there are limited number of processing facilities with the proper 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 233 | |
licenses to process certain monazite. The cost and operational risk of removing this
material and subsequently disposing of it is moderate and therefore can result in moderate penalty adjustments. 
There may be further
penalty adjustments for excessive moisture content and elevated presence of acid consuming minerals. Depending upon the REO distribution and nature of impurities, prices may experience step changes in price for lower contained REO grade. 
| 
16.4.2 | 
PrNd Oxide | |
**Market Overview and Pricing**
Nearly all PrNd oxide consumed globally is used in the production of PrNd alloy and subsequently NdFeB permanent magnets. Small amounts
of individual Nd and Pr, as well as mischmetal containing Nd and Pr, are used in other applications, including battery alloys, catalysts, ceramics, laser crystals, metallurgy, pigments, and more. 
From 2025 through 2040, Adamas forecasts that global demand for PrNd oxide will increase at a CAGR of 8.2%, led by double-digit demand
growth for NdFeB magnets in electric vehicle traction motors, robotics, and advanced air mobility applications. 
Specifically, from
2025 through 2040, Adamas forecasts that global demand for PrNd oxide for passenger EV traction motors, commercial EV traction motors, and other e-mobility applications will collectively increase at a CAGR of
8.5% on the back of rising demand for passenger and commercial electric vehicles. 
Over the same period, Adamas forecasts that PrNd
oxide demand for robotics, advanced air mobility, and magnetocaloric chillers will collectively increase at a CAGR of 22.8%, collectively becoming the largest segment of demand by the end of the forecast period. 
Moreover, from 2025 through 2040 Adamas forecasts that global PrNd oxide demand for direct drive and hybrid direct drive wind power
generators for onshore and offshore applications will increase at a CAGR of 7.2% as the increasingly competitive economics of wind power generation (and low maintenance of permanent magnet hybrid and direct drive generators) spur increased adoption.
Additionally, from 2025 through 2040 Adamas forecasts that PrNd oxide demand for industrial applications will increase at a CAGR of
4.0%, bolstered by strong demand for power-dense energy-efficient motors, pumps, compressors, fans, blowers, elevators, escalators, and more. 
By 2035, Adamas projects that EVs, wind power generators, robots, advanced air mobility and other energy-efficient motors, pumps and
compressors will drive more than 60% of global rare earth permanent magnet demand. 
As noted above, this evolution is noteworthy as
it implies that the future of magnet rare earths demand will be less sensitive to price than that of the past because future demand will be increasingly driven by applications in which the use of rare earth permanent magnets imparts an economic
benefit at the system level. 
As such, Adamas expects that the future of rare earths demand (at least in the case of PrNd, Dy, and
Tb) will be more robust, more resilient and less sensitive to price than demand of the past and present, which is still largely driven by consumer and legacy automotive applications. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 234 | |
Although Adamas anticipates significant supply growth over the forecast period, it
appears unlikely that PrNd oxide supply will be able to keep up with demand growth in the near-term and over the long-term, leading to market deficits that Adamas expects may persist for several years. This forecast is sensitive to production
expansions in China, which are directed by government, and could exceed expectations in its growth out to 2040. 
With PrNd oxide
being the key driver of LREE mining economics, Adamas expects the market to strive for balance over the long-term. In the near-term, moderate and steady deficit levels are expected to sustain prices at modest levels (US$80 to US$110/kg),
incentivizing the development of new supplies. However, with long lead times to develop new supplies, and demand growth accelerating on the back of electric vehicles, robotics and more, deficits are expected to appear in the late-2020s and
late-2030s, pushing prices higher overall. 
The PrNd oxide price forecast is shown in
Figure 16-11. 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
PrNdOxide Price Forecast USD/KG $- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
**Figure 16-11: PrNd Oxide Price Forecast** 
Adamas forecasts a long-term average price of US$134.49/kg for PrNd oxide. This forecast is based on the premise that PrNd continues to
carry the cost of rare earth production. From 2025 through 2030, Adamas forecasts that prices will increase moderately as new supplies enter the market but from 2030 through 2034 prices will rise faster as new higher cost sources of supply come
online outside China. With the supply side increasingly and persistently failing to keep up with demand growth, Adamas expects demand destruction to accelerate post-2034 as end-users increasingly adopt
alternatives. Consequently, from 2034 through 2036, Adamas forecasts that prices of PrNd oxide will fall moderately then stabilize through 2040. 
**Buyers**
Buyers of PrNd oxide are divided into two main groups, downstream NdFeB magnet and magnetic alloy producers, and oxide-to-metal plants. 
To produce NdFeB magnetic alloys
(i.e., bulk NdFeB materials from which final magnets are produced), PrNd oxide must first be reduced to PrNd metal. Some magnetic alloy producers have oxide reduction 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 235 | |
capacity in-house and thereby purchase and
consume PrNd oxide directly, whereas others purchase metals from third-party reduction facilities. As there is no significant profit to be realized in upgrading from oxide to metal, and thus little incentive for standalone reduction facilities, the
metallization step of the value chain could become a bottleneck for some emerging magnet and magnetic alloy producers. 
At present,
global NdFeB magnet and magnetic alloy production is dominated by China, with emerging growth underway in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and other parts of Asia. Major Chinese magnet producers (and thus buyers of PrNd) include JL-Mag, Beijing Zhong Ke San Huan Hi-Tech, Tianhe Magnets, and Ningbo Yunsheng. Collectively, Chinese magnet production makes up approximately 90% of global supply with Japan
host to nearly all the rest. Major magnet producers outside of China include Proterial, Shin-Etsu Chemical, TDK, all in Japan, and Vacuumschmelze, located in Germany. Emerging magnet producers in the U.S., Europe, and Asia include MP Materials,
Noveon Magnetics, Neo Performance Materials, JS Link, and others. 
Strong government support for magnet making in the U.S. and Europe
suggest that non-China magnet production will grow. 
Due to expected market tightness and the
opacity of upstream supplies, automotive, wind, and electronics OEMs are increasingly amenable to purchasing oxides directly and supplying them to third-party metal and magnet makers in order to increase transparency and security of supplies. 
**Sellers**
In the PrNd oxide market, rare earth processors act directly as sellers. Vertically integrated miners with
in-house processing plants directly produce and sell PrNd oxide to metal and/or magnet making facilities. Merchant traders play a relatively limited role at present although some are emerging outside of China
(e.g., Tradium in Germany). 
Key producers, and therefore sellers, of PrNd oxide are currently located predominantly in China, with
China Northern Rare Earth Group accounting for the largest portion of the nations oxide sales. In China, PrNd oxide is only sold domestically. Foreign buyers can only import individual Nd or Pr oxides from China, which are priced at a premium
to PrNd oxide, advantaging Chinas domestic consumers. 
In 2023, MP Materials started production of separated PrNd oxide in the
U.S. By the late-2020s, Adamas expects that the share of non-China PrNd oxide production will have grown with new output from MP Materials, expansion of Lynas production, and the potential of additional
volumes from smaller start-up producers and/or minerals sands. 
**Traders**
PrNd oxide sales are typically contract based due to the criticality of the raw materials to magnet makers. Typical sales terms (beyond
material pricing) in China are opaque. Due to the relatively high value of the product per kilogram, logistics costs are a minor consideration in final sales agreements. 
**Required Product Specifications**
PrNd oxide is sold as a mixed oxide, in a concentrated, powdered, form. Compositionally, PrNd oxide commonly contains 75% Nd oxide and
25% Pr oxide, +/- 5%. Minimum purity for PrNd oxide is 99% TREO, of which PrNd/TREO = 99.5%. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page 236 | |
**Typical Sales Terms**
PrNd oxide sales are typically contract based due to the criticality of the raw materials to magnet makers. Typical sales terms (beyond
material pricing) in China are opaque. Due to the relatively high value of the product per kilogram, logistics costs are a minor consideration in final sales agreements. 
As per the July 2025 Price Protection Agreement announced between MP Materials and the U.S. Department of War (DoW), MP
Materials receives a difference-in-condition payment for produced or stockpiled PrNd material for a minimum effective price of US$110/kg of contained PrNd. To the extent
prices are above US$110/kg, following the date when MP Materials 10X Magnet facility its second magnetics factory reaches full capacity, MP Materials will share 30% of the upside above US$110/kg with the DoW. The Price
Protection Agreement is effective from October 1, 2025 through December 31, 2035. 
**Treatment Charges / Refining
Charges**
With few reduction facilities outside of China, the terms for refining PrNd oxide are relatively uncertain. Major
PrNd oxide producers in China prefer to complete reduction in-house and sell PrNd metal. As such, the terms for custom PrNd oxide refinement are generally not disclosed by market participants. 
In general, Adamas analysis shows that the price of PrNd metal in China is consistently 122% to 124% the price of PrNd oxide. Considering
the cost structure in China, this implies a treatment charge of US$4-$10/kg. 
**Typical
Penalty Adjustments**
Inferring from the product specifications, no specific penalty adjustments are applicable for PrNd
oxide. The typical 99% minimum grade specifications mean that anything below this purity would be scrutinized and potentially face material reductions in agreed price, if not be rejected entirely. 
| 
16.4.3 | 
SEG+ Oxalate, Carbonate, Chloride, and Oxide (i.e., SEG+ precipitate) | |
**Market Overview and Pricing**
SEG+ precipitate is an intermediate product comprised of a mixture of medium and heavy rare earths. It is generally made up primarily of so-called medium rare earths (samarium, europium, and gadolinium - SEG), with lesser amounts of heavy rare earth elements, including around 4% dysprosium and terbium. Most producers of separated La, Ce, and PrNd
products often also yield a mixed SEG+ chemical precipitate, such as a carbonate, oxalate or chloride, which may be converted to oxide and sold to HREE-focused separation plants that have the required production lines. 
There is no defined end use market for SEG+ precipitates other than as an intermediate feedstock for further processing and separation
into market desired individual rare earth products. SEG+ precipitate prices and treatment terms are therefore relatively uncertain and opaque. 
The end uses of rare earth elements contained in SEG+ precipitate range from permanent magnets (Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho) to phosphors (Eu, Tb,
Y) to glass additives (Er, Gd, Y) and more. As a result, the market demand and prices of SEG+ precipitate are driven by a variety of factors and considerations. 
End use demand growth is inherently variable, thus a market balance for SEG+ precipitate as a single product is not necessarily
indicative of pricing or current market dynamics. Like mineral concentrate, the market for SEG+ precipitate is driven entirely by its composite parts. The elements contained in 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
237 | |
SEG+ precipitate most likely to drive pricing changes are dysprosium, terbium,
gadolinium, and holmium elements used in NdFeB permanent magnets with insufficient supply responses expected in the years ahead. Persistent market tightness will help these elements drive SEG+ precipitate prices to higher levels. 
As SEG+ precipitate contains a variety of elements, most of which will likely experience demand growth lower than magnet metals (e.g.,
Eu, Er, Y), the market for the contained SEG+ products as individual oxides is expected to be in surplus over the long term. In fact, owing to the relatively high concentration of Sm and Y in SEG+ precipitate, supply may exceed demand by double by
2040 at current trends. 
Despite this collective surplus, SEG+ prices may still be favorable as markets for dysprosium and terbium
are also expected to experience growing deficits over the coming decade. The capacity for these markets to remain supplied is challenged by HREE resource scarcity in China and political uncertainty in Myanmar. 
The principal global sources of supply for dysprosium and terbium as separated products are ion adsorption clay (IAC) mining operations
in Myanmar, Laos, and China, plus minor volumes from SEG+ chemical precipitates yielded by PrNd, La, and Ce oxide separation plants. 
The only notable IAC operations today are in China, Myanmar, Laos, and Malaysia although others are being explored elsewhere.
Chinas operations are expected to face significant stress in the near-term due to resource depletion and scarcity. Myanmars operations, which have experienced extensive shutdowns and social resistance since 2020, face an uncertain
future in light of the political and environmental situation there. Operations in Laos and Malysia face less uncertainty but are comparatively minor. 
Closures of ionic adsorption clay operations in Myanmar or China may lead to pronounced deficits in the dysprosium and terbium markets.
The SEG+ precipitate price forecast is shown in Figure 16-12. 
SEC+Precipitate Price Forecast USD/KG REO Equiv. Contained $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
**Figure 16-12: SEG+ Precipitate Price Forecast**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
238 | |
Adamas expects an overall increase in the SEG+ precipitate price out to 2035 due mainly
to expected increases in dysprosium and terbium prices, then a slight decrease from 2035 through 2040 as persistent dysprosium and terbium deficits fuel demand destruction. Adamas forecasts a long-term average price of US$51.30/kg for a SEG+
precipitate with MP Materials specifications. This price is built up on internal modeling of Chinese separation facilities costs of production and required feedstock price (at which they would purchase the material) to meet profitability
targets of 10-20%. It is unclear exactly how terms will develop over the coming years. 
**Buyers**
Key buyers of SEG+ precipitate are Chinese separation facilities capable of separating heavy rare earths. As discussed in
Section 16.4.1, Adamas notes the existence of at least 30 separate legal entities in China with significant commercial capacity for rare earth separation through solvent extraction. 
Over time, buyers are expected to emerge in other regions, such as the U.S., Australia, Malaysia, and Europe, where heavy rare earth
processing capacity is being developed, including internally at MP Materials. 
**Sellers**
Sellers are typically facilities with light rare earth separation capacity. Typical light rare earth separation facilities have too
little Dy and Tb in their feedstock to economically justify the construction and operation of heavy rare earth separation lines thus they precipitate these elements into a mixed SEG+ chemical concentrate for sale to plants with HREE separation
capacity. 
**Traders**
Outside of China, it is understood that Lynas Rare Earths conducts a monthly auction for the SEG+ precipitate it produces in Malaysia but
is developing capacity to process this material in-house. 
**Required Product
Specifications**
There are no required product specifications for SEG+ oxalate, however, the costs of consuming SEG+
precipitate to produce separated rare earth oxides are high thus it must contain a high enough concentration of valuable elements to be viable. 
**Typical Sales Terms**
The sales terms of SEG+ precipitate are generally opaque, given the limited number of sellers of the product (i.e. currently Lynas with
MP Materials beginning to participate). As price participants, we understand that in China the product, like other mixed rare earth intermediates, may be purchased on the basis of a percentage of contained rare earth value. 
**Treatment Charges / Refining Charges**
Due to the opaque nature of intermediate markets, the terms for treating SEG+ precipitate are relatively uncertain. The number of SEG+
precipitate transactions globally is small, and the terms for custom concentrate treatment are generally not disclosed by market participants. 
In general, Adamas analysis shows that high purity mixed rare earth precipitates in China trade at a price level equal to 65-80% of the rare earth value they contain. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
239 | |
**Typical Penalty Adjustments**
Potential penalty adjustments may be made if the SEG+ precipitate does not contain enough dysprosium and/or terbium to be considered
economic for processing. 
| 
16.4.4 | 
La Carbonate | |
**Market Overview and Pricing**
The U.S. is the largest consumer of imported La carbonate globally. Currently, it is understood that no La carbonate (outside of the
recent launch of MPs production capability) is produced in the U.S., meaning domestic production may replace existing imported supply. 
In recent years, U.S. imports of La carbonate have ranged from ~5 thousand metric tonnes to 15 thousand metric tonnes albeit
volumes are declining over time. The main use of La carbonate is in fuel cracking catalysts and catalytic converters for gasoline-powered vehicles, both applications that have been negatively affected by rising global sales of electric vehicles.
In the fuel industry, La-containing catalysts are used to break down crude oil molecules
into market-desired distillates, such as gasoline, kerosene, diesel, and more. Adding lanthanum to fuel cracking catalysts increases gasoline make, which, next to diesel, has seen demand challenged by rising electric vehicle adoption globally. 
Moreover, La carbonate is sometimes also used alongside cerium in catalytic converters of gasoline-powered vehicles in which rare earths
and other precious metals help reduce pollutants in the vehicles exhaust stream into less harmful varieties. 
Relatively small
amounts of La carbonate are also used in the pharmaceutical sector, consumer electronics sector, certain metals and alloys, and in wastewater treatment for phosphate removal - more detail is provided for the water treatment market in
Section 16.4.5. 
Like cerium, the market balance of lanthanum is heavily influenced by the balance problem. In a typical
bastnaesite or monazite deposit, lanthanum makes up 20-35% of the contained TREO whereas lanthanums share of overall TREO demand is a lower 12-15% resulting in
pervasive overproduction. 
With PrNd demand expected to drive TREO production growth over the long term, the amount of sacrificially
overproduced lanthanum will increase in tandem. 
As a result, in both the near- and long-term, the market for lanthanum will continue
to be oversupplied, and the extent of oversupply will continue to grow unless new end-uses and applications for lanthanum emerge. In the near-term, however, with lanthanum oxide prices having fallen below the
cost of production, and inventories in the relatively disciplined hands of Chinas major producers, we expect lanthanum oxide, carbonate and chloride prices to appreciate moderately and then stay relatively flat across the remainder of the
forecast period. 
Figure 16-13 shows the lanthanum carbonate price forecast. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
240 | |
La Carbonate Price Forecast USD/KG REO Equiv. Contained $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $ $70 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
**Figure 16-13: La Carbonate Price Forecast**
Lanthanum carbonate prices closely track oxide prices. Adamas forecasts a long-term average price of US$1.46/kg for La carbonate (on La
oxide equivalent basis). This forecast is calculated on the basis of the relationship between historical lanthanum carbonate and oxide prices. As a product in chronic oversupply, the costs of production are mostly covered by PrNd oxide, meaning that
there is no current inducement or incentive price for lanthanum. 
**Buyers**
Buyers of La carbonate include fuel cracking catalyst manufacturers, catalytic converter washcoat manufacturers, and others consuming
lanthanum for use in medical products, consumer electronics, metals and alloys, and in wastewater treatments. 
**Sellers**
The main sellers of lanthanum carbonate are rare earth separation facilities. With conventional solvent extraction, lanthanum
requires separation from the rare earth mixture before more valuable products, such as PrNd, thus the vast majority of LREE separation facilities globally will produce a lanthanum product, be it oxide, carbonate, chloride, or other. We believe MP
Materials is currently the only commercial scale lanthanum carbonate producer in the U.S. 
Current
re-sellers or importers of Chinese lanthanum carbonate in the U.S. for sale downstream will struggle to compete against domestic production since transport and logistics costs of low value lanthanum products
may account for more than half of their landed costs. 
**Traders**
In the case of La carbonate, vertically integrated miners with in-house processing plants produce
La carbonate for sale to downstream consumers, or sale to local and foreign traders that sell to downstream consumers. The majority of La carbonate is currently produced in China, making MP Materials the only
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
241 | |
known domestic U.S. producer. Prior to MP Materials entering the market, re-sellers in the U.S. and Europe marketed imports from China. 
**Required Product Specifications**
Typical La carbonate is marketed as a powder containing 45% TREO minimum and with
La2O3/TREO of at least 99.5%. 
**Typical Sales Terms**
The sale of La carbonate is contract based with no official spot price reported globally. It is understood that contracts typically
include fixed supply periods between buyers and sellers at a fixed rate, renegotiated periodically as a function of La oxide price. Buyers usually pay transportation costs. 
**Treatment Charges / Refining Charges**
As a light rare earth product in surplus, and a sacrificial byproduct of PrNd, treatment charges for this product do not exist in
isolation the economics of magnet rare earths will factor in. 
**Typical Penalty Adjustments**
Potential trade penalties may exist where the La carbonate sold to a seller is below 45% TREO including free moisture and LOI or contains
less than 99.5% La2O3/TREO. 
| 
16.4.5 | 
Cerium Chloride | |
**Market Overview and Pricing**
The market for Ce chloride is led by vertically integrated miners and companies with in-house
processing plants that produce and sell material to downstream consumers as a branded product. 
One of the primary uses of Ce
chloride is as a coagulant (a substance which causes curdling and clotting of liquids) in the water treatment sector. Ce chloride is an alternative to traditional coagulants in this sector where it is well suited for phosphorous (P) removal.
Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) mandates, companies and water treatment facilities in the U.S. are required to
maintain P levels between 0.05 to 0.1 mg/L, levels that some traditional coagulants struggle to achieve. 
Buyers of Ce chloride are
typically end users of the product, such as water treatment plants. Sellers are those producing the product and often packaging into a branded merchandise for marketing to buyers. Traders are the vertically integrated miners or in-house bulk upstream producers of Ce chloride. 
Figure
16-14 presents a summary of U.S. facilities monitoring and limiting P-levels. 
Facilities required to monitor phosphours Facility type total number of facilities 
Source: Adamas after USEPA, 2025 
**Figure 16-14: Summary of U.S. Facilities Monitoring and Limiting P-Levels**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
242 | |
Overall, the cerium market outlook is similar to that of lanthanum, with oversupply
expected to persist in both the near- and long-term as a consequence of the balance problem. In a typical bastnaesite or monazite deposit, cerium makes up 35% to 50% of the contained TREO whereas ceriums share of overall TREO demand is a
lower 15% to 20% resulting in pervasive overproduction. 
Despite persistent oversupply expected, cerium is finding growing use in low-performance NdFeB magnets where it is used as a partial substitute for PrNd oxide for certain applications. This trend has led the price of cerium oxide to increase by 50% in the past year with additional
increases expected through the end of the decade. 
However, unlike cerium oxide, as a phosphate removal product, Ce chloride is not
priced as a rare earth product. 
At present, the U.S. cerium chloride market is supplied mainly by companies that import cerium oxide
or carbonate and subsequently convert it into a chloride in-house. A domestic rare earth mine able to produce cerium chloride on-site may have a cost advantage over its
competitors. 
Figure 16-15 shows the cerium chloride price forecast. 
Cerium chloride Price Forecast USD/KG REO Equiv. Contained $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $ $70 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 
Source: Adamas, 2025 
**Figure 16-15: Ce Chloride Price Forecast**
**Buyers**
With principle use in the water treatment industry, buyers of Ce chloride reside in that same industry. Municipal water suppliers and
industrial facilities (power, chemicals, and mining) are consumers and buyers of Ce chloride for treating P. The growing use of P-based fertilizers in agriculture results in increased levels of P within water
supplies making regions with the highest P demand among the largest likely buyers of Ce chloride. 
**Sellers**
Sellers of Ce chloride market the material as a branded, packaged liquid compound, or as a salt for preparing solutions. Although most
products utilize Ce chloride in a similar manner, sellers often target their products to specific applications (e.g., pool treatment) for marketing and differentiation purposes. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
243 | |
**Traders**
Traders of Ce chloride sit upstream of the end use market, including vertically integrated miners with
in-house processing plants that sell bulk cerium chloride to downstream sellers. In this regard, MP Materials has the option to act as a trader or a seller or both in this market. 
**Required Product Specifications**
Ce chloride coagulants are sold in liquid or solid form. Typical product contains a minimum of 45% TREO on a dry basis and CeO2/TREO of at least 80%. 
**Typical Sales Terms**
As a value-added product, market participants (traders) currently buy Ce oxide or chloride salt/flake (mostly from China) and convert it
to Ce chloride in the U.S. for sale to downstream re-sellers on a US$/weight-solution basis. Re-sellers then brand and package the product and sell on a similar basis as
upstream traders. As such, the product is not treated as a rare earth product and thus is not priced on a rare earth content basis. Pricing may be against comparable coagulants or water treatment products, in particular ferric chloride and alum
chloride. 
**Treatment Charges / Refining Charges**
As a light rare earth product in surplus, and a sacrificial by-product of PrNd, treatment charges
for this product, like La carbonate, do not exist in isolation the economics of magnet rare earths will factor in. 
**Typical Penalty Adjustments**
We believe the primary Ce chloride penalty would relate to product concentration. Low gram / liter of REO could incur shipping and
handling penalties. Conversely, domestic production should favor MP Materials since currently domestic sources of Ce chloride are derived from imported and upgraded Ce oxide. 
| 
16.5 | 
Specific Products | |
Forecasts for relevant rare earth product prices are presented in Section 16.4. A brief summary of price forecasts is presented in Table 16-2. 
**Table 16-2: Summary of Long-Term
Price Forecasts**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Product | 
| 
Long-Term Price Forecast, Real 2025 US$/KG | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rare Earth Mineral Concentrate | 
| 
11.51 | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
PrNd
Oxide | 
| 
134.49 | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SEG+ Precipitate | 
| 
51.30 | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
La Carbonate | 
| 
1.46 | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Ce
Chloride | 
| 
6.62 | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: Adamas, 2025 
All prices are modeled based on production costs and established market trends where they exist. 
| 
16.5.1 | 
Concentrate | |
**Typical Project Specifications**
Adamas understands MP Materials rare earth mineral concentrate is produced to a grade of roughly 62% TREO, with PrNd oxide making
up approximately 15.7% of contained TREO. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
244 | |
**Market Space**
Adamas understands that concentrate grades typically range from 15% to 73% REO and as such, MP Materials concentrate is considered
within industry acceptable specifications. 
**Shipping**
Shipment of rare earth mineral concentrate products into China is the responsibility of the supplier, such as MP Materials. Having halted
exports to China in the first half of 2025, MP Materials is now ramping up in-house concentrate rare earth processing separation at the Mountain Pass site, removing the need for shipping. 
**Contract vs. Spot Sales**
Until the first half of 2025, MP Materials received revenue from mineral concentrate sales via a contractual agreement with Shenghe
Resources with observed sales terms largely reflecting spot market PrNd oxide price movements. In the first half of 2025, MP Materials halted concentrate exports to China and announced the accelerated ramp up of
in-house downstream processing. 
**Marketability**
Until mid-2025, MP Materials rare earth mineral concentrate product was sold into the
Chinese processing market. With ample unused processing capacity available in China, marketability of this product is not considered a risk. In the first half of 2025, MP Materials halted concentrate exports to China and announced the accelerated
ramp up of in-house downstream processing. 
**Sales Terms**
Rare earth mineral concentrate products are priced based on purity, the relative distribution of rare earths contained and the prices of
contained rare earths, less any applicable penalties. MP Materials high TREO content and comparably low levels of thorium/uranium translate to favorable prices for its product. 
Historically, the prices agreed upon with Shenghe Resources were based on an agreed market benchmark for separated rare earth oxides. The
agreed concentrate price contained an implicit treatment and refining charge. Going forward, MP is expected to define its internal transfer pricing. 
**Applied Penalties**
Penalties may be applied to concentrates with high radioactive content, as explained in Section 16.4.1., high moisture content, low
purity, or a high concentration of acid consuming minerals. 
| 
16.5.2 | 
PrNd Oxide | |
**Typical Project Specifications**
PrNd oxide is produced to industry standard specifications, containing at least 99% TREO and at least 99.5% PrNd/TREO. 
Typical PrNd oxide contains 75% Nd oxide and 25% Pr oxide, +/- 5%. MP Materials produces PrNd oxide to typical specifications +/- 3%,
thereby within the limits of acceptability. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
245 | |
**Market Space**
Variation in the ratio of Nd to Pr is acceptable if the Nd percentage does not fall below 70% and does not exceed 80%, although Adamas
believes consumers have a high degree of flexibility in this regard since the main reason magnet makers use PrNd is that it is lower priced than individual Nd or Pr, not necessarily because it bears a particular ratio of Nd to Pr, with some
exceptions. 
With MP Materials producing an PrNd oxide product at 99.5% to 99.9% purity, we believe it will satisfy current industry
standards. 
**Shipping**
The responsibility of shipping under MP Materials contractual obligations for the sale or distribution of PrNd oxide typically
falls to the seller, per market norms. 
**Contract v Spot Sales**
With MP Materials continuing to ramp production of refined PrNd oxide as of late 2025, the eventual mixture of spot and contract sales is
presently unknown, although the majority of contracts (or contracts under consideration) as of the report date contain a rolling price adjustment based on prevailing market prices. Both contract and spot sales are likely for PrNd oxide. 
As per the July 2025 Price Protection Agreement announced between MP Materials and the DoW, MP Materials receives a difference-in-condition payment for produced or stockpiled PrNd material for a minimum effective price of US$110/kg of contained PrNd. To the extent prices are above
US$110/kg, following the date when MP Materials 10X Magnet facility reaches full capacity, MP Materials will share 30% of the upside above US$110/kg with the DoW. The Price Protection Agreement is effective from October 1, 2025 through
December 31, 2035. 
**Marketability**
We understand that MP Materials intends to use a portion of its PrNd oxide to produce metals, magnetic alloys and magnets at its
Independence magnetics factory in Texas, and a second factory with location to be announced (10X Magnet facility) and will sell the remaining portion to existing and emerging metals and magnet manufacturers. With a growing number of magnet plants
under development in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, and demand for alternative sources of supply in Japan, we believe the PrNd oxide being produced is a marketable and desirable product. 
**Sales Terms**
PrNd oxide is a globally traded material, and we would expect sales terms to reflect known global prices. Material contract terms are
generally not disclosed, but we understand MP Materials contracts to be in line with industry norms. We understand that MP Materials does not expect to face penalties associated with the quality of PrNd oxide produced. 
**Applied Penalties**
As PrNd oxide is a refined, market-desired product in high purity form, MP Materials does not expect to incur any penalties. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
246 | |
| 
16.5.3 | 
SEG+ Precipitate | |
**Typical Project Specifications**
As a mixed rare earth product, SEG+ precipitates will be produced to typical industry standards for chemical precipitates (45% TREO
minimum), as a solid powder. There is no official standard for SEG+ precipitates specifically. 
**Market Space**
SEG+ precipitate prices are heavily influenced by their Dy and Tb contents, with typical SEG precipitates containing around 4%. MP
Materials will produce SEG+ oxalate with at least 5% Dy and Tb contents making it a desirable product. 
**Shipping**
We understand that no definitive shipping terms are in place for SEG+ precipitate sales to-date,
however, purchasers will likely incur shipping costs for delivery. 
**Contract v Spot Sales**
We understand that no contractual agreements are yet in place for SEG+ precipitate thus the eventual mixture of spot and contract sales
is presently unknown. Both contract and spot sales are likely for SEG+ precipitate. 
**Marketability**
If the tight market balance of Dy and Tb that Adamas forecasts materialize, we believe MP Materials should not face significant risk if
seeking to sell SEG+ precipitate to Chinese separators or other emerging HREE separation plants outside China. 
**Sales Terms**
Sales of SEG+ precipitate are priced according to the purity of the material and the value of rare earths contained thus are
heavily influenced by Dy and Tb. The elevated Dy and Tb content within MP Materials SEG+ precipitate suggests that prices should be favorable in reflection of the tight market balance expected for Dy and Tb. 
**Applied Penalties**
SEG+ precipitates with low purity, high levels of LREEs, low Dy and Tb contents (<4%), or requiring additional pre-processing (i.e., roasting to oxide) could incur a penalty. MP Materials is not expected to incur penalties as its SEG+ precipitate is high purity and contains elevated Dy and Tb contents. 
| 
16.5.4 | 
La Carbonate | |
**Typical Project Specifications**
Typical La carbonate is marketed as a powder containing 45% TREO minimum and with
La2O3/TREO of at least 99.5%., though no universal standard exists. We understand MP Materials plans to sell La carbonate as a nearly
anhydrous solid powder with a high purity (>98%). 
**Market Space**
The U.S. is the largest consumer of imported La carbonate globally. However, due to the balance problem, La carbonate supply is expected
to remain abundant. As a low-priced product, logistics and 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
247 | |
transportation costs are relatively high for U.S. imports of La carbonate giving MP Materials a competitive advantage in the market. 
**Shipping**
Currently contemplated contracts for La carbonate involve MP Materials covering the cost of domestic shipping, however, certain
contemplated contract structures include shipping costs as part of a cost-plus pricing framework. 
**Contract vs. Spot Sales**
Both contract and spot sales are likely for La carbonate, as well as the potential for contracts involving elements of a
cost-plus framework (including shipping costs). 
**Marketability**
As a low-cost producer of La carbonate located in the U.S., MP Materials will have a competitive
position from which to market its product. 
**Sales Terms**
Sales terms for La carbonate are currently under negotiation with domestic buyers. Domestic availability (and thus reduced logistics and
transportation costs for buyers, as well as supply chain security) can help ensure marketability for MP Materials products. 
**Applied Penalties**
As the La carbonate produced by MP Materials is expected to meet specifications for use in catalysts and other applications, it does not
expect to incur any penalties. 
| 
16.5.5 | 
Cerium Chloride | |
**Typical Project Specifications**
Ce chloride coagulants are sold in liquid or solid form. Typical products contain a minimum of 45% TREO on a dry basis and CeO2/TREO of at least 50%. MP Materials will sell Ce chloride in a liquid form, with low levels of La chloride as well (<20%). 
**Market Space**
While demand for Ce chloride is not expected to keep up with growth in Ce oxide supply, promising new markets for Ce chloride are
materializing, such as the water treatment market. No known domestic producers of Ce chloride exist within the U.S. at present, offering MP Materials an economical and logistical advantage. 
**Shipping**
No international shipping of Ce chloride is expected; MP materials will distribute Ce chloride domestically. Purchasers will cover
shipping costs. 
**Contract v Spot Sales**
MP Materials may utilize both contractual and spot sales, catering to smaller independent consumers and national-scale municipal
consumers. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
248 | |
**Marketability**
Ce chloride use in the water treatment sector is a relatively new approach, with room for growth as a replacement of traditional
chemicals used in this space. As a low-cost producer of Ce chloride located in the U.S., MP Materials will have a competitive position from which to market its product. Risks faced would include the immature
market for Ce chloride in the water treatment sector. 
**Sales Terms**
Sales of Ce chloride are priced on a
dollar-per-weight-solution basis. Since Ce chloride is not marketed as a rare earth product, both spot and contractual sales would expectedly cover the cost of
production. 
**Applied Penalties**
Excessive La chloride content (>20%) would likely cause MP Materials to incur a penalty. As MP Materials has flexibility to control
lanthanum content based on customer demand, this penalty is not expected to be applied. 
| 
16.6 | 
Conclusions | |
This report provides an overview of key trends within the rare earths market. Analysis outlined in this report reveals a high degree of
variability in the demand profiles of individual rare earth elements and their associated end-uses. 
Consequently, a strong demand outlook for PrNd oxide the main rare earth input for NdFeB permanent magnets - drives a
comparatively weak supply outlook for Ce and La products, which are sacrificially overproduced as a function of keeping up with magnet demand. 
While centered in China, the rare earths market is increasingly global with suppliers and potential suppliers emerging around the world.
This report highlights the favorable demand conditions that non-China producers may face as they enter the market but also highlights the unfavorable supply side conditions end users can expect without
sustained investment into new production. 
Products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, Ce chloride,
and rare earth mineral concentrate) are desirable from a market perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. 
Many of the near-term risks facing players in the rare earths market are political, with past disputes responsible for exacerbating
volatility of REE prices. Specific risks to products are highlighted where perceived, though the indicated specifications and communicated sales terms enforce the conclusion that products are both desirable and marketable. 
| 
16.7 | 
Contracts | |
Information pertaining to contracts associated with MP Materials current and future operations was obtained from conversations
between Adamas and MP Materials. As such, Adamas can only comment on the status of contractual agreements described to it by MP Materials and based on Adamas understanding of normal commercial practice and prevailing market conditions. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
249 | |
Adamas understands that MP Materials is an existing producer satisfying all contracts
required for the functioning of current operations. Until mid-2025, production of rare earth mineral concentrate was sold under contract to an offtake partner (Shenghe) but is now being stockpiled and
processed in-house. 
With ongoing ramp up of internal separation of oxides since late-2023,
we believe MP Materials aims to increasingly consume its own mineral concentrate to produce the following product mix: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
PrNd oxide | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SEG+ precipitate | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Lanthanum carbonate | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Cerium chloride | |
Adamas understands that MP Materials is in discussion with potential consumers and distributors of these separated products and aims to
finalize these contracts as it ramps up production. In February 2023, MP Materials and Sumitomo Corporation announced an agreement whereby the latter will serve as the exclusive distributor of PrNd oxide produced by MP Materials to Japanese
customers. 
We believe the current state of negotiations with potential consumers and distributors is in line with standard practice
for a new producer seeking to qualify a new product with customers. The planned separated products are more abundantly traded than mineral concentrates and we believe ongoing negotiations are likely to lead to industry standard agreements and terms.
Adamas understands that MP Materials eventual NdFeB magnet offtake partner (US DoW) may reasonably be deemed an affiliated
party due to DoWs minority equity interest in MP Materials. To our knowledge, DoW is the only notable affiliated partner for the purposes of this review of commercial contracts. 
Based on guidance provided by MP Materials, Adamas understands that MP Materials maintains various operational contracts with external
parties to support current and future operations. The operational contracts include, but are not limited to, a variety of services including those listed below. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Chemical reagent procurement | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Industrial gas procurement | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Natural gas procurement | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drilling services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blasting services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Freight carrier services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Supplemental contract labor services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment maintenance services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment rental services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Environmental monitoring services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Analytical services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Security services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Insurance and risk management services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Information technologies and support services | |
In addition, Adamas understands (based on guidance provided by MP Materials) that MP Materials fulfils and maintains contracts, services
and other requirements for recommissioning, functioning and operating its separation facility. These contracts have been understood to include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
250 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Engineering services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Owners representation | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Procurement services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Supplemental contract labor services | |
The existence and maintenance of these contractual arrangements is in line with Adamas understanding of normal commercial practice
for a company such as MP Materials. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
251 | |
| 
17 | 
Environmental Studies, Permitting, and Closure | |
The following discussion of environmental studies, permitting, and community impacts presents an overview of environmental impact reports
and active environmental permits. 
| 
17.1 | 
Environmental Study Results | |
In 2004, the previous owner completed an environmental assessment process to gain approval for a 30 year mine plan. The legal
framework for the environmental assessment process was the California Environmental Quality Act, and the lead regulatory agency was San Bernardino County (SBC). The final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) described the proposed action and assessed
baseline environmental conditions for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, and noise. This environmental assessment process included extensive public consultation as well as
inter-agency (state and federal) collaboration. SBC certified the final EIR in 2004. 
| 
17.2 | 
Required Permits and Status | |
In 2004, the Land Use Services (LUS) Department of SBC (SBC-LUS) approved the 30 year open pit
mine plan, including an ultimate open pit design. The SBC-LUS issued a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) based on mitigation measures identified in the final EIR. In 2010, the previous operator applied for a
modification to the 2004 approved land use to accommodate process improvements and the elimination of 100 acres of evaporation pond area approved in the 2004 CUP. The SBC-LUS approved the Minor Use Permit
(MUP) and issued the updated Mine and Reclamation Plan (2004M-02) in November 2010. 
The
previous owner revised the approved Mine and Reclamation Plan in 2015. The SBC approved the change of ownership to MP Mine Operations LLC (dba MP Materials) in 2017. In April 2021, MP Materials filed an application for Stage 2 Facilities
Construction (previously approved under the 2010 MUP and vested under the Mining and Reclamation Plan). This application includes constructing, redesigning, improving and/or re-locating several processing
facilities identified in the 2010 MUP. MP Materials received formal approval of the modification of the MUP to proceed with the Stage 2 Facilities Construction plan in April 2021. 
The future mine plan expands the current permit boundary. The previous owner and MP Materials demonstrate a proactive and constructive
dialogue with the SBC-LUS on previous modifications of the Mine and Reclamation Plan (e.g., 2010, 2015 and 2021). The change in the future open pit boundary is within the existing mine disturbance. 
MP Materials plans to expand the North Overburden Stockpile, relocate a stormwater diversion channel, and construct a new integrated
crushing and ore sorting facility. While the stockpile expansion and the new ore sorting facility will require a permit amendment, preliminary discussions with regulatory agencies have been conducted. Based on recent permit applications and
approvals, MP Materials does not anticipate any permitting delays or obstacles that would prevent the projects from proceeding as scheduled. 
The future mine plan also requires preparation work for a new, 157 Mst East Overburden Stockpile that will begin receiving waste rock in
2030. There is reasonable expectation that MP Materials can permit required waste dump capacities in advance of the mining schedule. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
252 | |
Since 2017, MP Materials demonstrated a
pro-active, working relationship with the SBC-LUS and other regulatory authorities. This relationship includes timely and successful permit amendments and approvals for
current operations. SRK is of the opinion that MP Materials will continue to successfully engage regulatory authorities and gain approval for future amendments related to site operations within the private property boundary. 
Table 17-1 presents a summary of current Mountain Pass environmental permits. 
**Table 17-1: Current Environmental Permits and Status** 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Permit | 
| 
Agency | 
| 
Expiration Date | |
| 
| 
| 
Right of Way for the Shadow Valley Fresh Water Pipeline CA12455 | 
| 
Bureau of Land Management | 
| 
12/31/2041 | |
| 
| 
| 
San Bernardino County Domestic Water Supply Permit #36000172 (Duplicate of
PT0006375) | 
| 
San Bernardino County Department of Public Health | 
| 
No Expiration | |
| 
| 
| 
EPA Identification Number CAD009539321 | 
| 
US Environmental Protection Agency | 
| 
No Expiration | |
| 
| 
| 
Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration | 
| 
US Department of Transportation | 
| 
2/28/2027(1) | |
| 
| 
| 
NRC Export License XSOU8707/08 | 
| 
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 
| 
12/31/2031 | |
| 
| 
| 
NRC Export License XSOU8827/03
(2) | 
| 
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 
| 
12/31/2031 | |
| 
| 
| 
Conditional Use Permit 07533SM2/DN953-681N | 
| 
San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department | 
| 
11/23/2042 | |
| 
| 
| 
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Annual Permit FA0004811 | 
| 
San Bernardino County Fire Protection District | 
| 
9/30/2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
LRWQCB Order
6-01-18 Domestic Wastewater System | 
| 
Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board | 
| 
No Expiration | |
| 
| 
| 
LRWQCB Order R6V-2005-0011On Site Evaporation
Ponds | 
| 
Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board | 
| 
No Expiration | |
| 
| 
| 
LRWQCB Order R6V-2010-0047 - Mine and Mill Site,
including filtered tailings | 
| 
Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board | 
| 
No Expiration | |
| 
| 
| 
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District - Permits to Operate | 
| 
Mojave Desert AQMD | 
| 
2/28/2026(3) | |
| 
| 
| 
Right-Of-Way
Lease 6375.2 | 
| 
California State Lands Commission | 
| 
1/19/2032 | |
| 
| 
| 
Radioactive Materials License #3229-36 for ongoing
operations and filtered tailings | 
| 
California Department of Public Health Radiologic
Health Branch | 
| 
12/21/2032 | |
| 
| 
| 
Right of Way for the Shadow Valley Fresh Water Pipeline CA12455 | 
| 
Bureau of Land Management | 
| 
Active | |
| 
| 
| 
Minor Use Permit - Project Phoenix (Amended Reclamation Plan) | 
| 
San Bernardino County | 
| 
11/22/2042 | |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
(1): Renewed annually. 
(2): New License replaces XSOU8708. 
(3): Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District online records indicate the
Mountain Pass operation (Facility ID 364) held approximately 272 individual air quality related permits within the last 23 years. This historical total includes discontinued unit operations. The permit record indicates timely renewals and approvals,
including extensions. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
253 | |
| 
17.3 | 
Mine Closure | |
Mine closure obligations consist of the Mine and Reclamation Plan administered by the SBC, groundwater and surface water measures
administered by the LRWQCB, and decommissioning requirements by the California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery. SBC and LRWQCB permit authorizations also stipulate post-closure inspection, maintenance, and monitoring activities. Table 3-1 summarizes the current closure, reclamation, and post-closure obligations for the Mountain Pass property. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
254 | |
| 
18 | 
Capital and Operating Costs | |
Capital and operating costs are incurred and reported in 2025 US dollars and are estimated at a
pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of approximately +/-25%. 
| 
18.1 | 
Capital Cost Estimates | |
The mine is currently operating and, as such, there is no initial capital expenditure required. All capital expenditure as contemplated
by this report is expected to be sustaining capital. Sustaining capital expenditures include the sustaining capital cost associated with the mining fleet, integrated crushing and ore sorting facility, separations facility, filtered tailings plant
and water tank relocations, tailings storage facility expansion, and the other category, which captures all other sustaining capital costs. 
| 
18.1.1 | 
Mining Capital Cost | |
The operation is being run as an owner mining operation. A contractor will perform all drilling and blasting operations. 
Table 18-1 shows the annual mining equipment capital costs, as estimated by SRK. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
255 | |
**Table 18-1: Mining Equipment Capital Cost Estimate (US$000s)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Capital Costs | 
| 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2032 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2034 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2035 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2037 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2038 | 
| |
| 
Mobile Equip. (Purchases) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Loading | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hauling | 
| 
| 
| 
6,585 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2,195 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Other Ops (1) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,635 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Support (2) | 
| 
| 
| 
1,091 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
126 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,358 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
508 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
942 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
126 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
659 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
508 | 
| |
| 
Subtotal
Purchases | 
| 
| 
$ | 
7,676 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
126 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,358 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
508 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
3,137 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,761 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
659 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
508 | 
| |
| 
Mobile Equip.
(Rebuilds) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Loading | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
903 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
734 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,806 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
734 | 
| |
| 
Hauling | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2,663 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
988 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
803 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Other | 
| 
| 
| 
490 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
481 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
781 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
203 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
178 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
203 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
178 | 
| |
| 
Support | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
258 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
183 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
516 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
516 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Subtotal
Rebuilds | 
| 
| 
$ | 
490 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
848 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
625 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,867 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
3,232 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,416 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,005 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,322 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
912 | 
| |
| 
Mining Equip. Total | 
| 
| 
$ | 
8,167 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
974 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,983 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,867 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
3,741 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
5,553 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,766 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,981 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,420 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Capital Costs | 
| 
| 
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2040 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2045 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2048 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2049 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
LoMTotal | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mobile Equip. (Purchases) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Loading | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2,446 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2,446 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hauling | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4,390 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
13,170 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Other Ops | 
| 
| 
| 
1,374 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
675 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
595 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
675 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4,279 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Support | 
| 
| 
| 
1,358 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2,663 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
634 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,223 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
942 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
12,138 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Subtotal
Purchases | 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,732 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,663 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
675 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,446 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
5,619 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,223 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
942 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
675 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
32,033 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mobile Equip.
(Rebuilds) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Loading | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,806 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6,716 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Hauling | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4,968 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1,976 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11,396 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Other Ops | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
245 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
246 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
490 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
101 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
490 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4,957 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Support | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
183 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
258 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
516 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
550 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4,817 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Subtotal
Rebuilds | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
5,580 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,405 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,806 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
749 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
468 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
367 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,007 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
550 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
27,885 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mining Equip. Total(3) | 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,732 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
8,242 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
3,080 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,806 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
2,736 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
6,367 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,691 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
290 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,309 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
1,007 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
550 | 
| 
| 
| 
$ | 
59,918 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
Notes: | 
| |
| 
(1) | 
Other Ops includes dozers, water trucks, motor grader and excavator. | |
| 
(2) | 
Support includes mobile equipment used in filtered tailings operations, maintenance vehicles, light
vehicles and pit dewatering pumps. | |
| 
(3) | 
The economic model includes initial spare parts and shop tool provisions totaling US$461 thousand that are not
included in this table. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
256 | |
| 
18.1.2 | 
Separations Facility Capital Cost | |
The separations facility is currently in the process of ramping, with an expectation that it will achieve full capacity by approximately
Q1 2027. As such, future capital costs for the separations facility are treated as sustaining capital costs. The sustaining capital costs, as estimated by MP Materials and SGS, are presented in
Table 18-2. 
**Table 18-2: Estimated
Separations Facility Sustaining Capital Costs**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Year | 
| 
Amount (US$000s) | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
6,022 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
9,033 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2028(1) | 
| 
21,106 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
2029 through 2052(2) | 
| 
361,304 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
$397,464 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, SGS, 2025 
(1): Includes CHP turbines. 
(2): From 2029 through 2052, the estimated annual cost is approximately US$15.0 million. 
| 
18.1.3 | 
Other Sustaining Capital | |
For the purposes of estimating total sustaining capital, SRK utilized the current capital depreciation which is approximately
US$5.3 million per year. In SRKs opinion, this value is a reasonable estimate for long-term sustaining capital for the current operation other than the individually estimated capital items. 
In addition to the long-term sustaining capital allowance of US$5.3 million per year, the following
non-recurring items have been included in the estimate of other sustaining capital: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Integrated crushing and ore sorting facility (2026): US$30.9 million | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Water tank relocation (2033): US$5.9 million | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Filtered tailings plant relocation (2033): US$73.3 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Tailing storage facility expansion (2043): US$11.9 million | |
| 
18.1.4 | 
Closure Costs | |
Closure costs are captured as a capital expenditure in the financial model at a value of US$46.3 million in 2054 (one year after the
end of processing operations). 
| 
18.1.5 | 
Basis for Capital Cost Estimates | |
**Mining Capital Cost**
The mining equipment requirements were based on the mine production schedule, and estimates for scheduled production time, mechanical
availability, equipment utilization, and operating efficiencies. 
Estimates of annual operating hours for each type of equipment were
made, and equipment units were utilized in the mining operations until a unit reached its planned equipment life, after which a replacement unit was added to the fleet, if necessary. Major mining equipment rebuild (overhaul) costs were included in
the mining equipment capital cost estimates. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
257 | |
The mining equipment capital cost estimate was based on the following: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
All replacement mining units are based on new equipment purchases. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The cost for equipment that is scheduled for purchase in 2026 is based on current equipment price quotes from the
vendor. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Freight cost for mining equipment was generally estimated to be between 3% and 5%. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Allowances were made for on-site equipment erection costs for some units. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mining equipment rebuilds were included at appropriate intervals in the mining capital costs. | |
**Separations Facility Capital Cost**
To calculate estimated sustaining capital for the separations facility, MP Materials and SGS used a first principles approach utilizing a
proxy of a percentage of invested capital into the plant and accompanying facilities, including the CHP plant, to calculate a reasonable estimate for average required reinvestment. This yielded an estimate of US$15.0 million per year in
long-term sustaining capital for the separations plant and accompanying facilities. Some adjustment of this annual cost was applied to reflect the fact that the facility is new and therefore is likely to experience a reduced rate of sustaining
capital expenditures in the first five years of operation. 
**Other Capital Cost**
Costs for the new integrated crushing and ore sorting facility, tailings storage facility expansion and relocation of the filtered
tailings plant and water tanks were based on engineering cost estimates. Depreciation values were utilized as a proxy for other sustaining capital. 
**Closure Costs**
Closure cost and post closure cost estimates were sourced from the most recent financial assurance estimates provided by MP Materials.
| 
18.2 | 
Operating Cost Estimates | |
Operating costs have been forecast based on the mines recent actual costs for concentrator, sales, general and administrative
costs. For mining, the operating costs were estimated by SRK from a first principles basis. For crushing, ore sorting, concentrator and site general and administrative, SRK compared forecast operating costs to the historical cost data and adjusted
costs where necessary for anticipated future changes in the configuration of the operation. SRK is of the opinion that the forecasts represent a reasonable outlook for the operation. For the separations facility, SGS and MP Materials estimated the
operating costs based on a first principles build-up. 
As with capital costs, operating costs
are captured in 2025 US dollars and are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of approximately +/- 25%. 
| 
18.2.1 | 
Mining Operating Cost | |
SRK estimated the required mining equipment fleet, required production operating hours, and manpower to arrive at an estimate of the
mining costs that the mining operations would incur. The mining costs were developed from first principles and compared to recent actual costs. The mining operating costs are presented in the following categories: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drilling (contractor) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blasting (contractor) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
258 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Loading | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Hauling | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Other Mine Operations (dozing, grading, road maintenance operations, etc.) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Support Equipment Operations (equipment fueling, pit dewatering, pit lighting, etc.) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Miscellaneous Operations (various support operations, etc.) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine Engineering (mine technical personnel and technical consulting) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mine Administration and Supervision (mine and maintenance supervision, etc.) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Freight (for equipment supplies and parts, excluding freight for fuel) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Contingency | |
A maintenance cost was allocated to each category that required equipment maintenance. 
The mine operating cost estimate includes all mine functions to deliver material to the dumps, stockpiles, and primary crusher. The
mining cost center also includes operating labor for the crusher feed loader and for loading, hauling, and dozing of filtered tailings. 
A summary of the LoM unit mine operating costs is presented in Table 18-3. The unit mining
costs are presented both with and without rehandle tons included in the divisor. Per short ton mined refers to the LoM mining cost divided by the number of short tons of ore and waste excavated from the open pit but excluding all re-handled ore. Per short ton moved refers to the LoM mining cost divided by the number of short tons of ore and waste excavated from the open pit, but also including all ore re-handled from long term stockpiles, all ore fed to the crushers by front-end-loader, and all fine ore transferred by trucks from the
crusher to the mill. 
Total LoM mining costs are estimated at US$631 million, with expected unit costs of US$3.28/st-mined and US$2.36/st-moved. 
**Table 18-3: Mining Operating Costs** 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
LoM Short Tons Mined/Moved
(000) | 
| 
| 
| 
192,518 | 
| 
| 
| 
267,801 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
US$000 | 
| 
| 
US$/st-Mined | 
| 
| 
US$/st-Moved | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Drilling/Blasting/Loading/Hauling | 
| 
| 
372,191 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.933 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.390 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Other mining costs | 
| 
| 
144,731 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.752 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.540 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mine engineering and administration | 
| 
| 
57,079 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.296 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.213 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Contingency (10%) | 
| 
| 
57,400 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.298 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.214 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
$631,401 | 
| 
| 
| 
$3.280 | 
| 
| 
| 
$2.358 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Annual mining unit costs and annual material movement are presented in Figure 18-1. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
259 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 18-1: Mining Unit Cost Profile** 
The basis for the mining operating cost estimates includes the following parameters: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Diesel fuel cost of US$2.95/US gallon (delivered to site) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Average density for waste of 0.0829 st /ft3 (2.66 metric tonnes/m3) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Average density for ore of 0.0975 st /ft3 (3.12 metric tonnes/m3) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Average moisture content for rock is 2% | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Average swell factor of mined rock is 40% for loading and hauling estimation | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Typical mining operations support equipment utilization of 1,512 to 3,025 operating hours per year (for track dozer,
grader, water trucks, excavator, etc.) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Rehandling crusher and ore sorter material | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Estimated average tire lives of: | |
| 
| 
o | 
Wheel loaders: 4,000 operating hours | |
| 
| 
o | 
Haul trucks: 4,000 operating hours | |
| 
| 
o | 
Other major mining equipment: 3,500 operating hours | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
3 to 5% freight cost on mining operating and maintenance supplies | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
10% contingency is included in the mining operating cost estimates | |
Employee wages (including appropriate overtime allowances) and wage burdens (33%) were based on labor cost information provided by MP
Materials. The costs for maintenance supplies and materials were based on estimates presented in the current InfoMine mining cost service publications. Other mining related costs were provided by MP Materials. 
Included in the mine operating cost estimate are the following: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drilling contractor costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Blasting contractor costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment and labor costs for ore and waste mining from the pit | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment and labor costs for stockpile rehandling | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment and labor costs for the crusher feed loader | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
260 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Equipment and labor costs for loading, hauling, and dozing of filtered tailings | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Contractor and professional services | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Memberships and subscriptions | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Office and building costs | |
Excluded from the mine operating cost estimate are the following: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mining equipment replacements and rebuilds (overhauls) which are included in the mining sustaining capital costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Post-mining reclamation costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Processing related costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
General overheads outside of the mine | |
| 
18.2.2 | 
Processing Operating Cost | |
**Crushing and Ore Sorting Costs**
The forecast average LoM crushing cost is US$4.68 per short ton of ore crushed, including ore crushed prior to ore sorting. 
The forecast average LoM ore sorting cost is US$1.57 per short ton of ore fed to the ore sorters. 
The costs are based on actual costs incurred by MP Materials during the period January September 2025, with adjustments for
planned changes to the current operating configuration. 
**Concentrating Cost**
The forecast average LoM concentrator cost, inclusive of crushing costs, is US$51.28 per short ton of ore fed to the concentrator. This
cost is based on actual costs incurred by MP Materials during the period January September 2025. 
The processing cost
includes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Milling, Flotation, Tailings and Lab | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Warehouse | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Engineering | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Utilities | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Facilities, | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Maintenance | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Other Related Costs | |
**Separations Facility Operating Cost**
The operating cost estimate for the separations facility (currently ramping up) is based on a first principles estimate developed by SGS
and MP Materials. The costs are estimated at a pre-feasibility level with an accuracy of +/- 25%. 
The separations cost includes: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Filtration and Drying | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Calcining | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Leaching, Thickening and Filtration | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Impurity Removal Steps | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
261 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Solvent Extraction | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Product Finishing | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Brine Purification and Salt Crystallization | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Water Treatment Plant and Combined Heat and Power Plant costs | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Incremental facilities and utilities expenses | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Incremental maintenance expenses | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Other Related Costs | |
Operations and labor were determined by MP Materials analysis of staffing needs by circuit, including operations, maintenance, and
engineering. A significant proportion of supplies and services costs are reagents, which usage was estimated by MP Materials and SGS as derived from historical operations and records, pilot testing, and third party analysis. 
Table 18-4 shows the estimated annual separations facility operating cost when treating
84,148 st of concentrate feed per year. In the economic model, adjustments to the annual separations operating costs were applied based on fixed costs (US$25.9 million) and variable costs (US$1,080.59 per st of concentrate) for periods when more or
less concentrate is being treated. 
**Table 18-4: Separations Operating Costs**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Category | 
| 
US$000s/year | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Fixed Cost | 
| 
| 
25,940 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Variable Cost | 
| 
| 
90,929 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
$116,869 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, SGS, 2025 
Fixed cost and variable cost analysis based on 84,148 st of concentrate treated. 
| 
18.2.3 | 
Selling, General, and Administrative Operating Costs | |
SRK evaluated site general and administrative (G&A) expenses for the Mountain Pass operation on the basis that any additional G&A
costs associated with the separations facility are captured within the operating cost estimate for that facility provided by SGS (as the QP responsible for those costs). Actual G&A costs over the trailing nine months (January 2025 to September
2025) are shown in Table 18-5. 
**Table 18-5: Summary of MP Materials Actual Site G&A Operating Costs**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
G&A Costs | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Trailing (9 Month Total) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
G&A | 
| 
US$ (000) | 
| 
| 
14,978 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: MP Materials, 2025 
The Mountain Pass mining operation is in steady state and no significant changes are forecast with respect to G&A expenses. In
SRKs opinion, the steady state operation of the asset and lack of forecast significant changes to G&A spend indicate that material changes in G&A spend are unlikely and SRK is therefore comfortable extending this operating cost
without modification. This results in G&A costs of US$20.0 million per year, which is treated as fully fixed for modeling purposes. This cost is factored in the first year of operations to account for a partial operational year. 
As part of the net revenue calculation in the economic model, selling (i.e., shipping) costs are calculated separately from G&A
costs. The modeled shipping costs are US$194.51 per metric tonne of product as provided by MP Materials. This is broadly in line with previous realized shipping costs at the operation and the current market environment. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
262 | |
| 
19 | 
Economic Analysis | |
| 
19.1 | 
General Description | |
SRK prepared a cash flow model to evaluate Mountain Pass mineral reserves on a real basis. This model was prepared on an annual basis
from the reserve effective date to the exhaustion of the reserves. This section presents the main assumptions used in the cash flow model and the resulting indicative economics. The model results are presented in U.S. dollars (US$), unless otherwise
stated. 
All results are presented in this section on a 100% basis. 
As with the capital and operating cost forecasts, the economic analysis is inherently a forward-looking exercise. These estimates rely
upon a range of assumptions and forecasts that are subject to change depending upon macroeconomic conditions, operating strategy and new data collected through future operations. 
| 
19.2 | 
Basic Model Parameters | |
Key criteria used in the analysis are presented throughout this section. Basic model parameters are summarized in Table 19-1. 
**Table 19-1: Basic Model
Parameters**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Description | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| |
| 
TEM Time Zero Start Date | 
| 
October 1, 2025 | 
| 
| |
| 
Model Life | 
| 
30 years (partial first year) | 
| 
| |
| 
Separations Facility Ramp up (% of capacity) | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Q4 2025 | 
| 
51.8% | 
| 
| |
| 
2026 | 
| 
80.4% | 
| 
| |
| 
2027 through
2053 | 
| 
100% | 
| 
| |
| 
Discount Rate | 
| 
6% | 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, MP Materials, 2025 
All costs incurred prior to the model start date are considered sunk costs. The potential impact of these costs on the economics of the
operation is not evaluated. This includes contributions to depreciation and working capital as these items are assumed to have a zero balance at model start. 
The selected discount rate is 6% as directed by MP Materials. 
| 
19.3 | 
External Factors | |
| 
19.3.1 | 
Pricing | |
Modeled prices are based on the prices developed in the Market Studies and Contracts section of this report (Section 16). The prices are
modeled as: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Concentrate US$11.51/kg contained REO (equivalent to US$6,906 per metric tonne of 60% TREO concentrate) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Separated PrNd product US$134.49/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Separated La product US$1.46/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Separated Ce product US$6.62/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Separated SEG+ product US$51.30/kg | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
263 | |
These prices are modeled as a CIF price and shipping costs are applied separately
within the model. 
All product streams produced by the operation are modeled as being subject to the prices presented above. For
economic modeling purposes, it has been assumed that all of the Mountain Pass Mines concentrate will be consumed by the on-site separations facility and, therefore, no sales of concentrate are
considered. 
Shipping costs are modeled at US$194.51 per metric tonne of material for separated material. 
As per the July 2025 Price Protection Agreement announced between MP Materials and the DoW, MP Materials receives a difference-in-condition payment for produced or stockpiled PrNd material for a minimum effective price of US$110/kg of contained PrNd. To the extent prices are above
US$110/kg, following the date when MP Materials 10X Magnet facility reaches full capacity, MP Materials will share 30% of the upside above US$110/kg with the DoW. The Price Protection Agreement is effective from October 1, 2025 through
December 31, 2035. For economic modeling purposes, it has been assumed that the 10X Magnet facility will achieve full capacity on January 1, 2030. 
| 
19.3.2 | 
Taxes and Royalties | |
As modeled, the operation is subject to a combined 26.84% (federal and state) income tax rate. This rate reflects reductions in tax rates
resulting from depletion. This approach was recommended by MP Materials for modeling purposes. All expended capital is subject to depreciation over an 8 year period. Depreciation occurs via straight line method. No existing depreciation pools are
accounted for in the model. 
SRK notes that the project is being evaluated as a standalone entity for this exercise (without a
corporate structure). As such, tax calculations presented here may differ significantly from actuals incurred by MP Materials. 
| 
19.3.3 | 
Working Capital | |
The assumptions used for working capital in this analysis are as follows: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Accounts Receivable (A/R): 30 day delay | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Accounts Payable (A/P): 30 day delay | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Zero opening balance for A/R and A/P | |
| 
19.4 | 
Technical Factors | |
| 
19.4.1 | 
Mining Profile | |
The modeled mining profile was developed by SRK. The details of the mining profile are presented previously in this report. No
modifications were made to the profile for use in the economic model. The modeled profile is presented on a 100% basis in Figure 19-1. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
264 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-1: Mining Profile**
A summary of the modeled LoM mining profile is presented in Table 19-2. 
**Table 19-2: LoM Mining Summary**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Description | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Ore Mined (expit) | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
28.16 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Waste Mined | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
164.35 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Material Mined | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
192.52 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Rehandle (including initial stockpiles) | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
75.28 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Material Moved | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
267.80 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Average Grade (expit mining) | 
| 
%TREO | 
| 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Strip Ratio | 
| 
Num# | 
| 
| 
5.8 x | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK 
| 
19.4.2 | 
Processing Profile | |
The concentrator processing profile (Figure 19-2) was developed by SRK and results from the
application of stockpile and binning logic to the mining profile external to the economic model. No modifications were made to the profile for use in the economic model other than for sensitivity analysis. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-2: Concentrator Feed Profile**
A summary of the modeled LoM processing profile is presented in Table 19-3. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
265 | |
**Table 19-3: LoM Processing Profile**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Description | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Ore Processed
through the Concentrator | 
| 
dst (million) | 
| 
| 
23.83 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Average Concentrator
Feed Grade | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
| 
7.07% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Concentrate Grade Target | 
| 
% TREO | 
| 
| 
60.00% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Concentrate
Moisture | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
8.00% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Concentrate
Produced | 
| 
dmt (million) | 
| 
| 
1.80 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Avg Annual Concentrate Produced | 
| 
dmt | 
| 
| 
61,966 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
dst: dry short tons 
dmt: dry metric tonnes 
As the separations facility continues to ramp up, the product from the concentrator will be fed to the separations facility to produce
separated materials for sale as per the descriptions contained within this report. It is expected that the separations facility will operate at 51.8% of its capacity in Q4 2025, 80.4% of its capacity in 2026, and 100% of its capacity from 2027
onward. When the separations facility is operating at 100% capacity, the amount of concentrate that can be fed to the facility is limited by the contained TREO. For modeling purposes, the plant maximum capacity is set to 42,860 dry metric tonnes of
contained TREO per year. Any material beyond this limit in any given year is assumed to be stockpiled on-site for processing in future periods when there is unused capacity. The LoM concentrate production
profile is shown in Figure 19-3 and the LoM separated product production profile is shown in Figure 19-4. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-3: Concentrate Production**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
266 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
The costs are higher at the end of the mine life as the facility is only operational for a short time processing limited amounts of
material while incurring fixed costs. 
**Figure 19-4: Separations Production Profile**
| 
19.4.3 | 
Operating Costs | |
Operating costs are modeled in US dollars and can be categorized as mining, processing and site G&A costs. No contingency amounts
have been added to the operating costs within the financial model; however, the mining costs were imported from a first principles cost buildup that included 10% contingency. A summary of the operating costs over the life of the operation is
presented in Figure 19-5. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-5: Annual Operating Costs**
The contributions of the different operating cost segments over the life of the operation are presented in Figure 19-6. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
267 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-6: LoM Operating Costs**
| 
19.4.4 | 
Mining | |
The mining cost profile was developed external to the model and was imported into the model as a fixed cost on an annual basis. The
result of this approach is presented in Table 19-4. 
**Table 19-4: Mining Cost Summary**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Mining Costs | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mining Costs | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
631.4 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Mining Cost | 
| 
US$/st mined | 
| 
| 
3.28 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
19.4.5 | 
Processing | |
Processing costs were incorporated into the model as a combination of fixed and variable costs for the crushers, ore sorters, and
separations facility. Variable concentrator costs are applied to the tonnage processed through the concentrator. Fixed costs for the separations facility were applied on an annual basis and variable costs are applied on a per ton of feed basis. Table 19-5 presents the cost on a per ton basis for the combined plants. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
268 | |
**Table 19-5: Processing Cost Summary**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Processing Costs | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Processing Costs | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
4,294.7 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Processing
Cost | 
| 
US$/st concentrator feed (post ore sorter) | 
| 
| 
180.26 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
19.4.6 | 
G&A Costs | |
Site G&A costs were incorporated into the model as annual fixed costs as presented in
Table 19-6. 
**Table 19-6: G&A Cost
Summary**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM G&A Costs | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
G&A Costs | 
| 
US$ (million) | 
| 
| 
564.2 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
G&A
Cost | 
| 
US$/st concentrator feed (post ore sorter) | 
| 
| 
23.68 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
19.4.7 | 
Capital Costs | |
As the operation is an existing mine, no initial capital has been modeled. Capital is modeled on an annual basis and is used in the model
as developed in previous sections. No contingency amounts have been added to the sustaining capital within the model. Closure costs are modeled as capital and are captured as a one-time payment the year
following cessation of operations. The modeled capital profile is presented in Figure 19-7. 
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-7: Capital Expenditure Profile**
| 
19.5 | 
Results | |
The economic analysis metrics are prepared on annual after-tax basis in 2025 US$. The results of
the analysis are presented in Table 19-7. The results indicate that, at modeled prices, the operation returns a pre-tax NPV at 6% of US$7.8 billion and an after-tax NPV at 6% of US$5.8 billion. Note that because the mine is in operation and is valued on a total project basis with prior costs treated as sunk, IRR and payback period analysis are not relevant
metrics. Annual project after tax cash flow is presented in Figure 19-8. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
269 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
**Figure 19-8: Annual Cash Flow**
**Table 19-7: Economic Result**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
LoM Cash Flow (unfinanced) | 
| 
Units | 
| 
Value | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Revenue | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
21,715 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Total Operating Cost | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
(5,490) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Operating Margin
(excluding depreciation) | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
16,224 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Operating Margin Ratio | 
| 
% | 
| 
| 
75% | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Taxes
Paid | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
(4,185) | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Before
Tax | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Free Cash Flow | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
15,453 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
NPV at 6% | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
7,783 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
After
Tax | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Free Cash Flow | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
11,268 | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
NPV at 6% | 
| 
US$ (Million) | 
| 
| 
5,775 | 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
| 
19.5.1 | 
Sensitivity Analysis | |
SRK performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative sensitivity of the operations
after-tax NPV to a number of key parameters (Figure 19-9). This is accomplished by flexing each parameter upwards and downwards by 10%. Within the constraints of
this analysis, the operation appears to be most sensitive to commodity prices, mined grades and recovery or mass yield assumptions within the processing plant. SRK cautions that this sensitivity analysis is for information only and notes that these
parameters were flexed in isolation within the model and are assumed to be uncorrelated with one another which may not be reflective of reality. Additionally, the amount of flex in the selected parameters may violate physical or environmental
constraints present at the operation. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
270 | |
Source: SRK, 2025 
Parameters flexed upwards and downwards by 10%. 
**Figure 19-9: After-Tax Sensitivity Analysis**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
271 | |
| 
19.5.2 | 
Physical and Cash Flow Snapshot | |
The annual cashflow, expressed in million U.S. dollars, is presented in Table 19-8. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
272 | |
**Table 19-8: Mountain Pass Annual Physicals and Cashflow (US$
millions)**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Calendar Year | 
| 
Unit | 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
2025 | 
| 
| 
2026 | 
| 
| 
2027 | 
| 
| 
2028 | 
| 
| 
2029 | 
| 
| 
2030 | 
| 
| 
2031 | 
| 
| 
2032 | 
| 
| 
2033 | 
| 
| 
2034 | 
| 
| 
2035 | 
| 
| 
2036 | 
| 
| 
2037 | 
| 
| 
2038 | 
| 
| 
2039 | 
| 
| 
2040 | 
| 
| 
2041 | 
| 
| 
2042 | 
| 
| 
2043 | 
| 
| 
2044 | 
| 
| 
2045 | 
| 
| 
2046 | 
| 
| 
2047 | 
| 
| 
2048 | 
| 
| 
2049 | 
| 
| 
2050 | 
| 
| 
2051 | 
| 
| 
2052 | 
| 
| 
2053 | 
| 
| 
2054 | 
| 
| 
2055 | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Physicals | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Mining | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Ore Material Mined | 
| 
| 
ktons | 
| 
| 
| 
28,164 | 
| 
| 
| 
231 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,156 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,259 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,277 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,222 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,178 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,411 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,646 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,348 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,244 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,321 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,306 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,263 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,411 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,377 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,305 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,213 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,266 | 
| 
| 
| 
897 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,034 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,587 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,617 | 
| 
| 
| 
597 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Ore and Initial Stockpile Grade Mined | 
| 
| 
% REO | 
| 
| 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
| 
| 
9.66% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.77% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.94% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.70% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.51% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.69% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.20% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.27% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.96% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.44% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.31% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.40% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.46% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.79% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.86% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.45% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.99% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.53% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.79% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.14% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.76% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.97% | 
| 
| 
| 
4.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Waste Mined | 
| 
| 
ktons | 
| 
| 
| 
164,354 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,269 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,244 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,141 | 
| 
| 
| 
6,123 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,728 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,772 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,689 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,454 | 
| 
| 
| 
7,652 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,756 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,679 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,694 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,737 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,589 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,623 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,695 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,787 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,734 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,478 | 
| 
| 
| 
9,466 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,339 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,077 | 
| 
| 
| 
626 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Processing | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Crusher feed (including recrush) | 
| 
| 
ktons | 
| 
| 
| 
34,056 | 
| 
| 
| 
217 | 
| 
| 
| 
867 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,603 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,505 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,359 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,574 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,681 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,082 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,418 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,252 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,374 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,350 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,282 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,515 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,463 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,349 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,204 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,287 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,458 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,718 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,825 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,841 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,291 | 
| 
| 
| 
867 | 
| 
| 
| 
673 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Concentrator Feed Grade | 
| 
| 
% REO | 
| 
| 
| 
7.51% | 
| 
| 
| 
10.12% | 
| 
| 
| 
9.29% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.64% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.45% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.86% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.89% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.24% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.53% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.62% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.80% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.06% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.10% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.92% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.65% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.64% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.18% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.42% | 
| 
| 
| 
8.07% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.56% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.44% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
7.07% | 
| 
| 
| 
6.39% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.99% | 
| 
| 
| 
5.47% | 
| 
| 
| 
3.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
3.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
3.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
3.68% | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Concentrate Produced | 
| 
| 
ktons | 
| 
| 
| 
1,981 | 
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
| 
| 
101 | 
| 
| 
| 
93 | 
| 
| 
| 
90 | 
| 
| 
| 
83 | 
| 
| 
| 
83 | 
| 
| 
| 
75 | 
| 
| 
| 
65 | 
| 
| 
| 
80 | 
| 
| 
| 
82 | 
| 
| 
| 
85 | 
| 
| 
| 
86 | 
| 
| 
| 
83 | 
| 
| 
| 
80 | 
| 
| 
| 
80 | 
| 
| 
| 
87 | 
| 
| 
| 
90 | 
| 
| 
| 
86 | 
| 
| 
| 
66 | 
| 
| 
| 
64 | 
| 
| 
| 
67 | 
| 
| 
| 
72 | 
| 
| 
| 
63 | 
| 
| 
| 
58 | 
| 
| 
| 
51 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Concentrate to Separations Plant | 
| 
| 
ktons | 
| 
| 
| 
1,981 | 
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
| 
| 
63 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
78 | 
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Concentrate Grade | 
| 
| 
% REO | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
60% | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Recovered La | 
| 
| 
tonnes | 
| 
| 
| 
261,091 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,687 | 
| 
| 
| 
8,309 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
10,335 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,717 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,456 | 
| 
| 
| 
3,456 | 
| 
| 
| 
760 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Recovered Ce | 
| 
| 
tonnes | 
| 
| 
| 
48,141 | 
| 
| 
| 
680 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,532 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
1,906 | 
| 
| 
| 
685 | 
| 
| 
| 
637 | 
| 
| 
| 
637 | 
| 
| 
| 
140 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Recovered PrNd | 
| 
| 
tonnes | 
| 
| 
| 
151,524 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,140 | 
| 
| 
| 
4,822 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
5,998 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,157 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,006 | 
| 
| 
| 
2,006 | 
| 
| 
| 
441 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Recovered SEG+ | 
| 
| 
tonnes | 
| 
| 
| 
19,380 | 
| 
| 
| 
274 | 
| 
| 
| 
617 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
767 | 
| 
| 
| 
276 | 
| 
| 
| 
257 | 
| 
| 
| 
257 | 
| 
| 
| 
56 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Cashflow Waterfall | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Income | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Net Revenue | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
21,715 | 
| 
| 
| 
310.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
699.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
312.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
290.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
290.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
64.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
21,715 | 
| 
| 
| 
310.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
699.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
826.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
870.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
312.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
290.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
290.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
64.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Operational Expenditure | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Fixed | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(1,994 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(36.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(71.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(72.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(73.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(76.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(74.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(76.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(74.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(77.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(76.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(76.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(77.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(77.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(77.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(79.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(73.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(69.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(61.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(54.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(54.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(53.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(53.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(53.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(48.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Variable | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(3,496 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(42.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(115.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(137.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(135.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(133.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(136.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(136.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(136.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(134.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(132.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(131.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(74.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(72.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(72.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(16.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Royalty | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(5,490 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(78.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(186.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(208.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(208.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(209.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(212.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(209.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(209.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(212.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(211.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(211.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(211.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(212.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(215.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(210.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(205.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(196.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(186.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(185.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(128.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(125.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(125.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(64.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Working Capital Adjustment | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(75.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
33.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
(12.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
0.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(3.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
0.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
0.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
41.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
1.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
0.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
13.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Capital Costs | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Sustaining Mining Capital | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(60 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(8.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(2.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(3.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(0.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(2.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(3.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(2.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(8.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(3.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(2.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(6.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(0.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Other Capital | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(145 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(5.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
New Crusher and Ore Sorter Facility | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(31 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(30.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Water Tank Move | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(5.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Closure | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(46 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(46.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
TSF Expansion | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(12 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(11.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Filtered Tailings Plant | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(73 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(73.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
CHP Turbines | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(9.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Separations Capital (Sustaining) | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(388 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(6.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(9.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(12.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(15.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Total | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(772 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(1.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(50.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(14.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(27.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(22.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(22.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(24.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(105.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(23.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(23.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(21.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(23.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(28.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(23.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(22.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(35.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(26.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(22.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(21.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(21.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(20.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(46.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Cashflow Before Tax | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
15,453 | 
| 
| 
| 
154.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
495.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
635.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
634.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
637.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
597.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
594.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
589.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
509.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
595.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
595.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
634.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
636.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
635.7 | 
| 
| 
| 
635.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
630.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
635.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
636.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
622.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
628.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
637.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
643.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
651.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
661.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
663.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
205.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
146.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
144.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
12.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
(46.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Tax Paid | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
(4,185 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
(62.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(137.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(175.9 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(175.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(173.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(161.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(160.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(159.3 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(159.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(155.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(156.8 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(168.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(168.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(167.7 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(168.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(168.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(168.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(170.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(170.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(169.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(170.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(171.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(174.1 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(176.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(177.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(43.2 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(38.0 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(38.5 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Net Cashflow | 
| 
| 
US$M | 
| 
| 
| 
11,268 | 
| 
| 
| 
154.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
432.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
497.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
458.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
461.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
424.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
433.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
429.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
350.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
436.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
439.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
477.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
468.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
467.2 | 
| 
| 
| 
467.9 | 
| 
| 
| 
462.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
467.4 | 
| 
| 
| 
468.6 | 
| 
| 
| 
452.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
458.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
468.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
473.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
480.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
487.0 | 
| 
| 
| 
486.5 | 
| 
| 
| 
28.3 | 
| 
| 
| 
103.1 | 
| 
| 
| 
106.8 | 
| 
| 
| 
(25.6 | 
) | 
| 
| 
(46.4 | 
) | 
| 
| 
- | 
| |
Source: SRK, 2025 
2025 is a partial year covering October 1st through December 31st. 
US$M: US$ million 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
273 | |
| 
20 | 
Adjacent Properties | |
The Mojave National Preserve is located to the north and southwest of the Mountain Pass property. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and
National Park Service administer the National Preserve as well as other public lands surrounding the property. SRK is not aware of any other active mining properties in the vicinity of Mountain Pass. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
274 | |
| 
21 | 
Other Relevant Data and Information | |
There is no additional relevant data or information that would be material to the mineral resources or reserves at the Mountain Pass
Project, beyond what is discussed in the other sections of this report. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
275 | |
| 
22 | 
Interpretation and Conclusions | |
Based on the data available and the analysis described in this report, in SRKs opinion, the Mountain Pass operation has a valid
resource and reserve, as stated herein. 
| 
22.1 | 
Mineral Resource Estimate | |
The mineral resource estimate is constrained by a geological model and grade boundaries internal to the carbonatite shapes which define a
higher grade TREO-rich core vs. an undifferentiated outer shell. The project features a simple Excel-based drilling database, most of which has no quality control. SRK supervised a historical drill core re-sampling and re-assaying
program in 2009 through 2010 which demonstrated that, historically, the Mountain Pass laboratory underestimated grade. This is supported further by the fact that grade control and production grades are higher than predicted by the resource block
model. The mine currently features positive reconciliations to previous modeling efforts as well as the current prediction of grade if based solely on exploration data. Consequently, SRK is confident that the resource block model is based on
drilling data which has been demonstrated to be reliable, albeit conservative, representation of the TREO grade. Other elements such as phosphorus or the discrete LREO or HREO components have been variably analyzed and do not exist at the same
density as the TREO information. 
SRK has constrained and controlled the mineral resource estimation based on the 2024 geological
model. TREO samples from drilling and blastholes have been composited for the purposes of use in estimation. Estimates of grade from both data sets have been used to inform the conventional block model, coded by lithology, resource domain, and a
variety of other factors relevant to mining and reporting. 
The block model has been constrained by a resource pit shell and reported
above the reported CoG. Mineral resources have been reported in this report both inclusive of reserves, and exclusive of reserves. The latter should be considered final and authoritative for SEC disclosure purposes. 
SRK has addressed uncertainty and risk in the estimate by categorizing the mineral resources with respect to confidence in the estimate
or underlying data supporting it. The mineral resources at the Mountain Pass deposit have been classified in accordance with SEC S-K 1300 definitions and guidance. The classification parameters are defined by both the distance to composite data, the
number of drillholes used to inform block grades and a geostatistical indicator of relative estimation quality (kriging efficiency). 
| 
22.2 | 
Mineral Reserve Estimate | |
SRK developed a LoM plan for the Mountain Pass operation in support of mineral reserves. MP Materials is ramping up the on-site
separations facility at Mountain Pass that allows the Company to separate bastnaesite concentrate into four individual REO products for sale (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride. Forecast economic parameters are based on
current cost performance for process, transportation, and administrative costs, as well as a first principles estimation of future mining costs. Forecast revenue from individual separated product sales is based on a preliminary market study
commissioned by MP Materials, as discussed in Section 16 of this report. 
From this evaluation, pit optimization was performed
based on prices that were established by the preliminary market study. The results of pit optimization guided the design and scheduling of the 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
276 | |
ultimate pit. SRK generated a cash flow model which indicated positive economics for
the approximately 28 year LoM plan, which provides the basis for the reserves. Reserves within the new ultimate pit are sequenced for approximately 22 years (Q4 2025 through Q3 2047). Processing of stockpile material will occur for approximately 6
more years (Q4 2047 through Q1 2053). 
The costs used for pit optimization include estimated mining, processing, sustaining capital,
transportation, and administrative costs, including an allocation of corporate costs. 
Processing recovery for concentrate is
variable based on a mathematical relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade. The calculated CoG for the reserves is 2.50% TREO, which was applied to indicated blocks contained within an ultimate pit, the design of which was guided
by economic pit optimization. 
The optimized pit shell selected to guide final pit design was based on a combination of the revenue
factor (RF) 0.40 pit (used on the north half of the deposit) and the RF 1.00 pit shell (used on the south half of the deposit). The inter-ramp angles (IRA) used for the mine design are based on operational-level geotechnical studies and range from
44 to 47. 
Measured resources in stockpiles were converted to proven reserves. Indicated pit resources were converted to
probable reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors, as described herein, to potential mining pit shapes created during the mine design process. Inferred resources present within the LoM reserves pit are treated as waste. 
The mine design process results in in situ open pit probable mineral reserves of 28.16 Mst with an average grade of 5.96% TREO.
Additionally, there are 1.05 Mst of proven mineral reserves in stockpiles with an average grade of 4.16% TREO. The reference point for the mineral reserves is ore delivered to the integrated crushing and ore sorting facility. MP Materials
mining engineers provided a September 30, 2025 topography as a reserve starting point. 
In the opinion of SRK as the QP, the
conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves has been completed in accordance with CFR 17, Part 229 (S-K 1300). 
The reserve
estimate herein is subject to potential change based on changes to the forward-looking cost and revenue assumptions utilized in this study. It is assumed that MP Materials will ramp up its on-site separations facilities to full capacity by Q1 2027.
It is further assumed that MP Materials will install an integrated crushing and ore sorting facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. 
Full extraction of this reserve is dependent upon modification of current permitted boundaries for the open pit. Failure to achieve
modification of these boundaries would result in MP Materials not being able to extract the full reserve estimated in this study. It is MP Materials expectation that it will be successful in modifying this permit condition. In SRKs
opinion, MP Materials expectation in this regard is reasonable. 
A portion of the resource pit encroaches on an adjoining
mineral right holders concession. This portion of the pit would only include waste stripping (i.e., no rare earth mineralization is assumed to be extracted from this concession). The prior owner of Mountain Pass had an agreement with this
concession holder to allow this waste stripping (with the requirement that aggregate mined be stockpiled for the owners use). MP Materials does not currently have this agreement in place, but SRK believes it is reasonable to assume MP
Materials will be able to negotiate a similar agreement. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
277 | |
| 
22.3 | 
Metallurgy and Processing | |
| 
22.3.1 | 
Existing Crushing and Concentration Operations | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MP Materials has operated a flotation concentrator since December 2017 to recover a bastnaesite concentrate that
historically was shipped to China for further processing, but is currently being separated into saleable products at the recommissioned on-site separations facility. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
MP Materials has conducted flotation studies to evaluate TREO recovery vs. ore grade and has developed a mathematical
relationship to estimate overall TREO recovery vs. ore grade, which has been used to estimate TREO recovery from lower grade ores later in the mine life. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Significant improvements in concentrator performance have occurred since May 2019, which are attributed primarily to the
installation of a boiler that has enabled flotation to be conducted at a constant higher temperature, as well as new reagent testing and incremental improvements in the concentrator. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
During 2024, the concentrator processed 763,356 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.55% TREO and recovered
70.1% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 61.0% TREO. During this period 45,455 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total 13,700 metric tonnes were roasted and advanced to the separations plant. The remainder of
the TREO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrate: Product Code 4000 (30,116 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (1,639 metric tonnes REO). | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
During 2025 (YTD - September), the concentrator processed 611,704 metric tonnes of ore at an average grade of 8.45% TREO
and recovered 76.0% of the contained TREO into flotation concentrates that averaged 62.5% TREO. During this period 38,609 metric tonnes of TREO were produced, of this total, 18,158 metric tonnes TREO were roasted and advanced to the separations
plant. The remainder of the TREO was sold to customers as unroasted concentrate: Product Code 4000 (20,308 metric tonnes TREO) and roasted concentrate: Product Code 4050 (143 metric tonnes TREO). | |
| 
22.3.2 | 
Modified and Recommissioned Separations Facility | |
MP Materials is in the process of ramping up its modified and recommissioned on-site separations facility to produce individual rare
earth products. The incentive for this substantial process change is the enhancement of revenue that will be realized for producing individual rare earth products as compared to the previous practice of producing a single rare earth containing
flotation concentrate which was sold to various entities that separate and market individual rare earth products. Over the past several years, MP Materials has made substantial technical and financial commitments to modify and recommission an
on-site separation facility that allows for the sale of individual rare earth products. 
A Qualified Person site visit to the MP
Materials operation at Mountain Pass was undertaken in December 2024 by SGS. This visit involved a brief reintroduction to the mining operation and the flotation plant along with a more detailed discussion and inspection of ongoing separations
facility ramp up efforts. Conversations were held with MP Materials engineers who are directly involved with the ongoing ramp up operations. Information provided revealed that the concentrate roasting section of the facility, particularly the
product cooler following the roaster, has had commissioning, operational continuity, and throughput challenges. MP Materials engineering personnel have been addressing these challenges. As a result of these efforts, a revised ramp up schedule has
been developed by MP 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
278 | |
Materials personnel and is in the process of being implemented. This new schedule
stipulates that the full separations facility output will be achieved by approximately Q1 2027 and, in the opinion of the SGS Qualified Person, is likely to be achieved. When the full design output is achieved, nearly all of the bastnsite
concentrate produced will be consumed. If the bastnsite concentrate production exceeds the separations facility limit for REO throughput, the excess concentrate will be stockpiled for processing during periods when there is unused capacity at
the separations facility. 
| 
22.3.3 | 
Planned Crushing and Ore Sorter Circuits | |
MP Materials is planning to install an ore sorting circuit to upgrade low grade ore containing 2.5% to 5.0% TREO. As part of the new ore
sorter installation, MP Materials will decommission the existing crushing plant and construct two new crushing facilities. MP Materials expects the integrated crushing and ore sorting facility to begin ramping up operations during Q1 2027. 
In the future, MP Materials plans to evaluate whether even lower grade material (<2.5% TREO) is potentially amenable to ore sorting.
| 
22.4 | 
Project Infrastructure | |
The Mountain Pass site has all facilities required for operation, including the open pit, concentrator, separations facility, access and
haul roads, explosives storage, fuel tanks and fueling systems, warehouse, security guard house and perimeter fencing, tailings filter plant, tailings storage area, waste rock storage area, administrative and office buildings, surface water control
systems, evaporation ponds, miscellaneous shops, truck shop, laboratory, multiple laydown areas, power supply, water supply, waste handling bins and temporary storage locations, and a fully developed communications system. 
Access to the site, as well as site haul roads and other minor roads are fully developed and controlled by MP Materials. There is no
public access through the Project area. All public access roads that lead to the Project are gated at the property boundary. 
Outside
services include industrial maintenance contractors, equipment suppliers and general service contractors. Access to qualified contractors and suppliers is excellent due to the proximity of population centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada as well as
Elko, Nevada (an established large mining district) and Phoenix, Arizona (servicing the copper mining industry). 
Substantially all
the power to the Mountain Pass facility is currently supplied by a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or co-generation (cogen) power facility with two natural gas-fired turbines capable of producing up to 26 MW of power combined. In addition, the site is
served by a 12-kV line from a Southern California Edison substation two miles away. 
Water is supplied through active water wells
located eight miles west of the project. Fire systems are supplied by separate fire water tanks and pumps. 
The LoM plan includes the
planned relocation of key infrastructure to support ongoing operations. The existing crusher will be replaced with an integrated crushing and ore sorting facility that will begin ramping up in Q1 2027. The construction of this new facility will
allow the existing crusher to be removed, thereby accommodating the northern expansion of the pit. Additionally, in 2033, the filtered tailings plant and water tankscurrently situated northeast of the pit highwall near the concentration 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
279 | |
plantwill be relocated. Capital cost provisions are included in the technical
economic model (TEM) for these relocations. 
The project has utilized approximately 5.3 Mst of the total capacity of the tailings
storage facility. The existing facility has a remaining capacity of approximately 16.3 Mst which will provide approximately 18 more years of storage. MP Materials will expand the existing tailings facility to the northwest in approximately 2043
to provide additional storage capacity. A capital cost provision has been included in the TEM for this expansion. 
Site logistics are
straightforward with the concentrate product historically shipped in supersacks within a shipping container by truck approximately 4.5 hours to the port of Los Angeles. At the port, the containers were loaded onto a container ship and shipped to the
final customers. Since mid-2025, concentrate is now being stockpiled and processed at the on-site rare earth separations facility Refined products are shipped in supersacks and intermediate bulk containers (IBC tote). Rail transshipment
infrastructure is available in Henderson, NV and Barstow, CA less than two hours drive from the site. 
| 
22.5 | 
Products and Markets | |
Separated REE products outlined in this report (PrNd oxide, SEG+ precipitate, La carbonate, and Ce chloride) are considered marketable
from an economic perspective, provided market standards and requirements are met. , Adamas forecasts a long-term price of US$134.49/kg REO for PrNd oxide, US$51.30/kg REO for SEG+ precipitate, US$1.46/kg REO for Lanthanum carbonate, and US$6.62/kg
REO for Cerium chloride. The mixed rare earth concentrate price of US$11.51/kg of contained REO will be principally driven by trends in PrNd and dysprosium (Dy), price swings of which will be mirrored by concentrates. 
As per the July 2025 Price Protection Agreement announced between MP Materials and the DoW, MP Materials receives a
difference-in-condition payment for produced or stockpiled PrNd material for a minimum effective price of US$110/kg of contained PrNd. To the extent prices are above US$110/kg, following the date when MP Materials 10X Magnet facility reaches
full capacity, MP Materials will share 30% of the upside above US$110/kg with the DoW. The Price Protection Agreement is effective from October 1, 2025 through December 31, 2035. 
| 
22.6 | 
Environmental, Closure, and Permitting | |
As of September 30, 2025, MP Materials holds the necessary operating permits, including conditional use and minor use permits from
the County of San Bernardino (SBC), which currently allows continued operations of the Mountain Pass facility through 2042. The proposed mine plan extends the mine life to 2053. The future mine plan requires expansion of the current permitted
boundary of the open pit, expansion of the North Overburden Stockpile and construction of a new East Overburden Stockpile. 
MP
Materials will need to engage with the SBC-LUS and other regulatory authorities and allow sufficient time to prepare the permit applications and gain the necessary approvals to implement the mine plan described herein. There is a risk that the
timing for regulatory approvals may be longer than anticipated. In this case, MP Materials may not be able to implement or follow the mine plan as currently proposed. SRK is of the opinion that MP Materials will continue to successfully engage
regulatory authorities and gain approval for future amendments related to site operations within the private property boundary. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
280 | |
| 
22.7 | 
Projected Economic Outcomes | |
The Mountain Pass operation consists of an open pit mine and several processing facilities fed by the open pit mine. The operation is
modeled over a 30 year period with the first modeled year of operation a partial year to align with the effective date of the reserves. Under the forward-looking assumptions modeled and documented in this report, the operation is forecast to
generate positive cashflow in every year except the final year of operation. In the final year of operation, negative cashflow is expected as the operation winds down. As modeled for this analysis, the operation is forecast to produce
1.80 million dry metric tonnes of concentrate to be processed into separated materials. This results in a forecast after-tax project NPV at 6% of US$5.8 billion. 
The analysis performed for this report indicates that the operations NPV is most sensitive to variations in the commodity price
received, the grade of ore mined and processing plant performance. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
281 | |
| 
23 | 
Recommendations | |
As an operating mine, there are no further work programs or studies that are required to extract the reserve estimated herein. However,
there remain opportunities for MP Materials to perform additional data collection or study to potentially benefit the operation. 
| 
23.1 | 
Geology and Resources | |
MP Materials is planning a resource definition drilling program at the Mountain Pass mine in 2026. As shown in recent production
reconciliation, modeling of short-range variability in the resource will depend on additional information at relatively close spacings to characterize and improve prediction of tons and grade for short term planning. In addition, the resource
locally remains open at depth and may benefit from additional drilling at depth and in areas of wider-spaced drilling. 
Additional recommendations
include: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
A study of ore density vs. ore grade, which can be completed using existing core in storage or newly acquired drill core
may improve the accuracy of the block model grade and tonnage estimation. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Improved database architecture and validation of exploration and mine data. Currently, this is based almost entirely on
digital spreadsheets. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Separate assaying of the light rare earth oxides and phosphorus through the carbonatite units and 20 ft into the
hanging-wall and footwall units should be implemented routinely for future drilling and further re-assaying of existing drill core. This should be extended to individual heavy rare earth oxides should the project strategy consider incorporating
these as products in the future. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Phosphorus assays may help to refine the resource model by identifying monazite-rich zones. SRK also recommends creating
a minimum of two (a high and low grade) site specific reference standards for QA/QC to be used in all future assaying programs. These reference standards should be certified through a multi-laboratory round-robin program to achieve industry best
practice. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SRK strongly recommends improving the QA/QC process to demonstrate that the internal laboratory and any external
laboratories can be independently checked for precision and accuracy. Currently, the lack of commercial standards and a consistent approach to blank and duplicate insertion and analysis is not consistent with industry standards. | |
| 
23.2 | 
Mining and Reserves | |
| 
23.2.1 | 
Geotechnical Recommendations: | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
CNI performed a site visit in 2025 and did not observe any change in conditions that warrant a revision to the 2022
recommended pit slope design parameters. CNI continues to conduct annual site visits to assess slope conditions, and no significant deformation has been observed during the most recent inspections. Routine geotechnical slope monitoring and visual
observations should continue as mining progresses. To supplement observations from mine personnel, CNI has recommended the review of historical InSAR data to evaluate whether any long-term or low-magnitude deformation trends are present. InSAR is a
satellite-based observation technique and is well-suited to this task. Additionally, a drone-based | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
282 | |
| 
| 
photogrammetry program is recommended to support change detection, high-resolution wall mapping, and the identification of incipient instability. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
CNI has developed a geotechnical drilling program to support the planned pit expansion, including six additional core
holes in the final pit walls. The core data will be used to update the geotechnical and structural models and to continue to confirm or refine the pit slope angles and design parameters. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
SRK has reviewed and concurs with CNIs recommendations for InSAR monitoring, drone photogrammetry, and additional
geotechnical core data. | |
| 
23.2.2 | 
Hydrogeology: | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Summarize the completed hydrogeological study by CNI in a report identifying the conceptual hydrogeological model, its
elements, and dewatering targets. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Identify dewatering strategy - mining dry (additional pumping wells would be required) or mining wet (continuing pumping
from two existing wells) and handling residual passive inflow (RPI) by sumping at the pit bottom. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Update or develop a new numerical groundwater flow to predict inflow to the proposed pit and better define: | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Dewatering requirements | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Pore pressures in pit walls and the potential necessity to reduce them by installation of horizontal drain holes from
pit benches (if required by geotechnical conditions of the slopes) | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Propagation of the drawdown cone during both mining and post-mining conditions (including pit lake infilling) to
evaluate the potential impact on the groundwater system because of the continued deepening of the open pit | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Drill the pilot test holes and install an additional deeper pumping well with a long screen. Conduct a proper pumping
test and spinner logging within the screen interval of these pumping wells. This is required to increase the total pumping rate from the dewatering wells to minimize or eliminate RPI | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
The estimated cost to conduct the drilling, hydrogeological studies and numerical groundwater modeling is approximately
US$1.0 million. | |
| 
23.2.3 | 
Costs and Economics | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
Develop a more-detailed mid- and long-term sustaining capital expenditure estimate. SRK completed a long-term estimate
for mining-related capital, and other components of the operation should generate a similar forecast to improve long-term budgeting. There would be no additional cost for this recommendation as the work would be performed by existing MP Materials
staff. | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
283 | |
| 
24 | 
References | |
American Geological Institute (AGI) (1997). Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms, 2nd Ed. 
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1976). Rock Mass Classification in Rock
Engineering, in proceedings Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, South Africa, vol 1, p. 97-106. 
Call & Nicholas Inc. (CNI) (2011). Slope Stability Study Mountain Pass Mine. Consultants report dated
October 2011, 135 p. 
Call & Nicholas Inc. (CNI) (2021) November 2021 Mountain Pass: power point
presentation showing status of geotechnical study, November 2021 
Castor, S.B. (2008). The Mountain Pass Rare-Earth
Carbonatite and Associated Ultrapotassic Rocks, California. The Canadian Mineralogist, 46 (4): 779-806. 
CNI
(2025). Mountain Pass Site Visit Report: memo prepared for MP Minerals, August 12, 2025. 
CNI (2024). Mountain
Pass Site Visit Report: memo prepared for MP Minerals, September 16, 2024. 
CNI (2022). 2022 Hydrogeological
Characterization Study: memo prepared for MP Minerals, November 3, 2022. 
CNI (2022). Mountain Pass Phase 10
Geotechnical Feasibility Study, January 2022. 
ENSR (1996). Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine Expansion Project Mountain
Pass, California. Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 9. 
Geo-Logic Associates (2023). First
Semiannual 2023 Monitoring Report, Mountain Pass Mine and Mill Site, San Bernardino County, California. July 30, 2023. 
Geo-Logic Associates (2021), First Semiannual 2021 Monitoring Report Mine and Mill Site Monitoring and Reporting
Program: report prepared for MP Materials, July 30, 2021 
Geo-Logic Associates (2021). Annual 2022 Monitoring
Report Mine and Mill Site Monitoring and Reporting Program: report prepared for MP Materials, March 30, 2021. 
Geomega, Inc. (2000). A Groundwater Hydrology and Modeling Investigation of the Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine and Mill
Site, Mountain Pass, California. February 2020. 
Golder Associates (2002). Post Closure Stability Analyses,
Mountain Pass Mine, California. Consultants Technical Memorandum dated November 5, 2002, 24 p. 
Golder
Associates (2009). Mountain Pass Mine Pit Slope Inspection. Consultants Report dated September 8, 2009, 50 p. 
GSi/Water (1995). Results of Falling Head Tests in Selected Monitoring Wells, Mountain Pass Operations, Mountain Pass,
California. January 1995. 
GSi/Water (1991). Ground Water Cleanup Strategy for Molycorp, Inc. Mountain Pass
Operations. 1991. 
Haxel, G.B. (2005). Ultrapotassic Mafic Dikes and Rare Earth Element- and Barium-Rich
Carbonatite at Mountain Pass, Mojave Desert, Southern California: Summary and Field Trip Localities. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2005-1219. 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
284 | |
InfoMine USA, Inc., (2025). Mine and Mill Equipment Costs, Spokane
Valley, Washington. 
Olson, J.C., Shawe, D.R., Pray, L.C., and Sharp, W.N., 1954. Rare-Earth Mineral Deposits of
the Mountain Pass District, San Bernardino County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Survey Professional Paper 261. 
Molycorp Inc. (2005). Final Mine and Reclamation Plan for the Mountain Pass Mine, 2004M-02, CA Mine Id#91-36-0002,
Submitted to County of San Bernadino, Finalized March 2005, 117p. 
Nicholas & Sims, 2001, Collecting and
Using Geologic Structure for Slope Design. Published in Slope Stability in Surface Mining ed Hustrulid, W.A., McCarter, M.K., & VanZyl D.: pp 11-26. 
Read & Stacey (2009). Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CRC Press, 510 p. 
Ritchie, AM (1963). Evaluation of Rockfall and Its Control, Highway Research Record (17) 13-28. 
Ryan & Pryor (2000). Designing Catch Benches and Interramp Slopes. In W. A. Hustrulid, M. K.
McCarter, & D. J. Van Zyl (Eds.), Slope Stability in Surface Mining (pp. 27-38). Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. 
SRK Consulting (2025). SEC Technical Report Summary Pre-Feasibility Study Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County,
California, dated February 19, 2025. 
SRK Consulting (2024). SEC Technical Report Summary Pre-Feasibility
Study Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California, dated February 22, 2024. 
SRK Consulting (2022).
SEC Technical Report Summary Pre-Feasibility Study Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California, dated February 16, 2022. 
SRK Consulting (2020). SEC Guide 7 Technical Report Resource and Reserve Statement, Mountain Pass, San Bernadino
County, California, dated September 28, 2020, 214p. 
SRK Consulting (2012). NI 43-101 Technical Report
Mountain Pass Rare Earth Project, San Bernadino County, California, dated May 7, 2012, 251p. 
SRK (2010),
Engineering Study for Re-Start of Mountain Pass Rare Earth Element Mine and Processing Facility Mountain Pass, California: report prepared for Molycorp Minerals, April 28. 
SRK (1985). Hydrologic Assessment Report Prepared for the Application for Exemption from the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of
1984 (AB 3566), Molycorp Mountain Pass Operations. December 1985. 
Storey, A.W. (2010). Design Optimization of
Safety Benches for Surface Quarries through Rockfall Testing and Evaluation, MS Thesis, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 136p. 
Vector Engineering Inc. (1995). Post Closure Pit Slope Analyses for the Mountain Pass Mine in San Bernadino County,
California, Job No. 975003.00. December, 1995 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
285 | |
| 
25 | 
Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant | |
The Qualified Persons opinions contained herein is based on information provided to the Qualified Persons by MP Materials
throughout the course of the investigations. Table 25-1 of this section of the Technical Report Summary will: 
(i) Identify the categories of information provided by the registrant; 
(ii) Identify the particular portions of the Technical Report Summary that were prepared in reliance on information provided by the
registrant pursuant to Subpart 1302 (f)(1), and the extent of that reliance; and 
(iii) Disclose why the qualified person considers
it reasonable to rely upon the registrant for any of the information specified in Subpart 1302 (f)(1). 
**Table 25-1: Reliance on Information Provided by the Registrant**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Category | 
| 
ReportItem/Portion | 
| 
| 
Portion ofTechnicalReportSummary | 
| 
| 
Disclose Why the Qualified Person Considers it Reasonable to Rely Upon
theRegistrant | 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Claims
List | 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
| 
| 
3.2 Mineral Title | 
| 
| 
MP Materials provided SRK
with a current listing of claims. The information was sourced from the Bureau of Land Management. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Marketing
Agreements | 
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
| 
| 
16.5 SpecificProducts | 
| 
| 
MP Materials provided
Adamas with information regarding the product specifications intended for production both now and in future | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Marketing
Agreements | 
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
| 
| 
16.7 Contracts | 
| 
| 
MP Materials provided
Adamas with current marketing agreements and potential terms of agreements tied to future product sales and operations. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Marketing Plans | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| 
| 
| 
19 EconomicAnalysis | 
| 
| 
MP Materials provided SRK
with input into the shipping points of sale and associated shipping costs used in the model. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Environmental
Studies | 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
| 
| 
17.1EnvironmentalStudies | 
| 
| 
SRK was provided with
various environmental studies conducted on site. These studies were of a vintage that independent validation could not be completed. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Discount Rates | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| 
| 
| 
19 EconomicAnalysis | 
| 
| 
MP Materials provided SRK
with discount rates for project evaluation in line with previous evaluations. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Tax rates and government
royalties | 
| 
| 
19 | 
| 
| 
| 
19 EconomicAnalysis | 
| 
| 
SRK was provided with income
tax rates by MP Materials for application within the model. These rates are in line with SRKs understanding of the tax regime at the
project location. | 
| 
| 
| 
| |
Source: SRK and Adamas, 2025 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Page
286 | |
**Signature Page**
This report titled SEC Technical Report Summary, Pre-Feasibility Study, Mountain Pass Mine, San Bernardino County, California with an
effective date of October 1, 2025, was prepared and signed by: 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. | 
| 
(Signed) SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Dated at Denver, Colorado | 
| 
| |
| 
February 16, 2026 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
SGS North America Inc. | 
| 
(Signed) SGS North America Inc. | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Dated at Tucson, Arizona | 
| 
| |
| 
February 16, 2026 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Adamas Intelligence Inc. | 
| 
(Signed) Adamas Intelligence Inc. | |
| 
| 
| |
| 
Dated at Toronto, Canada | 
| 
| |
| 
February 16, 2026 | 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
**Appendices**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
**Appendix A: Claims List**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
**Locator: MP MINE OPERATIONS LLC**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian Township RangeSection | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
JACK NO 36 | 
| 
CA101547491 | 
| 
478 | 
| 
244 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/1/1969 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
JACK NO 39 | 
| 
CA101334324 | 
| 
478 | 
| 
250 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/1/1969 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
JACK 66 | 
| 
CA101304758 | 
| 
93 | 
| 
080784 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/12/1993 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
ACE #1 | 
| 
CA101348437 | 
| 
80 | 
| 
149149 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
5/2/1980 | 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 026 | |
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
ACE #2 | 
| 
CA101347323 | 
| 
80 | 
| 
149150 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
5/2/1980 | 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 023 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 026 | |
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
ACE #3 | 
| 
CA101349790 | 
| 
80 | 
| 
149151 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
5/2/1980 | 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 023 | |
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
ACE NO 6 | 
| 
CA101452381 | 
| 
98 | 
| 
0164692 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/8/1998 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
ACE NO 7 | 
| 
CA101759245 | 
| 
98 | 
| 
0164693 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/10/1998 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
QUEEN 90 | 
| 
CA101452742 | 
| 
94 | 
| 
307702 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/1/1994 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
SHADOW VALLEY 1857 MILLSITE No. 1 | 
| 
CA101759479 | 
| 
84 | 
| 
125928 | 
| 
90 | 
| 
171324 | 
| 
5/8/1984 | 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
SHADOW VALLEY 1857 MILLSITE No. 2 | 
| 
CA101600622 | 
| 
84 | 
| 
125929 | 
| 
90 | 
| 
171325 | 
| 
5/8/1984 | 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0120E 033 | |
**Total Number of Unpatented Claims = 11 Mill Site Claims**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
**Locator: Secure Natural Resources LLC**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
1 | 
| 
BIRTHDAY NO 1 | 
| 
CA101460369 | 
| 
305 | 
| 
354 | 
| 
439 | 
| 
324 | 
| 
4/17/1949 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
| 
2 | 
| 
BIRTHDAY NO 6 | 
| 
CA101477991 | 
| 
305 | 
| 
364 | 
| 
439 | 
| 
328 | 
| 
4/17/1949 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
| 
3 | 
| 
EARL NO 1 | 
| 
CA101304196 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
862 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
529 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
4 | 
| 
EARL NO 2 | 
| 
CA101457207 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
869 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
531 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
5 | 
| 
EARL NO 3 | 
| 
CA101603492 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
864 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
593 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
6 | 
| 
EARL NO 4 | 
| 
CA101378502 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
865 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
535 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
7 | 
| 
EARL NO 5 | 
| 
CA101300349 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
866 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
537 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
8 | 
| 
EARL NO 6 | 
| 
CA101338439 | 
| 
491 | 
| 
867 | 
| 
493 | 
| 
539 | 
| 
7/22/1971 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
9 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 1 | 
| 
CA101491436 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
58 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
459 | 
| 
3/1/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
10 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 2 | 
| 
CA101493750 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
59 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
460 | 
| 
3/1/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
11 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 3 | 
| 
CA101493145 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
60 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
461 | 
| 
3/1/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
12 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 4 | 
| 
CA101451444 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
61 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
462 | 
| 
3/3/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
13 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 5 | 
| 
CA101451919 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
62 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
3/4/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
14 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 6 | 
| 
CA101455025 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
63 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
464 | 
| 
3/12/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
15 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 7 | 
| 
CA101337812 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
64 | 
| 
316 | 
| 
465 | 
| 
3/16/1950 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
16 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 8 | 
| 
CA101300112 | 
| 
314 | 
| 
321 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/8/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
17 | 
| 
MINERAL HILL NO 9 | 
| 
CA101337191 | 
| 
314 | 
| 
322 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/8/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
18 | 
| 
BEARGRASS | 
| 
CA101377673 | 
| 
311 | 
| 
217 | 
| 
439 | 
| 
341 | 
| 
12/27/1949 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
| 
19 | 
| 
BRENDA | 
| 
CA101379430 | 
| 
83-027678 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/28/1983 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
20 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 1 | 
| 
CA101455309 | 
| 
83-004815 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
21 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 2 | 
| 
CA101335033 | 
| 
83-027679 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/27/1983 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
22 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 3 | 
| 
CA101477651 | 
| 
83-004817 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
23 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 4 | 
| 
CA101457869 | 
| 
83-004818 | 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
24 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 5 | 
| 
CA101452669 | 
| 
83-004819 | 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
25 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 6 | 
| 
CA101496583 | 
| 
83-004820 | 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
26 | 
| 
DESERT POPPY 7 | 
| 
CA101459245 | 
| 
83-004821 | 
| 
12/20/1982 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 12 | 
| 
CA101338462 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
701 | 
| 
481 | 
| 
386 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
| 
28 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 14 | 
| 
CA101379437 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
707 | 
| 
481 | 
| 
390 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
| 
29 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 16 | 
| 
CA101339148 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
713 | 
| 
468 | 
| 
981 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
| 
30 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 18 | 
| 
CA101347058 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
719 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
985 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
31 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 20 | 
| 
CA101455694 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
725 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
989 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
32 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 22 | 
| 
CA101477592 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
731 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
993 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
33 | 
| 
CLARK MOUNTAIN NO 24 | 
| 
CA101542123 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
737 | 
| 
463 | 
| 
997 | 
| 
4/20/1967 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
34 | 
| 
LUCKY STRIKE NO 1 | 
| 
CA101350372 | 
| 
311 | 
| 
469 | 
| 
430 | 
| 
274 | 
| 
2/20/1950 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
35 | 
| 
LUCKY STRIKE NO 2 | 
| 
CA101379414 | 
| 
311 | 
| 
470 | 
| 
430 | 
| 
276 | 
| 
2/20/1950 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
36 | 
| 
LUCKY STRIKE NO 3 | 
| 
CA101363414 | 
| 
311 | 
| 
562 | 
| 
430 | 
| 
278 | 
| 
2/20/1950 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
37 | 
| 
LUCKY STRIKE NO 4 | 
| 
CA101335038 | 
| 
311 | 
| 
563 | 
| 
430 | 
| 
280 | 
| 
3/8/1950 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
38 | 
| 
LUCKY STRIKE NO 5 | 
| 
CA101493730 | 
| 
312 | 
| 
359 | 
| 
430 | 
| 
282 | 
| 
4/26/1950 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
39 | 
| 
BAILEY 1 | 
| 
CA101491670 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1146 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
781 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
| 
40 | 
| 
BAILEY 2 | 
| 
CA101453197 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1147 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
782 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
41 | 
| 
BAILEY 3 | 
| 
CA101458647 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1148 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
783 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
42 | 
| 
BAILEY 4 | 
| 
CA101479409 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1149 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
784 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
43 | 
| 
BAILEY 5 | 
| 
CA101457920 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1150 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
785 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM Serial
Number | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date Of
Location | 
| 
Meridian Township
Range Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
44 | 
| 
BAILEY 6 | 
| 
CA101477751 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1151 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
786 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
45 | 
| 
BAILEY 7 | 
| 
CA101759276 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1152 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
787 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
46 | 
| 
BAILEY 8 | 
| 
CA101478201 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1153 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
788 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
47 | 
| 
BAILEY 9 | 
| 
CA101477724 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1154 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
789 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
48 | 
| 
BAILEY 10 | 
| 
CA101451505 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1155 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
790 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
49 | 
| 
BAILEY 11 | 
| 
CA101380345 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1156 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
791 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
50 | 
| 
BAILEY 12 | 
| 
CA101600728 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1157 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
792 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
51 | 
| 
BAILEY 13 | 
| 
CA101336540 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1158 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
793 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
52 | 
| 
BAILEY 14 | 
| 
CA101751521 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1159 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
794 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
53 | 
| 
BAILEY 15 | 
| 
CA101339173 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1160 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
795 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
54 | 
| 
BAILEY 16 | 
| 
CA101600946 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1161 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
796 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
55 | 
| 
BAILEY 17 | 
| 
CA101332041 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1162 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
797 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
56 | 
| 
BAILEY 18 | 
| 
CA101759661 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1163 | 
| 
9724 | 
| 
1440 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 012 | |
| 
57 | 
| 
BAILEY 19 | 
| 
CA101338534 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1164 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
799 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
58 | 
| 
BAILEY 20 | 
| 
CA101457705 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1165 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
800 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
59 | 
| 
BAILEY 21 | 
| 
CA101751510 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1166 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
801 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
60 | 
| 
BAILEY 22 | 
| 
CA101601216 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1167 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
802 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
61 | 
| 
BAILEY 23 | 
| 
CA101542063 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1168 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
803 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
62 | 
| 
BAILEY 24 | 
| 
CA101542169 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1169 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
804 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
63 | 
| 
BAILEY 25 | 
| 
CA101759673 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1170 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
805 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
64 | 
| 
BAILEY 26 | 
| 
CA101453491 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1171 | 
| 
9724 | 
| 
1441 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
65 | 
| 
BAILEY 27 | 
| 
CA101491177 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
716 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
807 | 
| 
6/29/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
66 | 
| 
BAILEY 28 | 
| 
CA101496338 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
717 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
808 | 
| 
6/29/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
67 | 
| 
BAILEY 29 | 
| 
CA101606408 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1172 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
809 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
68 | 
| 
BAILEY 30 | 
| 
CA101303524 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1173 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
810 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
69 | 
| 
BAILEY 31 | 
| 
CA101497041 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1174 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
811 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
70 | 
| 
BAILEY 32 | 
| 
CA101459515 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1175 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
812 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
71 | 
| 
BAILEY 33 | 
| 
CA101451565 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1176 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
813 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
72 | 
| 
BAILEY 34 | 
| 
CA101456043 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1177 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
814 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
73 | 
| 
BAILEY 35 | 
| 
CA101453393 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1178 | 
| 
9006 | 
| 
815 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
74 | 
| 
BAILEY 36 | 
| 
CA101457872 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1179 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
579 | 
| 
6/26/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
75 | 
| 
BAILEY 37 | 
| 
CA101600620 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1180 | 
| 
9114 | 
| 
1049 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
76 | 
| 
BAILEY 38 | 
| 
CA101758030 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1181 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
580 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
77 | 
| 
BAILEY 39 | 
| 
CA101759484 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1182 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
581 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
78 | 
| 
BAILEY 40 | 
| 
CA101459952 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1183 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
582 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
79 | 
| 
BAILEY 41 | 
| 
CA101336526 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1184 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1214 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
80 | 
| 
BAILEY 42 | 
| 
CA101454909 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1185 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1215 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
81 | 
| 
BAILEY 50 | 
| 
CA101332007 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1193 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1216 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
82 | 
| 
BAILEY 51 | 
| 
CA101477352 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1194 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1217 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
83 | 
| 
BAILEY 52 | 
| 
CA101335073 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1195 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
583 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
84 | 
| 
BAILEY 53 | 
| 
CA101754125 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1196 | 
| 
9015 | 
| 
584 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
85 | 
| 
BAILEY 54 | 
| 
CA101378572 | 
| 
8961 | 
| 
1197 | 
| 
9724 | 
| 
1442 | 
| 
6/27/1976 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
86 | 
| 
BAILEY 55 | 
| 
CA101752643 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
718 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1218 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
87 | 
| 
BAILEY 56 | 
| 
CA101333573 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
719 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1219 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
88 | 
| 
BAILEY 57 | 
| 
CA101452888 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
720 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1220 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
89 | 
| 
BAILEY 58 | 
| 
CA101477745 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
721 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1221 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
90 | 
| 
BAILEY 59 | 
| 
CA101759275 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
722 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1222 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
91 | 
| 
BAILEY 62 | 
| 
CA101601922 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
724 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1223 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
92 | 
| 
BAILEY 63 | 
| 
CA101477720 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
725 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1224 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
93 | 
| 
BAILEY 64 | 
| 
CA101751261 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
726 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1225 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
94 | 
| 
BAILEY 65 | 
| 
CA101543429 | 
| 
8964 | 
| 
727 | 
| 
9024 | 
| 
1226 | 
| 
6/28/1976 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
95 | 
| 
CMF 2 | 
| 
CA101497746 | 
| 
91-150937 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
96 | 
| 
CMF 4 | 
| 
CA101349355 | 
| 
91-150939 | 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
97 | 
| 
CMF 6 | 
| 
CA101455399 | 
| 
91-150941 | 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
98 | 
| 
CMF 8 | 
| 
CA101540603 | 
| 
91-150943 | 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
99 | 
| 
CMF 10 | 
| 
CA101601603 | 
| 
91-150945 | 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
100 | 
| 
CMF 12 | 
| 
CA101451561 | 
| 
91-150947 | 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
ClaimName | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
101 | 
| 
CMF 14 | 
| 
CA101361815 | 
| 
91-150949 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
102 | 
| 
CMF 15 | 
| 
CA101305328 | 
| 
91-150950 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
103 | 
| 
CMF 16 | 
| 
CA101730629 | 
| 
91-150951 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
104 | 
| 
CMF 17 | 
| 
CA101458882 | 
| 
91-150952 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
105 | 
| 
CMF 18 | 
| 
CA101543575 | 
| 
91-150953 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
106 | 
| 
CMF 19 | 
| 
CA101477783 | 
| 
91-150954 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
107 | 
| 
CMF 20 | 
| 
CA101547304 | 
| 
91-150955 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
108 | 
| 
CMF 21 | 
| 
CA101601873 | 
| 
91-150956 | 
| 
3/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
109 | 
| 
CMF 27 | 
| 
CA101457805 | 
| 
91-150962 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
110 | 
| 
CMF 29 | 
| 
CA101479330 | 
| 
91-150964 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
111 | 
| 
CMF 31 | 
| 
CA101490641 | 
| 
91-150966 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
112 | 
| 
CMF 33 | 
| 
CA101495479 | 
| 
91-150968 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
113 | 
| 
CMF 35 | 
| 
CA101300927 | 
| 
91-150970 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
114 | 
| 
CMF 37 | 
| 
CA101490995 | 
| 
91-150972 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
115 | 
| 
CMF 39 | 
| 
CA101547436 | 
| 
91-150974 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
116 | 
| 
CMF 41 | 
| 
CA101478981 | 
| 
91-150976 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
117 | 
| 
CMF 42 | 
| 
CA101457866 | 
| 
91-150977 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
118 | 
| 
CMF 43 | 
| 
CA101452666 | 
| 
91-150978 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
119 | 
| 
CMF 44 | 
| 
CA101496580 | 
| 
91-150979 | 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
120 | 
| 
CMF 45 | 
| 
CA101338452 | 
| 
91-150980 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/8/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
121 | 
| 
CMF 46 | 
| 
CA101331143 | 
| 
91-150981 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
122 | 
| 
CMF 47 | 
| 
CA101377544 | 
| 
91-150982 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
123 | 
| 
CMF 48 | 
| 
CA101454670 | 
| 
91-150983 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
124 | 
| 
CMF 49 | 
| 
CA101540861 | 
| 
91-150984 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
125 | 
| 
CMF 50 | 
| 
CA101478745 | 
| 
91-150985 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
126 | 
| 
CMF 51 | 
| 
CA101544694 | 
| 
91-150986 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 011 | |
| 
127 | 
| 
CMF 52 | 
| 
CA101600612 | 
| 
91-150987 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
128 | 
| 
CMF 53 | 
| 
CA101454626 | 
| 
91-150988 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
129 | 
| 
CMF 54 | 
| 
CA101493241 | 
| 
91-150989 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
130 | 
| 
CMF 55 | 
| 
CA101302962 | 
| 
91-150990 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
131 | 
| 
CMF 56 | 
| 
CA101347357 | 
| 
91-150991 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
132 | 
| 
CMF 57 | 
| 
CA101349452 | 
| 
91-150992 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
133 | 
| 
CMF 58 | 
| 
CA101498009 | 
| 
91-150993 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
134 | 
| 
CMF 59 | 
| 
CA101457664 | 
| 
91-150994 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
135 | 
| 
CMF 60 | 
| 
CA101755495 | 
| 
91-150995 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
136 | 
| 
CMF 61 | 
| 
CA101477618 | 
| 
91-150996 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
137 | 
| 
CMF 62 | 
| 
CA101758025 | 
| 
91-150997 | 
| 
3/10/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
138 | 
| 
CMF 65 | 
| 
CA101338538 | 
| 
91-151000 | 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
139 | 
| 
CMF 66 | 
| 
CA101332820 | 
| 
91-151001 | 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
140 | 
| 
CMF 67 | 
| 
CA101378559 | 
| 
91-151002 | 
| 
3/9/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
141 | 
| 
CMF 68 | 
| 
CA101335810 | 
| 
91-151003 | 
| 
4/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
142 | 
| 
CMF 69 | 
| 
CA101380331 | 
| 
91-151004 | 
| 
4/6/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
143 | 
| 
CMF 70 | 
| 
CA101455462 | 
| 
91-352157 | 
| 
8/29/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
144 | 
| 
CMF 71 | 
| 
CA101755519 | 
| 
91-353093 | 
| 
8/29/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
145 | 
| 
CMF 72 | 
| 
CA101601219 | 
| 
91-353094 | 
| 
8/29/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
146 | 
| 
CMF 73 | 
| 
CA101756663 | 
| 
91-353095 | 
| 
8/29/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
147 | 
| 
CMF 74 | 
| 
CA101452286 | 
| 
91-353096 | 
| 
8/29/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
148 | 
| 
SYENITE 2 | 
| 
CA101347915 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1001 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
149 | 
| 
SYENITE 3 | 
| 
CA101303517 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1002 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
150 | 
| 
SYENITE 4 | 
| 
CA101493154 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1003 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
151 | 
| 
SYENITE 5 | 
| 
CA101338481 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1004 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
152 | 
| 
SYENITE 6 | 
| 
CA101350332 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1005 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
153 | 
| 
SYENITE 7 | 
| 
CA101493430 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1006 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
154 | 
| 
SYENITE 9 | 
| 
CA101479601 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1424 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
155 | 
| 
SYENITE 10 | 
| 
CA101751235 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1425 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
156 | 
| 
SYENITE 11 | 
| 
CA101452482 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1426 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
157 | 
| 
SYENITE 12 | 
| 
CA101333548 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1427 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCountyLocation | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
158 | 
| 
SYENITE 13 | 
| 
CA101479717 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1428 | 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
159 | 
| 
SYENITE 14 | 
| 
CA101452805 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1429 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
160 | 
| 
SYENITE 15 | 
| 
CA101498832 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1430 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
161 | 
| 
SYENITE 16 | 
| 
CA101755423 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1431 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
162 | 
| 
SYENITE 17 | 
| 
CA101540725 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1432 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
163 | 
| 
SYENITE 18 | 
| 
CA101454544 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1433 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
164 | 
| 
SYENITE 19 | 
| 
CA101304648 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1434 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
165 | 
| 
SYENITE 20 | 
| 
CA101349727 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1435 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
166 | 
| 
SYENITE 21 | 
| 
CA101491192 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1436 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
167 | 
| 
SYENITE 22 | 
| 
CA101331951 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1437 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
168 | 
| 
SYENITE 23 | 
| 
CA101304375 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1438 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
169 | 
| 
SYENITE 24 | 
| 
CA101493733 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1439 | 
| 
90-325055 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
170 | 
| 
SYENITE 25 | 
| 
CA101453397 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1440 | 
| 
90-325056 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
171 | 
| 
SYENITE 26 | 
| 
CA101348600 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1441 | 
| 
90-325057 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
172 | 
| 
SYENITE 27 | 
| 
CA101496241 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1442 | 
| 
90-325058 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
173 | 
| 
SYENITE 28 | 
| 
CA101491667 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1443 | 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
174 | 
| 
SYENITE 29 | 
| 
CA101380340 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1444 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
175 | 
| 
SYENITE 30 | 
| 
CA101335077 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1445 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
176 | 
| 
SYENITE 31 | 
| 
CA101380394 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1446 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
177 | 
| 
SYENITE 32 | 
| 
CA101302706 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1447 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
178 | 
| 
SYENITE 33 | 
| 
CA101300382 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1448 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
179 | 
| 
SYENITE 34 | 
| 
CA101337825 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1449 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
180 | 
| 
SYENITE 35 | 
| 
CA101456046 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1450 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
181 | 
| 
SYENITE 36 | 
| 
CA101347354 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1451 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
182 | 
| 
SYENITE 37 | 
| 
CA101333526 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1452 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
183 | 
| 
SYENITE 38 | 
| 
CA101454113 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1453 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
184 | 
| 
SYENITE 39 | 
| 
CA101457860 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1454 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
185 | 
| 
SYENITE 40 | 
| 
CA101477546 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1455 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
186 | 
| 
SYENITE 41 | 
| 
CA101335799 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1456 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
187 | 
| 
SYENITE 42 | 
| 
CA101600771 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1457 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
188 | 
| 
SYENITE 43 | 
| 
CA101477431 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1458 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
189 | 
| 
SYENITE 44 | 
| 
CA101548940 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1459 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
190 | 
| 
SYENITE 45 | 
| 
CA101332828 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1460 | 
| 
91-133111 | 
| 
8/5/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
191 | 
| 
SYENITE 46 | 
| 
CA101544667 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1461 | 
| 
91-133122 | 
| 
8/5/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
192 | 
| 
SYENITE 47 | 
| 
CA101754007 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1462 | 
| 
91-133113 | 
| 
8/4/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
193 | 
| 
SYENITE 48 | 
| 
CA101377675 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1463 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
194 | 
| 
SYENITE 49 | 
| 
CA101349456 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1464 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
195 | 
| 
SYENITE 50 | 
| 
CA101300355 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1465 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
196 | 
| 
SYENITE 51 | 
| 
CA101490698 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1466 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
197 | 
| 
SYENITE 52 | 
| 
CA101347895 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1467 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
198 | 
| 
SYENITE 53 | 
| 
CA101302967 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1468 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
199 | 
| 
SYENITE 54 | 
| 
CA101493120 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1469 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
200 | 
| 
SYENITE 55 | 
| 
CA101337212 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1470 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
201 | 
| 
SYENITE 56 | 
| 
CA101302125 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1471 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
202 | 
| 
SYENITE 57 | 
| 
CA101493406 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1472 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
203 | 
| 
SYENITE 58 | 
| 
CA101379440 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1473 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
204 | 
| 
SYENITE 59 | 
| 
CA101492722 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1474 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
205 | 
| 
SYENITE 60 | 
| 
CA101751226 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1475 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
206 | 
| 
SYENITE 61 | 
| 
CA101300466 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1476 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
207 | 
| 
SYENITE 62 | 
| 
CA101304800 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1477 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
208 | 
| 
SYENITE 63 | 
| 
CA101377597 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1478 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
209 | 
| 
SYENITE 64 | 
| 
CA101458961 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1479 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
210 | 
| 
SYENITE 65 | 
| 
CA101550031 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1480 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
211 | 
| 
SYENITE 66 | 
| 
CA101335773 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1481 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/5/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
212 | 
| 
SYENITE 67 | 
| 
CA101452383 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1482 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
213 | 
| 
SYENITE 68 | 
| 
CA101477207 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1483 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
214 | 
| 
SYENITE 69 | 
| 
CA101758313 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1484 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
215 | 
| 
SYENITE 70 | 
| 
CA101756700 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1485 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
216 | 
| 
SYENITE 71 | 
| 
CA102521164 | 
| 
88-038050 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/16/1987 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
217 | 
| 
SYENITE 72 | 
| 
CA101545807 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1487 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
218 | 
| 
SYENITE 73 | 
| 
CA101457204 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1488 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
219 | 
| 
SYENITE 74 | 
| 
CA101350037 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1489 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
220 | 
| 
SYENITE 75 | 
| 
CA101350334 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1490 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
221 | 
| 
SYENITE 76 | 
| 
CA101756843 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1491 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
222 | 
| 
SYENITE 77 | 
| 
CA101379507 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1492 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
223 | 
| 
SYENITE 78 | 
| 
CA101302697 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1493 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
224 | 
| 
SYENITE 79 | 
| 
CA101350176 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1494 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
225 | 
| 
SYENITE 80 | 
| 
CA101494024 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1495 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/22/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
226 | 
| 
SYENITE 82 | 
| 
CA101348380 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1497 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
227 | 
| 
SYENITE 83 | 
| 
CA101493212 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1490 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
228 | 
| 
SYENITE 84 | 
| 
CA101377635 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1499 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
229 | 
| 
SYENITE 85 | 
| 
CA101755425 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1500 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
230 | 
| 
SYENITE 86 | 
| 
CA101496894 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1501 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
231 | 
| 
SYENITE 87 | 
| 
CA101335046 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1502 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
232 | 
| 
SYENITE 88 | 
| 
CA101602001 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1503 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
233 | 
| 
SYENITE 89 | 
| 
CA101478210 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1504 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
234 | 
| 
SYENITE 90 | 
| 
CA101302176 | 
| 
88-038051 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/16/1987 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
235 | 
| 
SYENITE 91 | 
| 
CA101305361 | 
| 
88-038052 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/16/1987 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
236 | 
| 
SYENITE 92 | 
| 
CA101347329 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1506 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
237 | 
| 
SYENITE 93 | 
| 
CA101331971 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1507 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
238 | 
| 
SYENITE 94 | 
| 
CA101453367 | 
| 
88-038053 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/16/1987 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
239 | 
| 
SYENITE 95 | 
| 
CA101543402 | 
| 
88-038054 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/16/1987 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
240 | 
| 
SYENITE 96 | 
| 
CA101492678 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1508 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
241 | 
| 
SYENITE 97 | 
| 
CA101455615 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1509 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
242 | 
| 
SYENITE 98 | 
| 
CA101758021 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1510 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
243 | 
| 
SYENITE 99 | 
| 
CA101497524 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1511 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
244 | 
| 
SYENITE 100 | 
| 
CA101452024 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1512 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
245 | 
| 
SYENITE 101 | 
| 
CA101601835 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1513 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
246 | 
| 
SYENITE 102 | 
| 
CA101377652 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1514 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
247 | 
| 
SYENITE 103 | 
| 
CA101332024 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1515 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
248 | 
| 
SYENITE 104 | 
| 
CA101477544 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1516 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/3/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
249 | 
| 
SYENITE 105 | 
| 
CA101477723 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1517 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/3/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
250 | 
| 
SYENITE 106 | 
| 
CA101338533 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1518 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
251 | 
| 
SYENITE 107 | 
| 
CA101606407 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1519 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
252 | 
| 
SYENITE 108 | 
| 
CA101347356 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1520 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
253 | 
| 
SYENITE 109 | 
| 
CA101333572 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1521 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
254 | 
| 
SYENITE 110 | 
| 
CA101494154 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1522 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
255 | 
| 
SYENITE 111 | 
| 
CA101303907 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1523 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
256 | 
| 
SYENITE 112 | 
| 
CA101378513 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1524 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
257 | 
| 
SYENITE 113 | 
| 
CA101333529 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1525 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
258 | 
| 
SYENITE 114 | 
| 
CA101300353 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1526 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
259 | 
| 
SYENITE 115 | 
| 
CA101304759 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1527 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
260 | 
| 
SYENITE 116 | 
| 
CA101339139 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1528 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
261 | 
| 
SYENITE 117 | 
| 
CA101458461 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1529 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
262 | 
| 
SYENITE 118 | 
| 
CA101544668 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1530 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
263 | 
| 
SYENITE 119 | 
| 
CA101335040 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1531 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
264 | 
| 
SYENITE 120 | 
| 
CA101452294 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1532 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
265 | 
| 
SYENITE 121 | 
| 
CA101601067 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1533 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
266 | 
| 
SYENITE 122 | 
| 
CA101756918 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1534 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/24/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
267 | 
| 
SYENITE 123 | 
| 
CA101754010 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1535 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
268 | 
| 
SYENITE 124 | 
| 
CA101480388 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1536 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
269 | 
| 
SYENITE 125 | 
| 
CA101544615 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1537 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
270 | 
| 
SYENITE 126 | 
| 
CA101451263 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1538 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
271 | 
| 
SYENITE 127 | 
| 
CA101350032 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1539 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/23/1977 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
272 | 
| 
SYENITE 129 | 
| 
CA101550111 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1008 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
273 | 
| 
SYENITE 130 | 
| 
CA101379500 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1009 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
274 | 
| 
SYENITE 131 | 
| 
CA101305329 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1010 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
275 | 
| 
SYENITE 132 | 
| 
CA102521349 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1011 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
276 | 
| 
SYENITE 133 | 
| 
CA101492424 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1012 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
277 | 
| 
SYENITE 134 | 
| 
CA101600768 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1013 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
278 | 
| 
SYENITE 135 | 
| 
CA101379470 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1014 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
279 | 
| 
SYENITE 136 | 
| 
CA101457670 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1015 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
280 | 
| 
SYENITE 137 | 
| 
CA101609046 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1016 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
281 | 
| 
SYENITE 138 | 
| 
CA101337163 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1017 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
282 | 
| 
SYENITE 139 | 
| 
CA101543539 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1018 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
283 | 
| 
SYENITE 140 | 
| 
CA101460133 | 
| 
9224 | 
| 
1019 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 014 | |
| 
284 | 
| 
SYENITE 141 | 
| 
CA101378504 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1211 | 
| 
90-053746 | 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
285 | 
| 
SYENITE 142 | 
| 
CA101302391 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1212 | 
| 
90-053747 | 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
286 | 
| 
SYENITE 143 | 
| 
CA101459250 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1213 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
287 | 
| 
SYENITE 144 | 
| 
CA101347320 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1214 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
288 | 
| 
SYENITE 145 | 
| 
CA101331170 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1215 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/18/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
289 | 
| 
SYENITE 147 | 
| 
CA101458121 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1542 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/3/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
290 | 
| 
SYENITE 149 | 
| 
CA101751224 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1216 | 
| 
90-053748 | 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
291 | 
| 
SYENITE 150 | 
| 
CA101490936 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1217 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/20/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
292 | 
| 
SYENITE 151 | 
| 
CA101451818 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1543 | 
| 
90-053749 | 
| 
6/21/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
293 | 
| 
SYENITE 153 | 
| 
CA101377645 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1545 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
294 | 
| 
SYENITE 154 | 
| 
CA101331221 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1546 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 031 | |
| 
295 | 
| 
SYENITE 155 | 
| 
CA101477346 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1547 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
296 | 
| 
SYENITE 156 | 
| 
CA101479076 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1548 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
297 | 
| 
SYENITE 157 | 
| 
CA101338523 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1549 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
298 | 
| 
SYENITE 158 | 
| 
CA101610219 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1550 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
299 | 
| 
SYENITE 159 | 
| 
CA101301524 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1551 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
300 | 
| 
SYENITE 160 | 
| 
CA101333564 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1552 | 
| 
90-053750 | 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
301 | 
| 
SYENITE 161 | 
| 
CA101492902 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1553 | 
| 
90-053751 | 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
302 | 
| 
SYENITE 162 | 
| 
CA101348272 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1554 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
303 | 
| 
SYENITE 163 | 
| 
CA101377594 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1555 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
304 | 
| 
SYENITE 164 | 
| 
CA101333517 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1556 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/25/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
305 | 
| 
SYENITE 165 | 
| 
CA101300754 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1218 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/28/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
306 | 
| 
SYENITE 166 | 
| 
CA101493146 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1219 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/28/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
307 | 
| 
SYENITE 167 | 
| 
CA101337837 | 
| 
9226 | 
| 
1220 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
6/28/1977 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
308 | 
| 
SYENITE 172 | 
| 
CA101331171 | 
| 
9528 | 
| 
2248 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/17/1978 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
309 | 
| 
SYENITE 174 | 
| 
CA101337190 | 
| 
9528 | 
| 
2250 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
8/17/1978 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
310 | 
| 
SYENITE #177 | 
| 
CA101759615 | 
| 
81-233371 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
311 | 
| 
SYENITE #178 | 
| 
CA101477750 | 
| 
81-233372 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
312 | 
| 
SYENITE #179 | 
| 
CA101456915 | 
| 
81-233373 | 
| 
91-133114 | 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
313 | 
| 
SYENITE #180 | 
| 
CA101452296 | 
| 
81-233374 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
314 | 
| 
SYENITE #181 | 
| 
CA101460015 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
315 | 
| 
SYENITE #182 | 
| 
CA101338442 | 
| 
81-233376 | 
| 
91-133115 | 
| 
10/14/1981 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
316 | 
| 
SYENITE 186 | 
| 
CA101348457 | 
| 
88-375685 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/20/1988 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
317 | 
| 
SYENITE 187 | 
| 
CA101603434 | 
| 
88-375686 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/20/1988 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
318 | 
| 
SYENITE 188 | 
| 
CA101491174 | 
| 
88-375687 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
10/20/1988 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
319 | 
| 
SYENITE 189 | 
| 
CA101540729 | 
| 
9242 | 
| 
1505 | 
| 
89-206665 | 
| 
8/3/1977 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
320 | 
| 
SYENITE 191 | 
| 
CA101456249 | 
| 
9528 | 
| 
2242 | 
| 
91-139116 | 
| 
8/17/1978 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
321 | 
| 
SYENITE 192 | 
| 
CA101350346 | 
| 
90-059742 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/28/1989 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
322 | 
| 
SYENITE 193 | 
| 
CA101348430 | 
| 
90-059743 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/28/1989 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
323 | 
| 
SYENITE 194 | 
| 
CA101544955 | 
| 
90-093002 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
324 | 
| 
SYENITE 195 | 
| 
CA101601378 | 
| 
90-093003 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
325 | 
| 
SYENITE 196 | 
| 
CA101454798 | 
| 
90-093004 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
326 | 
| 
SYENITE 197 | 
| 
CA101452551 | 
| 
90-093005 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
327 | 
| 
SYENITE 198 | 
| 
CA101493744 | 
| 
90-093006 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
328 | 
| 
SYENITE 199 | 
| 
CA101490847 | 
| 
90-093007 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
329 | 
| 
SYENITE 200 | 
| 
CA102521367 | 
| 
90-093008 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
330 | 
| 
SYENITE 201 | 
| 
CA101347898 | 
| 
90-093009 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
331 | 
| 
SYENITE 202 | 
| 
CA101333600 | 
| 
90-093010 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
332 | 
| 
SYENITE 203 | 
| 
CA101378597 | 
| 
90-093011 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
333 | 
| 
SYENITE 204 | 
| 
CA101335834 | 
| 
90-0930012 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
334 | 
| 
SYENITE 205 | 
| 
CA101379484 | 
| 
90-093013 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
335 | 
| 
SYENITE 206 | 
| 
CA101337863 | 
| 
90-093014 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
336 | 
| 
SYENITE 207 | 
| 
CA101333542 | 
| 
90-093015 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/22/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
337 | 
| 
SYENITE 208 | 
| 
CA101460035 | 
| 
90-093016 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
338 | 
| 
SYENITE 209 | 
| 
CA101496892 | 
| 
90-093017 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
339 | 
| 
SYENITE 210 | 
| 
CA101300397 | 
| 
90-093018 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
340 | 
| 
SYENITE 211 | 
| 
CA101347958 | 
| 
90-093019 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
341 | 
| 
SYENITE 212 | 
| 
CA101347643 | 
| 
90-093020 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
342 | 
| 
SYENITE 213 | 
| 
CA101498219 | 
| 
90-093021 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
343 | 
| 
SYENITE 214 | 
| 
CA101456456 | 
| 
90-093022 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
344 | 
| 
SYENITE 215 | 
| 
CA101754177 | 
| 
90-093023 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
345 | 
| 
SYENITE 216 | 
| 
CA101477429 | 
| 
90-093024 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
346 | 
| 
SYENITE 217 | 
| 
CA101758039 | 
| 
90-093025 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
347 | 
| 
SYENITE 218 | 
| 
CA101452298 | 
| 
90-093026 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
348 | 
| 
SYENITE 219 | 
| 
CA101490538 | 
| 
90-093027 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 032 | |
| 
349 | 
| 
SYENITE 220 | 
| 
CA101459247 | 
| 
90-093028 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
350 | 
| 
SYENITE 221 | 
| 
CA102521371 | 
| 
90-093029 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
351 | 
| 
SYENITE 222 | 
| 
CA101347924 | 
| 
90-093030 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
352 | 
| 
SYENITE 223 | 
| 
CA101350033 | 
| 
90-093031 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
353 | 
| 
SYENITE 224 | 
| 
CA101378615 | 
| 
90-093032 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
354 | 
| 
SYENITE 225 | 
| 
CA101336564 | 
| 
90-093033 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
355 | 
| 
SYENITE 226 | 
| 
CA101380377 | 
| 
90-093034 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
356 | 
| 
SYENITE 227 | 
| 
CA101338510 | 
| 
90-093035 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
357 | 
| 
SYENITE 228 | 
| 
CA101453396 | 
| 
90-093036 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
358 | 
| 
SYENITE 229 | 
| 
CA101492687 | 
| 
90-093037 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
359 | 
| 
SYENITE 230 | 
| 
CA101493072 | 
| 
90-093038 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
360 | 
| 
SYENITE 231 | 
| 
CA101300737 | 
| 
90-093039 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
361 | 
| 
SYENITE 232 | 
| 
CA101301536 | 
| 
90-093040 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
362 | 
| 
SYENITE 233 | 
| 
CA101347680 | 
| 
90-093041 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
363 | 
| 
SYENITE 234 | 
| 
CA101526286 | 
| 
90-093042 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
364 | 
| 
SYENITE 235 | 
| 
CA101455314 | 
| 
90-093043 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
365 | 
| 
SYENITE 236 | 
| 
CA101542206 | 
| 
90-093044 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
366 | 
| 
SYENITE 237 | 
| 
CA101479722 | 
| 
90-093045 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/20/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 036 | |
| 
367 | 
| 
SYENITE 238 | 
| 
CA101455024 | 
| 
90-093046 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
368 | 
| 
SYENITE 239 | 
| 
CA101454110 | 
| 
90-093047 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
369 | 
| 
SYENITE 240 | 
| 
CA101492565 | 
| 
90-093048 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
370 | 
| 
SYENITE 241 | 
| 
CA102520546 | 
| 
90-093049 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
371 | 
| 
SYENITE 242 | 
| 
CA101348599 | 
| 
90-093050 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
372 | 
| 
SYENITE 243 | 
| 
CA101348441 | 
| 
90-093051 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/21/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
373 | 
| 
SYENITE 244 | 
| 
CA101332821 | 
| 
90-093052 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/4/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 029 | |
| 
374 | 
| 
SYENITE 245 | 
| 
CA101376605 | 
| 
90-093053 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/4/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
375 | 
| 
SYENITE 246 | 
| 
CA101334336 | 
| 
90-093054 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
376 | 
| 
SYENITE 247 | 
| 
CA101378579 | 
| 
90-093055 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/30/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
377 | 
| 
SYENITE 248 | 
| 
CA101455700 | 
| 
90-093056 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/6/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
378 | 
| 
SYENITE 249 | 
| 
CA101452113 | 
| 
90-093057 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 023 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
379 | 
| 
SYENITE 250 | 
| 
CA101459983 | 
| 
90-093058 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/6/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
380 | 
| 
SYENITE 251 | 
| 
CA101493425 | 
| 
90-093059 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
381 | 
| 
SYENITE 252 | 
| 
CA101347592 | 
| 
90-093060 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/6/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
382 | 
| 
SYENITE 253 | 
| 
CA101347324 | 
| 
90-093061 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/6/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
383 | 
| 
SYENITE 254 | 
| 
CA101609679 | 
| 
90-093062 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/1/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
384 | 
| 
SYENITE 255 | 
| 
CA101494125 | 
| 
90-093063 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/1/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
385 | 
| 
SYENITE 256 | 
| 
CA101453770 | 
| 
90-093064 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
386 | 
| 
SYENITE 257 | 
| 
CA101540721 | 
| 
90-093065 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/1/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
387 | 
| 
SYENITE 258 | 
| 
CA101600722 | 
| 
90-093066 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
388 | 
| 
SYENITE 259 | 
| 
CA101454389 | 
| 
90-093067 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
389 | 
| 
SYENITE 260 | 
| 
CA101454190 | 
| 
90-093068 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
390 | 
| 
SYENITE 261 | 
| 
CA101491028 | 
| 
90-093069 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
391 | 
| 
SYENITE 262 | 
| 
CA102521176 | 
| 
90-093070 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
392 | 
| 
SYENITE 263 | 
| 
CA101349791 | 
| 
90-093071 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/31/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
393 | 
| 
SYENITE 264 | 
| 
CA101305378 | 
| 
90-093072 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/3/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
394 | 
| 
SYENITE 265 | 
| 
CA101333588 | 
| 
90-093073 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/3/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 024 | |
| 
395 | 
| 
SYENITE 266 | 
| 
CA101377679 | 
| 
90-093074 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
396 | 
| 
SYENITE 267 | 
| 
CA101335099 | 
| 
90-093075 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 026 | |
| 
397 | 
| 
SYENITE 268 | 
| 
CA101477595 | 
| 
90-093076 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 025 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 026 | |
| 
398 | 
| 
SYENITE 269 | 
| 
CA101457706 | 
| 
90-093077 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
399 | 
| 
SYENITE 270 | 
| 
CA101452187 | 
| 
90-093078 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
400 | 
| 
SYENITE 271 | 
| 
CA101493760 | 
| 
90-093079 | 
| 
| 
| 
2/5/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 032 | |
| 
401 | 
| 
SYENITE 296 | 
| 
CA101339113 | 
| 
91-133117 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/25/1991 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
402 | 
| 
SYENITE 297 | 
| 
CA101332768 | 
| 
91-133118 | 
| 
| 
| 
3/25/1991 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 031 | |
| 
403 | 
| 
SYENITE 81A | 
| 
CA101349738 | 
| 
90-053732 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/9/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
404 | 
| 
SYENITE 146A | 
| 
CA101303917 | 
| 
90-053733 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/9/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 030 | |
| 
405 | 
| 
SYENITE 168A | 
| 
CA101331243 | 
| 
90-053734 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/9/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
406 | 
| 
SYENITE 169A | 
| 
CA101338528 | 
| 
90-053735 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/9/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 020 | |
| 
407 | 
| 
SYENITE 173A | 
| 
CA101332810 | 
| 
90-059737 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/9/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
408 | 
| 
SYENITE 175A | 
| 
CA101378567 | 
| 
90-053737 | 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
409 | 
| 
SYENITE 176A | 
| 
CA101457538 | 
| 
90-059738 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
410 | 
| 
SYENITE 183A | 
| 
CA101451562 | 
| 
90-059739 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
411 | 
| 
SYENITE 184A | 
| 
CA101497039 | 
| 
90-059740 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
412 | 
| 
SYENITE 185A | 
| 
CA101300164 | 
| 
90-059741 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 019 | |
| 
413 | 
| 
SYENITE 190A | 
| 
CA101479333 | 
| 
90-053789 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
1/10/1990 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 031 | |
| 
414 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE #1 | 
| 
CA101477742 | 
| 
88-288552 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
7/15/1988 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
415 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE #2 | 
| 
CA101759617 | 
| 
88-288553 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
7/15/1988 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
416 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 3 | 
| 
CA101330471 | 
| 
2012-0441741 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
417 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 4 | 
| 
CA101330472 | 
| 
2012-0029783 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
418 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 5 | 
| 
CA101330473 | 
| 
2012-0441742 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
419 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 6 | 
| 
CA101330474 | 
| 
2012-0029785 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
420 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 7 | 
| 
CA101330475 | 
| 
2012-0041743 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
421 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 8 | 
| 
CA101330476 | 
| 
2012-0030044 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
422 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 9 | 
| 
CA101330477 | 
| 
2012-0441744 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
423 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 10 | 
| 
CA101330478 | 
| 
2012-0030042 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
424 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 11 | 
| 
CA101330479 | 
| 
2012-0441745 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
425 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 12 | 
| 
CA101330480 | 
| 
2012-0030045 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
426 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 13 | 
| 
CA101330481 | 
| 
2012-0441745 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
427 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 14 | 
| 
CA101330482 | 
| 
2012-0030146 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
428 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 15 | 
| 
CA101330483 | 
| 
2012-0441747 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
429 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 16 | 
| 
CA101330484 | 
| 
2012-0030148 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
430 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 17 | 
| 
CA101330485 | 
| 
2012-0441748 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
431 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 18 | 
| 
CA101330486 | 
| 
2012-0030026 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
432 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 19 | 
| 
CA101331274 | 
| 
2012-0441749 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
433 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 20 | 
| 
CA101331275 | 
| 
2012-0030028 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
434 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 21 | 
| 
CA101331276 | 
| 
2012-0441750 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
435 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 22 | 
| 
CA101331277 | 
| 
2012-0030030 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
436 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 23 | 
| 
CA101331278 | 
| 
2012-0441751 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
437 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 24 | 
| 
CA101331279 | 
| 
2012-0030159 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
438 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 25 | 
| 
CA101331280 | 
| 
2012-0441752 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
439 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 26 | 
| 
CA101331281 | 
| 
2012-0441753 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
440 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 27 | 
| 
CA101331282 | 
| 
2012-0441754 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
441 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 28 | 
| 
CA101331283 | 
| 
2012-0441755 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
442 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 29 | 
| 
CA101331284 | 
| 
2012-0441756 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
443 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 30 | 
| 
CA101331285 | 
| 
2012-0030068 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
444 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 31 | 
| 
CA101331286 | 
| 
2012-0441757 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
445 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 32 | 
| 
CA101331287 | 
| 
2012-0030070 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
446 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 33 | 
| 
CA101331288 | 
| 
2012-0441758 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
447 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 34 | 
| 
CA101331289 | 
| 
2012-0030086 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 028 | |
| 
448 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 35 | 
| 
CA101331290 | 
| 
2012-0441759 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
449 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 36 | 
| 
CA101331291 | 
| 
2012-0030088 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
450 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 37 | 
| 
CA101331292 | 
| 
2012-0030089 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
451 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 38 | 
| 
CA101331293 | 
| 
2012-0030165 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
452 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 39 | 
| 
CA101331294 | 
| 
2012-0030164 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
453 | 
| 
EAST SYENITE 40 | 
| 
CA101332086 | 
| 
2012-0030163 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
11/4/2011 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 033 | |
| 
454 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 1 | 
| 
CA101337862 | 
| 
86-085371 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
455 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 2 | 
| 
CA101332798 | 
| 
86-085372 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
456 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 3 | 
| 
CA101547435 | 
| 
86-085373 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
457 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 4 | 
| 
CA101542264 | 
| 
86-085374 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/18/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
458 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 5 | 
| 
CA101480382 | 
| 
86-085375 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
459 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 6 | 
| 
CA101456921 | 
| 
86-085376 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
460 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 7 | 
| 
CA101452386 | 
| 
86-085377 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
461 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 8 | 
| 
CA101496578 | 
| 
86-085378 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
462 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 9 | 
| 
CA101496271 | 
| 
86-085379 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
463 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 10 | 
| 
CA101302380 | 
| 
86-085380 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Update Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
464 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 11 | 
| 
CA101780868 | 
| 
86-085381 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
465 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 12 | 
| 
CA101453494 | 
| 
86-085382 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
466 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 13 | 
| 
CA101756696 | 
| 
86-085383 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
467 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 14 | 
| 
CA101548828 | 
| 
86-085384 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
468 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 15 | 
| 
CA101602121 | 
| 
86-085385 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
469 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 16 | 
| 
CA101454900 | 
| 
86-085386 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
470 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 17 | 
| 
CA101451930 | 
| 
86-085387 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
471 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 18 | 
| 
CA101459977 | 
| 
86-085388 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
472 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 19 | 
| 
CA101494022 | 
| 
86-085389 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
473 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 20 | 
| 
CA102521342 | 
| 
86-085390 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
474 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 21 | 
| 
CA101377660 | 
| 
86-085391 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
475 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 22 | 
| 
CA101491677 | 
| 
86-085392 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
476 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 23 | 
| 
CA101751627 | 
| 
86-085393 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
477 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 24 | 
| 
CA101544613 | 
| 
86-085394 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
478 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 25 | 
| 
CA101759521 | 
| 
86-085395 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
479 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 26 | 
| 
CA101602004 | 
| 
86-085396 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
480 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 27 | 
| 
CA101455032 | 
| 
86-085397 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
481 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 28 | 
| 
CA101453886 | 
| 
86-085398 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
482 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 29 | 
| 
CA101491526 | 
| 
86-085399 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
483 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 30 | 
| 
CA101491203 | 
| 
86-085400 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0152N 0140E 034 | |
| 
484 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 31 | 
| 
CA101550011 | 
| 
86-085401 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
485 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 32 | 
| 
CA101496343 | 
| 
86-085402 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
486 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 33 | 
| 
CA101453588 | 
| 
86-085403 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2/28/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
487 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 34 | 
| 
CA101543403 | 
| 
86-085404 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
488 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 35 | 
| 
CA101758310 | 
| 
86-085405 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
489 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 36 | 
| 
CA101477536 | 
| 
86-085406 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
490 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 37 | 
| 
CA101456846 | 
| 
86-085407 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
491 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 38 | 
| 
CA101452487 | 
| 
86-085408 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
492 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 39 | 
| 
CA101493764 | 
| 
86-085409 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
493 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 40 | 
| 
CA101491831 | 
| 
86-085410 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/6/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
494 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 41 | 
| 
CA101334335 | 
| 
86-085411 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/4/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
495 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 47 | 
| 
CA101601292 | 
| 
86-085417 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/3/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
496 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 48 | 
| 
CA101455092 | 
| 
86-085418 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/3/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
497 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 49 | 
| 
CA101451875 | 
| 
86-085419 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/3/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
498 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 50 | 
| 
CA101493736 | 
| 
86-085420 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
499 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 51 | 
| 
CA101453075 | 
| 
86-085421 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
500 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 60 | 
| 
CA101493216 | 
| 
86-085430 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/1/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 011 | |
| 
501 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 61 | 
| 
CA101457865 | 
| 
86-085431 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/3/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 011 | |
| 
502 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 62 | 
| 
CA101479724 | 
| 
86-085432 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/3/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
503 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 98 | 
| 
CA101335057 | 
| 
86-085468 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
504 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 107 | 
| 
CA101490931 | 
| 
91-216345 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
505 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 108 | 
| 
CA101303534 | 
| 
91-216346 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
506 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 109 | 
| 
CA101333498 | 
| 
91-216347 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
507 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 110 | 
| 
CA101335742 | 
| 
91-216348 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
508 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 111 | 
| 
CA101455398 | 
| 
91-216349 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
509 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 112 | 
| 
CA101547625 | 
| 
91-216350 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
510 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 113 | 
| 
CA101540601 | 
| 
91-216351 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
511 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 114 | 
| 
CA101542115 | 
| 
91-216352 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
512 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 115 | 
| 
CA101601601 | 
| 
91-216353 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 003 | |
| 
513 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 116 | 
| 
CA101457536 | 
| 
91-216354 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
4/7/1991 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
| 
514 | 
| 
SOUTH SYENITE 106 | 
| 
CA101755430 | 
| 
86-085476 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
3/9/1986 | 
| 
27 0150N 0140E 002 | |
**Total Number of Unpatented Claims = 514 Lode Claims**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
**Locator: Secure Natural Resources LLC**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
1 | 
| 
CM 1 | 
| 
CA106755303 | 
| 
2025-0237939 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
2 | 
| 
CM 2 | 
| 
CA106755304 | 
| 
2025-0237940 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
3 | 
| 
CM 3 | 
| 
CA106755305 | 
| 
2025-0237941 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
4 | 
| 
CM 4 | 
| 
CA106755306 | 
| 
2025-0237942 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
5 | 
| 
CM 5 | 
| 
CA106755307 | 
| 
2025-0237943 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
6 | 
| 
CM 6 | 
| 
CA106755308 | 
| 
2025-0237944 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
7 | 
| 
CM 7 | 
| 
CA106755309 | 
| 
2025-0237945 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
8 | 
| 
CM 8 | 
| 
CA106755310 | 
| 
2025-0237946 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
9 | 
| 
CM 9 | 
| 
CA106755311 | 
| 
2025-0237947 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
10 | 
| 
CM 10 | 
| 
CA106755312 | 
| 
2025-0237948 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
11 | 
| 
CM 11 | 
| 
CA106755313 | 
| 
2025-0237949 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
12 | 
| 
CM 12 | 
| 
CA106755314 | 
| 
2025-0237950 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
13 | 
| 
CM 13 | 
| 
CA106755315 | 
| 
2025-0237951 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
14 | 
| 
CM 14 | 
| 
CA106755316 | 
| 
2025-0237952 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
15 | 
| 
CM 15 | 
| 
CA106755317 | 
| 
2025-0237953 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
16 | 
| 
CM 16 | 
| 
CA106755318 | 
| 
2025-0237954 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
17 | 
| 
CM 17 | 
| 
CA106755319 | 
| 
2025-0237955 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
18 | 
| 
CM 18 | 
| 
CA106755320 | 
| 
2025-0237956 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
19 | 
| 
CM 19 | 
| 
CA106755321 | 
| 
2025-0237957 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
20 | 
| 
CM 20 | 
| 
CA106755322 | 
| 
2025-0237958 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
21 | 
| 
CM 21 | 
| 
CA106755323 | 
| 
2025-0237959 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
22 | 
| 
CM 22 | 
| 
CA106755324 | 
| 
2025-0237960 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
23 | 
| 
CM 23 | 
| 
CA106755325 | 
| 
2025-0237961 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
24 | 
| 
CM 24 | 
| 
CA106755326 | 
| 
2025-0237962 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
25 | 
| 
CM 25 | 
| 
CA106755327 | 
| 
2025-0237963 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
26 | 
| 
CM 26 | 
| 
CA106755328 | 
| 
2025-0237964 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
27 | 
| 
CM 27 | 
| 
CA106755329 | 
| 
2025-0237965 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
28 | 
| 
CM 28 | 
| 
CA106755330 | 
| 
2025-0237966 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
29 | 
| 
CM 29 | 
| 
CA106755331 | 
| 
2025-0237967 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
30 | 
| 
CM 30 | 
| 
CA106755332 | 
| 
2025-0237968 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
31 | 
| 
CM 31 | 
| 
CA106755333 | 
| 
2025-0237969 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
32 | 
| 
CM 32 | 
| 
CA106755334 | 
| 
2025-0237970 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
33 | 
| 
CM 33 | 
| 
CA106755335 | 
| 
2025-0237971 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
34 | 
| 
CM 34 | 
| 
CA106755336 | 
| 
2025-0237972 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
35 | 
| 
CM 35 | 
| 
CA106755337 | 
| 
2025-0237973 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
36 | 
| 
CM 36 | 
| 
CA106755338 | 
| 
2025-0237974 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
37 | 
| 
CM 37 | 
| 
CA106755339 | 
| 
2025-0237975 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
38 | 
| 
CM 38 | 
| 
CA106755340 | 
| 
2025-0237976 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
39 | 
| 
CM 39 | 
| 
CA106755341 | 
| 
2025-0237977 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
40 | 
| 
CM 40 | 
| 
CA106755342 | 
| 
2025-0237978 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
41 | 
| 
CM 41 | 
| 
CA106755343 | 
| 
2025-0237979 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
42 | 
| 
CM 42 | 
| 
CA106755344 | 
| 
2025-0237980 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
43 | 
| 
CM 43 | 
| 
CA106755345 | 
| 
2025-0237981 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
44 | 
| 
CM 44 | 
| 
CA106755346 | 
| 
2025-0237982 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
45 | 
| 
CM 45 | 
| 
CA106755347 | 
| 
2025-0237983 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
46 | 
| 
CM 46 | 
| 
CA106755348 | 
| 
2025-0237984 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
47 | 
| 
CM 47 | 
| 
CA106755349 | 
| 
2025-0237985 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 008 | |
| 
48 | 
| 
CM 48 | 
| 
CA106755350 | 
| 
2025-0237986 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
49 | 
| 
CM 49 | 
| 
CA106755351 | 
| 
2025-0237987 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
50 | 
| 
CM 50 | 
| 
CA106755352 | 
| 
2025-0237988 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
51 | 
| 
CM 51 | 
| 
CA106755353 | 
| 
2025-0237989 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
52 | 
| 
CM 52 | 
| 
CA106755354 | 
| 
2025-0237990 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
53 | 
| 
CM 53 | 
| 
CA106755355 | 
| 
2025-0237991 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
54 | 
| 
CM 54 | 
| 
CA106755356 | 
| 
2025-0237992 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
55 | 
| 
CM 55 | 
| 
CA106755357 | 
| 
2025-0237993 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
56 | 
| 
CM 56 | 
| 
CA106755358 | 
| 
2025-0237994 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
57 | 
| 
CM 57 | 
| 
CA106755359 | 
| 
2025-0237995 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
58 | 
| 
CM 58 | 
| 
CA106755360 | 
| 
2025-0237996 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
59 | 
| 
CM 59 | 
| 
CA106755361 | 
| 
2025-0237997 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
60 | 
| 
CM 60 | 
| 
CA106755362 | 
| 
2025-0237998 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
61 | 
| 
CM 61 | 
| 
CA106755363 | 
| 
2025-0237999 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
62 | 
| 
CM 62 | 
| 
CA106755364 | 
| 
2025-0238000 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
63 | 
| 
CM 63 | 
| 
CA106755365 | 
| 
2025-0238001 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
64 | 
| 
CM 64 | 
| 
CA106755366 | 
| 
2025-0238002 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
65 | 
| 
CM 65 | 
| 
CA106755367 | 
| 
2025-0238003 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
66 | 
| 
CM 66 | 
| 
CA106755368 | 
| 
2025-0238004 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
67 | 
| 
CM 67 | 
| 
CA106755369 | 
| 
2025-0238005 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
68 | 
| 
CM 68 | 
| 
CA106755370 | 
| 
2025-0238006 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
69 | 
| 
CM 69 | 
| 
CA106755371 | 
| 
2025-0238007 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
70 | 
| 
CM 70 | 
| 
CA106755372 | 
| 
2025-0238008 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
71 | 
| 
CM 71 | 
| 
CA106755373 | 
| 
2025-0238009 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
72 | 
| 
CM 72 | 
| 
CA106755374 | 
| 
2025-0238010 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
73 | 
| 
CM 73 | 
| 
CA106755375 | 
| 
2025-0238011 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
74 | 
| 
CM 74 | 
| 
CA106755376 | 
| 
2025-0238012 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
75 | 
| 
CM 75 | 
| 
CA106755377 | 
| 
2025-0238013 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
76 | 
| 
CM 76 | 
| 
CA106755378 | 
| 
2025-0238014 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
77 | 
| 
CM 77 | 
| 
CA106755379 | 
| 
2025-0238015 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
78 | 
| 
CM 78 | 
| 
CA106755380 | 
| 
2025-0238016 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
79 | 
| 
CM 79 | 
| 
CA106755381 | 
| 
2025-0238017 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
80 | 
| 
CM 80 | 
| 
CA106755382 | 
| 
2025-0238018 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
81 | 
| 
CM 81 | 
| 
CA106755383 | 
| 
2025-0238019 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
82 | 
| 
CM 82 | 
| 
CA106755384 | 
| 
2025-0238020 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
83 | 
| 
CM 83 | 
| 
CA106755385 | 
| 
2025-0238021 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
84 | 
| 
CM 84 | 
| 
CA106755386 | 
| 
2025-0238022 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
85 | 
| 
CM 85 | 
| 
CA106755387 | 
| 
2025-0238023 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 016 | |
| 
86 | 
| 
CM 86 | 
| 
CA106755388 | 
| 
2025-0238024 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
87 | 
| 
CM 87 | 
| 
CA106755389 | 
| 
2025-0238025 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
88 | 
| 
CM 88 | 
| 
CA106755390 | 
| 
2025-0238026 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
89 | 
| 
CM 89 | 
| 
CA106755391 | 
| 
2025-0238027 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
90 | 
| 
CM 90 | 
| 
CA106755392 | 
| 
2025-0238028 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
91 | 
| 
CM 91 | 
| 
CA106755393 | 
| 
2025-0238029 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
92 | 
| 
CM 92 | 
| 
CA106755394 | 
| 
2025-0238030 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
93 | 
| 
CM 93 | 
| 
CA106755395 | 
| 
2025-0238031 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
94 | 
| 
CM 94 | 
| 
CA106755396 | 
| 
2025-0238032 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
95 | 
| 
CM 95 | 
| 
CA106755397 | 
| 
2025-0238033 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
96 | 
| 
CM 96 | 
| 
CA106755398 | 
| 
2025-0238034 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
97 | 
| 
CM 97 | 
| 
CA106755399 | 
| 
2025-0238035 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
98 | 
| 
CM 98 | 
| 
CA106755400 | 
| 
2025-0238036 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
99 | 
| 
CM 99 | 
| 
CA106755401 | 
| 
2025-0238037 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
100 | 
| 
CM 100 | 
| 
CA106755402 | 
| 
2025-0238038 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
101 | 
| 
CM 101 | 
| 
CA106755403 | 
| 
2025-0238039 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
102 | 
| 
CM 102 | 
| 
CA106755404 | 
| 
2025-0238040 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
103 | 
| 
CM 103 | 
| 
CA106755405 | 
| 
2025-0238041 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
104 | 
| 
CM 104 | 
| 
CA106755406 | 
| 
2025-0238042 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
105 | 
| 
CM 105 | 
| 
CA106755407 | 
| 
2025-0238043 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
106 | 
| 
CM 106 | 
| 
CA106755408 | 
| 
2025-0238044 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
107 | 
| 
CM 107 | 
| 
CA106755409 | 
| 
2025-0238045 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
108 | 
| 
CM 108 | 
| 
CA106755410 | 
| 
2025-0238046 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
109 | 
| 
CM 109 | 
| 
CA106755411 | 
| 
2025-0238047 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
110 | 
| 
CM 110 | 
| 
CA106755412 | 
| 
2025-0238048 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
111 | 
| 
CM 111 | 
| 
CA106755413 | 
| 
2025-0238049 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
112 | 
| 
CM 112 | 
| 
CA106755414 | 
| 
2025-0238050 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
113 | 
| 
CM 113 | 
| 
CA106755415 | 
| 
2025-0238051 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
114 | 
| 
CM 114 | 
| 
CA106755416 | 
| 
2025-0238052 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
115 | 
| 
CM 115 | 
| 
CA106755417 | 
| 
2025-0238053 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
116 | 
| 
CM 116 | 
| 
CA106755418 | 
| 
2025-0238054 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
117 | 
| 
CM 117 | 
| 
CA106755419 | 
| 
2025-0238055 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
118 | 
| 
CM 118 | 
| 
CA106755420 | 
| 
2025-0238056 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
119 | 
| 
CM 119 | 
| 
CA106755421 | 
| 
2025-0238057 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
120 | 
| 
CM 120 | 
| 
CA106755422 | 
| 
2025-0238058 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 015 | |
| 
121 | 
| 
CM 121 | 
| 
CA106755423 | 
| 
2025-0238059 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
122 | 
| 
CM 122 | 
| 
CA106755424 | 
| 
2025-0238060 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
123 | 
| 
CM 123 | 
| 
CA106755425 | 
| 
2025-0238061 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
124 | 
| 
CM 124 | 
| 
CA106755426 | 
| 
2025-0238062 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
125 | 
| 
CM 125 | 
| 
CA106755427 | 
| 
2025-0238063 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
126 | 
| 
CM 126 | 
| 
CA106755428 | 
| 
2025-0238064 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/2/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
127 | 
| 
CM 127 | 
| 
CA106755429 | 
| 
2025-0238065 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
128 | 
| 
CM 128 | 
| 
CA106755430 | 
| 
2025-0238066 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
129 | 
| 
CM 129 | 
| 
CA106755431 | 
| 
2025-0238067 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
130 | 
| 
CM 130 | 
| 
CA106755432 | 
| 
2025-0238068 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
131 | 
| 
CM 131 | 
| 
CA106755433 | 
| 
2025-0238069 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
132 | 
| 
CM 132 | 
| 
CA106755434 | 
| 
2025-0238070 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/3/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 010 | |
| 
133 | 
| 
CM 133 | 
| 
CA106755435 | 
| 
2025-0238071 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
134 | 
| 
CM 134 | 
| 
CA106755436 | 
| 
2025-0238072 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
135 | 
| 
CM 135 | 
| 
CA106755437 | 
| 
2025-0238073 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
136 | 
| 
CM 136 | 
| 
CA106755438 | 
| 
2025-0238074 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 003 | |
| 
137 | 
| 
CM 137 | 
| 
CA106755439 | 
| 
2025-0238075 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 028 | |
| 
138 | 
| 
CM 138 | 
| 
CA106755440 | 
| 
2025-0238076 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 028 | |
| 
139 | 
| 
CM 139 | 
| 
CA106755441 | 
| 
2025-0238077 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 027 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
140 | 
| 
CM 140 | 
| 
CA106755442 | 
| 
2025-0238078 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 027 | |
| 
141 | 
| 
CM 141 | 
| 
CA106755443 | 
| 
2025-0238079 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 028 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 027 | |
| 
142 | 
| 
CM 142 | 
| 
CA106755444 | 
| 
2025-0238080 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
143 | 
| 
CM 143 | 
| 
CA106755445 | 
| 
2025-0238081 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
144 | 
| 
CM 144 | 
| 
CA106755446 | 
| 
2025-0238082 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
145 | 
| 
CM 145 | 
| 
CA106755447 | 
| 
2025-0238083 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 033 | |
| 
146 | 
| 
CM 146 | 
| 
CA106755448 | 
| 
2025-0238084 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 027 | |
| 
147 | 
| 
CM 147 | 
| 
CA106755449 | 
| 
2025-0238085 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 027 | |
| 
148 | 
| 
CM 148 | 
| 
CA106755450 | 
| 
2025-0238086 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
149 | 
| 
CM 149 | 
| 
CA106755451 | 
| 
2025-0238087 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
150 | 
| 
CM 150 | 
| 
CA106755452 | 
| 
2025-0238088 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
151 | 
| 
CM 151 | 
| 
CA106755453 | 
| 
2025-0238089 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
152 | 
| 
CM 152 | 
| 
CA106755454 | 
| 
2025-0238090 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
153 | 
| 
CM 153 | 
| 
CA106755455 | 
| 
2025-0238091 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
154 | 
| 
CM 154 | 
| 
CA106755456 | 
| 
2025-0238092 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
155 | 
| 
CM 155 | 
| 
CA106755457 | 
| 
2025-0238093 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
156 | 
| 
CM 156 | 
| 
CA106755458 | 
| 
2025-0238094 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
157 | 
| 
CM 157 | 
| 
CA106755459 | 
| 
2025-0238095 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
158 | 
| 
CM 158 | 
| 
CA106755460 | 
| 
2025-0238096 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
159 | 
| 
CM 159 | 
| 
CA106755461 | 
| 
2025-0238097 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
160 | 
| 
CM 160 | 
| 
CA106755462 | 
| 
2025-0238098 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
161 | 
| 
CM 161 | 
| 
CA106755463 | 
| 
2025-0238099 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
162 | 
| 
CM 162 | 
| 
CA106755464 | 
| 
2025-0238100 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
163 | 
| 
CM 163 | 
| 
CA106755465 | 
| 
2025-0238101 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
164 | 
| 
CM 164 | 
| 
CA106755466 | 
| 
2025-0238102 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 036 | |
| 
| 
| 
165 | 
| 
CM 165 | 
| 
CA106755467 | 
| 
2025-0238103 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
166 | 
| 
CM 166 | 
| 
CA106755468 | 
| 
2025-0238104 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
167 | 
| 
CM 167 | 
| 
CA106755469 | 
| 
2025-0238105 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
168 | 
| 
CM 168 | 
| 
CA106755470 | 
| 
2025-0238106 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
169 | 
| 
CM 169 | 
| 
CA106755471 | 
| 
2025-0238107 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
170 | 
| 
CM 170 | 
| 
CA106755472 | 
| 
2025-0238108 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
171 | 
| 
CM 171 | 
| 
CA106755473 | 
| 
2025-0238109 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
172 | 
| 
CM 172 | 
| 
CA106755474 | 
| 
2025-0238110 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
173 | 
| 
CM 173 | 
| 
CA106755475 | 
| 
2025-0238111 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
174 | 
| 
CM 174 | 
| 
CA106755476 | 
| 
2025-0238112 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
175 | 
| 
CM 175 | 
| 
CA106755477 | 
| 
2025-0238113 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 036 | |
| 
| 
| 
176 | 
| 
CM 176 | 
| 
CA106755478 | 
| 
2025-0238114 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
177 | 
| 
CM 177 | 
| 
CA106755479 | 
| 
2025-0238115 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
178 | 
| 
CM 178 | 
| 
CA106755480 | 
| 
2025-0238116 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
179 | 
| 
CM 179 | 
| 
CA106755481 | 
| 
2025-0238117 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
180 | 
| 
CM 180 | 
| 
CA106755482 | 
| 
2025-0238118 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 034 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
181 | 
| 
CM 181 | 
| 
CA106755483 | 
| 
2025-0238119 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
182 | 
| 
CM 182 | 
| 
CA106755484 | 
| 
2025-0238120 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
183 | 
| 
CM 183 | 
| 
CA106755485 | 
| 
2025-0238121 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
184 | 
| 
CM 184 | 
| 
CA106755486 | 
| 
2025-0238122 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
185 | 
| 
CM 185 | 
| 
CA106755487 | 
| 
2025-0238123 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 036 | |
| 
| 
| 
186 | 
| 
CM 186 | 
| 
CA106755488 | 
| 
2025-0238124 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
187 | 
| 
CM 187 | 
| 
CA106755489 | 
| 
2025-0238125 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
188 | 
| 
CM 188 | 
| 
CA106755490 | 
| 
2025-0238126 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
189 | 
| 
CM 189 | 
| 
CA106755491 | 
| 
2025-0238127 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 035 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 036 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
190 | 
| 
CM 190 | 
| 
CA106755492 | 
| 
2025-0238128 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
191 | 
| 
CM 191 | 
| 
CA106755493 | 
| 
2025-0238129 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
192 | 
| 
CM 192 | 
| 
CA106755494 | 
| 
2025- 0238130 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
193 | 
| 
CM 193 | 
| 
CA106755495 | 
| 
2025- 0238131 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
194 | 
| 
CM 194 | 
| 
CA106755496 | 
| 
2025- 0238132 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
195 | 
| 
CM 195 | 
| 
CA106755497 | 
| 
2025- 0238133 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
196 | 
| 
CM 196 | 
| 
CA106755498 | 
| 
2025- 0238134 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
197 | 
| 
CM 197 | 
| 
CA106755499 | 
| 
2025- 0238135 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
198 | 
| 
CM 198 | 
| 
CA106755500 | 
| 
2025- 0238136 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
199 | 
| 
CM 199 | 
| 
CA106755501 | 
| 
2025- 0238137 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
200 | 
| 
CM 200 | 
| 
CA106755502 | 
| 
2025- 0238138 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
201 | 
| 
CM 201 | 
| 
CA106755503 | 
| 
2025- 0238139 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
202 | 
| 
CM 202 | 
| 
CA106755504 | 
| 
2025- 0238140 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 002 | |
| 
| 
| 
203 | 
| 
CM 203 | 
| 
CA106755505 | 
| 
2025- 0238141 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
204 | 
| 
CM 204 | 
| 
CA106755506 | 
| 
2025- 0238142 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
205 | 
| 
CM 205 | 
| 
CA106755507 | 
| 
2025- 0238143 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
206 | 
| 
CM 206 | 
| 
CA106755508 | 
| 
2025- 0238144 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/1/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0130E 001 | |
| 
| 
| 
207 | 
| 
CM 207 | 
| 
CA106755509 | 
| 
2025- 0238145 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
208 | 
| 
CM 208 | 
| 
CA106755510 | 
| 
2025- 0238146 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
209 | 
| 
CM 209 | 
| 
CA106755511 | 
| 
2025- 0238147 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
210 | 
| 
CM 210 | 
| 
CA106755512 | 
| 
2025-0238148 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
211 | 
| 
CM 211 | 
| 
CA106755513 | 
| 
2025-0238149 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
212 | 
| 
CM 212 | 
| 
CA106755514 | 
| 
2025-0238150 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
213 | 
| 
CM 213 | 
| 
CA106755515 | 
| 
2025-0238151 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
214 | 
| 
CM 214 | 
| 
CA106755516 | 
| 
2025-0238152 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
215 | 
| 
CM 215 | 
| 
CA106755517 | 
| 
2025-0238153 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
216 | 
| 
CM 216 | 
| 
CA106755518 | 
| 
2025-0238154 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
217 | 
| 
CM 217 | 
| 
CA106755519 | 
| 
2025-0238155 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
218 | 
| 
CM 218 | 
| 
CA106755520 | 
| 
2025-0238156 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
219 | 
| 
CM 219 | 
| 
CA106755521 | 
| 
2025-0238157 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
220 | 
| 
CM 220 | 
| 
CA106755522 | 
| 
2025-0238158 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
221 | 
| 
CM 221 | 
| 
CA106755523 | 
| 
2025-0238159 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
222 | 
| 
CM 222 | 
| 
CA106755524 | 
| 
2025-0238160 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
223 | 
| 
CM 223 | 
| 
CA106755525 | 
| 
2025-0238161 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
224 | 
| 
CM 224 | 
| 
CA106755526 | 
| 
2025-0238162 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
225 | 
| 
CM 225 | 
| 
CA106755527 | 
| 
2025-0238163 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 012 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 013 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
226 | 
| 
CM 226 | 
| 
CA106755528 | 
| 
2025-0238164 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
227 | 
| 
CM 227 | 
| 
CA106755529 | 
| 
2025-0238165 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
228 | 
| 
CM 228 | 
| 
CA106755530 | 
| 
2025-0238166 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
229 | 
| 
CM 229 | 
| 
CA106755531 | 
| 
2025-0238167 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
230 | 
| 
CM 230 | 
| 
CA106755532 | 
| 
2025-0238168 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
231 | 
| 
CM 231 | 
| 
CA106755533 | 
| 
2025-0238169 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
232 | 
| 
CM 232 | 
| 
CA106755534 | 
| 
2025-0238170 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
233 | 
| 
CM 233 | 
| 
CA106755535 | 
| 
2025-0238171 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
234 | 
| 
CM 234 | 
| 
CA106755536 | 
| 
2025-0238172 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 013 | |
| 
| 
| 
235 | 
| 
CM 235 | 
| 
CA106755537 | 
| 
2025-0238173 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
236 | 
| 
CM 236 | 
| 
CA106755538 | 
| 
2025-0238174 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
237 | 
| 
CM 237 | 
| 
CA106755539 | 
| 
2025-0238175 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
238 | 
| 
CM 238 | 
| 
CA106755540 | 
| 
2025-0238176 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
239 | 
| 
CM 239 | 
| 
CA106755541 | 
| 
2025-0238177 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
240 | 
| 
CM 240 | 
| 
CA106755542 | 
| 
2025-0238178 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
241 | 
| 
CM 241 | 
| 
CA106755543 | 
| 
2025-0238179 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
242 | 
| 
CM 242 | 
| 
CA106755544 | 
| 
2025-0238180 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 030 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 029 | |
| 
| 
| 
243 | 
| 
CM 243 | 
| 
CA106755545 | 
| 
2025-0238181 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 013 | |
| 
| 
| 
244 | 
| 
CM 244 | 
| 
CA106755546 | 
| 
2025-0238182 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
245 | 
| 
CM 245 | 
| 
CA106755547 | 
| 
2025-0238183 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
246 | 
| 
CM 246 | 
| 
CA106755548 | 
| 
2025-0238184 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
247 | 
| 
CM 247 | 
| 
CA106755549 | 
| 
2025-0238185 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
248 | 
| 
CM 248 | 
| 
CA106755550 | 
| 
2025-0238186 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
249 | 
| 
CM 249 | 
| 
CA106755551 | 
| 
2025-0238187 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
250 | 
| 
CM 250 | 
| 
CA106755552 | 
| 
2025-0238188 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
251 | 
| 
CM 251 | 
| 
CA106755553 | 
| 
2025-0238189 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
252 | 
| 
CM 252 | 
| 
CA106755554 | 
| 
2025-0238190 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 013 | |
| 
| 
| 
253 | 
| 
CM 253 | 
| 
CA106755555 | 
| 
2025-0238191 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
254 | 
| 
CM 254 | 
| 
CA106755556 | 
| 
2025-0238192 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
255 | 
| 
CM 255 | 
| 
CA106755557 | 
| 
2025-0238193 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
256 | 
| 
CM 256 | 
| 
CA106755558 | 
| 
2025-0238194 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
257 | 
| 
CM 257 | 
| 
CA106755559 | 
| 
2025-0238195 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
258 | 
| 
CM 258 | 
| 
CA106755560 | 
| 
2025-0238196 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
259 | 
| 
CM 259 | 
| 
CA106755561 | 
| 
2025-0238197 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
260 | 
| 
CM 260 | 
| 
CA106755562 | 
| 
2025-0238198 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
261 | 
| 
CM 261 | 
| 
CA106755563 | 
| 
2025-0238199 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0130E 013 | |
| 
| 
| 
262 | 
| 
CM 262 | 
| 
CA106755564 | 
| 
2025-0238200 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
263 | 
| 
CM 263 | 
| 
CA106755565 | 
| 
2025-0238201 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
264 | 
| 
CM 264 | 
| 
CA106755566 | 
| 
2025-0238202 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
265 | 
| 
CM 265 | 
| 
CA106755567 | 
| 
2025-0238203 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
266 | 
| 
CM 266 | 
| 
CA106755568 | 
| 
2025-0238204 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
267 | 
| 
CM 267 | 
| 
CA106755569 | 
| 
2025-0238205 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
268 | 
| 
CM 268 | 
| 
CA106755570 | 
| 
2025-0238206 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
269 | 
| 
CM 269 | 
| 
CA106755571 | 
| 
2025-0238207 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/9/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
270 | 
| 
CM 270 | 
| 
CA106755572 | 
| 
2025-0238208 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
271 | 
| 
CM 271 | 
| 
CA106755573 | 
| 
2025-0238209 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
272 | 
| 
CM 272 | 
| 
CA106755574 | 
| 
2025-0238210 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
273 | 
| 
CM 273 | 
| 
CA106755575 | 
| 
2025-0238211 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
274 | 
| 
CM 274 | 
| 
CA106755576 | 
| 
2025-0238212 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
275 | 
| 
CM 275 | 
| 
CA106755577 | 
| 
2025-0238213 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
276 | 
| 
CM 276 | 
| 
CA106755578 | 
| 
2025-0238214 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
277 | 
| 
CM 277 | 
| 
CA106755579 | 
| 
2025-0238215 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
278 | 
| 
CM 278 | 
| 
CA106755580 | 
| 
2025-0238216 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 031 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
279 | 
| 
CM 279 | 
| 
CA106755581 | 
| 
2025-0238217 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
280 | 
| 
CM 280 | 
| 
CA106755582 | 
| 
2025-0238218 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
281 | 
| 
CM 281 | 
| 
CA106755583 | 
| 
2025-0238219 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
282 | 
| 
CM 282 | 
| 
CA106755584 | 
| 
2025-0238220 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
283 | 
| 
CM 283 | 
| 
CA106755585 | 
| 
2025-0238221 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
284 | 
| 
CM 284 | 
| 
CA106755586 | 
| 
2025-0238222 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
285 | 
| 
CM 285 | 
| 
CA106755587 | 
| 
2025-0238223 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
286 | 
| 
CM 286 | 
| 
CA106755588 | 
| 
2025-0238224 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
287 | 
| 
CM 287 | 
| 
CA106755589 | 
| 
2025-0238225 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 032 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0170N 0140E 033 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
288 | 
| 
CM 288 | 
| 
CA106755590 | 
| 
2025-0238226 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
289 | 
| 
CM 289 | 
| 
CA106755591 | 
| 
2025-0238227 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
290 | 
| 
CM 290 | 
| 
CA106755592 | 
| 
2025-0238228 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
291 | 
| 
CM 291 | 
| 
CA106755593 | 
| 
2025-0238229 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
292 | 
| 
CM 292 | 
| 
CA106755594 | 
| 
2025-0238230 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
293 | 
| 
CM 293 | 
| 
CA106755595 | 
| 
2025-0238231 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
294 | 
| 
CM 294 | 
| 
CA106755596 | 
| 
2025-0238232 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
295 | 
| 
CM 295 | 
| 
CA106755597 | 
| 
2025-0238233 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
296 | 
| 
CM 296 | 
| 
CA106755598 | 
| 
2025-0238234 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
297 | 
| 
CM 297 | 
| 
CA106755599 | 
| 
2025-0238235 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
298 | 
| 
CM 298 | 
| 
CA106755600 | 
| 
2025-0238236 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
299 | 
| 
CM 299 | 
| 
CA106755601 | 
| 
2025-0238237 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
300 | 
| 
CM 300 | 
| 
CA106755602 | 
| 
2025-0238238 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
301 | 
| 
CM 301 | 
| 
CA106755603 | 
| 
2025-0238239 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
302 | 
| 
CM 302 | 
| 
CA106755604 | 
| 
2025-0238240 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
303 | 
| 
CM 303 | 
| 
CA106755605 | 
| 
2025-0238241 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
304 | 
| 
CM 304 | 
| 
CA106755606 | 
| 
2025-0238242 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
305 | 
| 
CM 305 | 
| 
CA106755607 | 
| 
2025-0238243 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
306 | 
| 
CM 306 | 
| 
CA106755608 | 
| 
2025-0238244 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
307 | 
| 
CM 307 | 
| 
CA106755609 | 
| 
2025-0238245 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
308 | 
| 
CM 308 | 
| 
CA106755610 | 
| 
2025-0238246 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
309 | 
| 
CM 309 | 
| 
CA106755611 | 
| 
2025-0238247 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
310 | 
| 
CM 310 | 
| 
CA106755612 | 
| 
2025-0238248 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
311 | 
| 
CM 311 | 
| 
CA106755613 | 
| 
2025-0238249 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
312 | 
| 
CM 312 | 
| 
CA106755614 | 
| 
2025-0238250 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
313 | 
| 
CM 313 | 
| 
CA106755615 | 
| 
2025-0238251 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
314 | 
| 
CM 314 | 
| 
CA106755616 | 
| 
2025-0238252 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
315 | 
| 
CM 315 | 
| 
CA106755617 | 
| 
2025-0238253 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
316 | 
| 
CM 316 | 
| 
CA106755618 | 
| 
2025-0238254 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
317 | 
| 
CM 317 | 
| 
CA106755619 | 
| 
2025-0238255 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
318 | 
| 
CM 318 | 
| 
CA106755620 | 
| 
2025-0238256 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
319 | 
| 
CM 319 | 
| 
CA106755621 | 
| 
2025-0238257 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
320 | 
| 
CM 320 | 
| 
CA106755622 | 
| 
2025-0238258 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
321 | 
| 
CM 321 | 
| 
CA106755623 | 
| 
2025-0238259 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
322 | 
| 
CM 322 | 
| 
CA106755624 | 
| 
2025-0238260 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
323 | 
| 
CM 323 | 
| 
CA106755625 | 
| 
2025-0238261 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
| 
324 | 
| 
CM 324 | 
| 
CA106755626 | 
| 
2025-0238262 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
325 | 
| 
CM 325 | 
| 
CA106755627 | 
| 
2025-0238263 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
326 | 
| 
CM 326 | 
| 
CA106755628 | 
| 
2025-0238264 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
327 | 
| 
CM 327 | 
| 
CA106755629 | 
| 
2025-0238265 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
328 | 
| 
CM 328 | 
| 
CA106755630 | 
| 
2025-0238266 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
329 | 
| 
CM 329 | 
| 
CA106755631 | 
| 
2025-0238267 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
330 | 
| 
CM 330 | 
| 
CA106755632 | 
| 
2025-0238268 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
331 | 
| 
CM 331 | 
| 
CA106755633 | 
| 
2025-0238269 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
332 | 
| 
CM 332 | 
| 
CA106755634 | 
| 
2025-0238270 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 006 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
333 | 
| 
CM 333 | 
| 
CA106755635 | 
| 
2025-0238271 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
334 | 
| 
CM 334 | 
| 
CA106755636 | 
| 
2025-0238272 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
335 | 
| 
CM 335 | 
| 
CA106755637 | 
| 
2025-0238273 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
336 | 
| 
CM 336 | 
| 
CA106755638 | 
| 
2025-0238274 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
337 | 
| 
CM 337 | 
| 
CA106755639 | 
| 
2025-0238275 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
338 | 
| 
CM 338 | 
| 
CA106755640 | 
| 
2025-0238276 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
339 | 
| 
CM 339 | 
| 
CA106755641 | 
| 
2025-0238277 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
340 | 
| 
CM 340 | 
| 
CA106755642 | 
| 
2025-0238278 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
341 | 
| 
CM 341 | 
| 
CA106755643 | 
| 
2025-0238279 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 005 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 004 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 009 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
342 | 
| 
CM 342 | 
| 
CA106755644 | 
| 
2025-0238280 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
343 | 
| 
CM 343 | 
| 
CA106755645 | 
| 
2025-0238281 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
344 | 
| 
CM 344 | 
| 
CA106755646 | 
| 
2025-0238282 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
345 | 
| 
CM 345 | 
| 
CA106755647 | 
| 
2025-0238283 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
346 | 
| 
CM 346 | 
| 
CA106755648 | 
| 
2025-0238284 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
347 | 
| 
CM 347 | 
| 
CA106755649 | 
| 
2025-0238285 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
348 | 
| 
CM 348 | 
| 
CA106755650 | 
| 
2025-0238286 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
349 | 
| 
CM 349 | 
| 
CA106755651 | 
| 
2025-0238287 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
350 | 
| 
CM 350 | 
| 
CA106755652 | 
| 
2025-0238288 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
351 | 
| 
CM 351 | 
| 
CA106755653 | 
| 
2025-0238289 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
352 | 
| 
CM 352 | 
| 
CA106755654 | 
| 
2025-0238290 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
353 | 
| 
CM 353 | 
| 
CA106755655 | 
| 
2025-0238291 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
354 | 
| 
CM 354 | 
| 
CA106755656 | 
| 
2025-0238292 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
355 | 
| 
CM 355 | 
| 
CA106755657 | 
| 
2025-0238293 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
356 | 
| 
CM 356 | 
| 
CA106755658 | 
| 
2025-0238294 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
357 | 
| 
CM 357 | 
| 
CA106755659 | 
| 
2025-0238295 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
358 | 
| 
CM 358 | 
| 
CA106755660 | 
| 
2025-0238296 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
| 
| 
359 | 
| 
CM 359 | 
| 
CA106755661 | 
| 
2025-0238297 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
360 | 
| 
CM 360 | 
| 
CA106755662 | 
| 
2025-0238298 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
361 | 
| 
CM 361 | 
| 
CA106755663 | 
| 
2025-0238299 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
362 | 
| 
CM 362 | 
| 
CA106755664 | 
| 
2025-0238300 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
363 | 
| 
CM 363 | 
| 
CA106755665 | 
| 
2025-0238301 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
364 | 
| 
CM 364 | 
| 
CA106755666 | 
| 
2025-0238302 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
365 | 
| 
CM 365 | 
| 
CA106755667 | 
| 
2025-0238303 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
366 | 
| 
CM 366 | 
| 
CA106755668 | 
| 
2025-0238304 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
367 | 
| 
CM 367 | 
| 
CA106755669 | 
| 
2025-0238305 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
368 | 
| 
CM 368 | 
| 
CA106755670 | 
| 
2025-0238306 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
369 | 
| 
CM 369 | 
| 
CA106755671 | 
| 
2025-0238307 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
370 | 
| 
CM 370 | 
| 
CA106755672 | 
| 
2025-0238308 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
371 | 
| 
CM 371 | 
| 
CA106755673 | 
| 
2025-0238309 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
372 | 
| 
CM 372 | 
| 
CA106755674 | 
| 
2025-0238310 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
373 | 
| 
CM 373 | 
| 
CA106755675 | 
| 
2025-0238311 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/8/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
374 | 
| 
CM 374 | 
| 
CA106755676 | 
| 
2025-0238312 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
375 | 
| 
CM 375 | 
| 
CA106755677 | 
| 
2025-0238313 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
376 | 
| 
CM 376 | 
| 
CA106755678 | 
| 
2025-0238314 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
377 | 
| 
CM 377 | 
| 
CA106755679 | 
| 
2025-0238315 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
378 | 
| 
CM 378 | 
| 
CA106755680 | 
| 
2025-0238316 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
379 | 
| 
CM 379 | 
| 
CA106755681 | 
| 
2025-0238317 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
380 | 
| 
CM 380 | 
| 
CA106755682 | 
| 
2025-0238318 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
381 | 
| 
CM 381 | 
| 
CA106755683 | 
| 
2025-0238319 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
382 | 
| 
CM 382 | 
| 
CA106755684 | 
| 
2025-0238320 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
383 | 
| 
CM 383 | 
| 
CA106755685 | 
| 
2025-0238321 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
384 | 
| 
CM 384 | 
| 
CA106755686 | 
| 
2025-0238322 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
385 | 
| 
CM 385 | 
| 
CA106755687 | 
| 
2025-0238323 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
386 | 
| 
CM 386 | 
| 
CA106755688 | 
| 
2025-0238324 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
387 | 
| 
CM 387 | 
| 
CA106755689 | 
| 
2025-0238325 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
388 | 
| 
CM 388 | 
| 
CA106755690 | 
| 
2025-0238326 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
389 | 
| 
CM 389 | 
| 
CA106755691 | 
| 
2025-0238327 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
390 | 
| 
CM 390 | 
| 
CA106755692 | 
| 
2025-0238328 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
391 | 
| 
CM 391 | 
| 
CA106755693 | 
| 
2025-0238329 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
392 | 
| 
CM 392 | 
| 
CA106755694 | 
| 
2025-0238330 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
393 | 
| 
CM 393 | 
| 
CA106755695 | 
| 
2025-0238331 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
394 | 
| 
CM 394 | 
| 
CA106755696 | 
| 
2025-0238332 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
395 | 
| 
CM 395 | 
| 
CA106755697 | 
| 
2025-0238333 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 009 | |
| 
396 | 
| 
CM 396 | 
| 
CA106755698 | 
| 
2025-0238334 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
397 | 
| 
CM 397 | 
| 
CA106755699 | 
| 
2025-0238335 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
398 | 
| 
CM 398 | 
| 
CA106755700 | 
| 
2025-0238336 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
399 | 
| 
CM 399 | 
| 
CA106755701 | 
| 
2025-0238337 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
400 | 
| 
CM 400 | 
| 
CA106755702 | 
| 
2025-0238338 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
401 | 
| 
CM 401 | 
| 
CA106755703 | 
| 
2025-0238339 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
402 | 
| 
CM 402 | 
| 
CA106755704 | 
| 
2025-0238340 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
403 | 
| 
CM 403 | 
| 
CA106755705 | 
| 
2025-0238341 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
404 | 
| 
CM 404 | 
| 
CA106755706 | 
| 
2025-0238342 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 007 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
405 | 
| 
CM 405 | 
| 
CA106755707 | 
| 
2025-0238343 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
406 | 
| 
CM 406 | 
| 
CA106755708 | 
| 
2025-0238344 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
407 | 
| 
CM 407 | 
| 
CA106755709 | 
| 
2025-0238345 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
408 | 
| 
CM 408 | 
| 
CA106755710 | 
| 
2025-0238346 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
409 | 
| 
CM 409 | 
| 
CA106755711 | 
| 
2025-0238347 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
410 | 
| 
CM 410 | 
| 
CA106755712 | 
| 
2025-0238348 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
411 | 
| 
CM 411 | 
| 
CA106755713 | 
| 
2025-0238349 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
412 | 
| 
CM 412 | 
| 
CA106755714 | 
| 
2025-0238350 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
413 | 
| 
CM 413 | 
| 
CA106755715 | 
| 
2025-0238351 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/5/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 008 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 009 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 016 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
414 | 
| 
CM 414 | 
| 
CA106755716 | 
| 
2025-0238352 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
415 | 
| 
CM 415 | 
| 
CA106755717 | 
| 
2025-0238353 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
416 | 
| 
CM 416 | 
| 
CA106755718 | 
| 
2025-0238354 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
417 | 
| 
CM 417 | 
| 
CA106755719 | 
| 
2025-0238355 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
418 | 
| 
CM 418 | 
| 
CA106755720 | 
| 
2025-0238356 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
419 | 
| 
CM 419 | 
| 
CA106755721 | 
| 
2025-0238357 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
420 | 
| 
CM 420 | 
| 
CA106755722 | 
| 
2025-0238358 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
421 | 
| 
CM 421 | 
| 
CA106755723 | 
| 
2025-0238359 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
422 | 
| 
CM 422 | 
| 
CA106755724 | 
| 
2025-0238360 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
423 | 
| 
CM 423 | 
| 
CA106755725 | 
| 
2025-0238361 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
424 | 
| 
CM 424 | 
| 
CA106755726 | 
| 
2025-0238362 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
425 | 
| 
CM 425 | 
| 
CA106755727 | 
| 
2025-0238363 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
426 | 
| 
CM 426 | 
| 
CA106755728 | 
| 
2025-0238364 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
427 | 
| 
CM 427 | 
| 
CA106755729 | 
| 
2025-0238365 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
428 | 
| 
CM 428 | 
| 
CA106755730 | 
| 
2025-0238366 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
429 | 
| 
CM 429 | 
| 
CA106755731 | 
| 
2025-0238367 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
430 | 
| 
CM 430 | 
| 
CA106755732 | 
| 
2025-0238368 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
431 | 
| 
CM 431 | 
| 
CA106755733 | 
| 
2025-0238369 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 016 | |
| 
432 | 
| 
CM 432 | 
| 
CA106755734 | 
| 
2025-0238370 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
433 | 
| 
CM 433 | 
| 
CA106755735 | 
| 
2025-0238371 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
434 | 
| 
CM 434 | 
| 
CA106755736 | 
| 
2025-0238372 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
435 | 
| 
CM 435 | 
| 
CA106755737 | 
| 
2025-0238373 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
436 | 
| 
CM 436 | 
| 
CA106755738 | 
| 
2025-0238374 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
437 | 
| 
CM 437 | 
| 
CA106755739 | 
| 
2025-0238375 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
438 | 
| 
CM 438 | 
| 
CA106755740 | 
| 
2025-0238376 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
439 | 
| 
CM 439 | 
| 
CA106755741 | 
| 
2025-0238377 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
440 | 
| 
CM 440 | 
| 
CA106755742 | 
| 
2025-0238378 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
441 | 
| 
CM 441 | 
| 
CA106755743 | 
| 
2025-0238379 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
442 | 
| 
CM 442 | 
| 
CA106755744 | 
| 
2025-0238380 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
443 | 
| 
CM 443 | 
| 
CA106755745 | 
| 
2025-0238381 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
444 | 
| 
CM 444 | 
| 
CA106755746 | 
| 
2025-0238382 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
445 | 
| 
CM 445 | 
| 
CA106755747 | 
| 
2025-0238383 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
446 | 
| 
CM 446 | 
| 
CA106755748 | 
| 
2025-0238384 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
447 | 
| 
CM 447 | 
| 
CA106755749 | 
| 
2025-0238385 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
448 | 
| 
CM 448 | 
| 
CA106755750 | 
| 
2025-0238386 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
449 | 
| 
CM 449 | 
| 
CA106755751 | 
| 
2025-0238387 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/4/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 016 | |
| 
450 | 
| 
CM 450 | 
| 
CA106755752 | 
| 
2025-0238388 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 019 | |
| 
451 | 
| 
CM 451 | 
| 
CA106755753 | 
| 
2025-0238389 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 018 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 019 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
452 | 
| 
CM 452 | 
| 
CA106755754 | 
| 
2025-0238390 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
453 | 
| 
CM 453 | 
| 
CA106755755 | 
| 
2025-0238391 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
454 | 
| 
CM 454 | 
| 
CA106755756 | 
| 
2025-0238392 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
455 | 
| 
CM 455 | 
| 
CA106755757 | 
| 
2025-0238393 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
456 | 
| 
CM 456 | 
| 
CA106755758 | 
| 
2025-0238394 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
457 | 
| 
CM 457 | 
| 
CA106755759 | 
| 
2025-0238395 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
458 | 
| 
CM 458 | 
| 
CA106755760 | 
| 
2025-0238396 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
459 | 
| 
CM 459 | 
| 
CA106755761 | 
| 
2025-0238397 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
460 | 
| 
CM 460 | 
| 
CA106755762 | 
| 
2025-0238398 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 016 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 017 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
461 | 
| 
CM 461 | 
| 
CA106755763 | 
| 
2025-0238399 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 019 | |
| 
462 | 
| 
CM 462 | 
| 
CA106755764 | 
| 
2025-0238400 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 019 | |
| 
463 | 
| 
CM 463 | 
| 
CA106755765 | 
| 
2025-0238401 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
464 | 
| 
CM 464 | 
| 
CA106755766 | 
| 
2025-0238402 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
465 | 
| 
CM 465 | 
| 
CA106755767 | 
| 
2025-0238403 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
466 | 
| 
CM 466 | 
| 
CA106755768 | 
| 
2025-0238404 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
467 | 
| 
CM 467 | 
| 
CA106755769 | 
| 
2025-0238405 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
468 | 
| 
CM 468 | 
| 
CA106755770 | 
| 
2025-0238406 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
469 | 
| 
CM 469 | 
| 
CA106755771 | 
| 
2025-0238407 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
470 | 
| 
CM 470 | 
| 
CA106755772 | 
| 
2025-0238408 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
471 | 
| 
CM 471 | 
| 
CA106755773 | 
| 
2025-0238409 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 020 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
472 | 
| 
CM 472 | 
| 
CA106755774 | 
| 
2025-0238410 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
473 | 
| 
CM 473 | 
| 
CA106755775 | 
| 
2025-0238411 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
474 | 
| 
CM 474 | 
| 
CA106755776 | 
| 
2025-0238412 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
475 | 
| 
CM 475 | 
| 
CA106755777 | 
| 
2025-0238413 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 
| 
| |
| 
SEC 2025 Technical Report Summary Mountain Pass Mine | 
| 
Appendices | |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
Count | 
| 
Claim Name | 
| 
BLM SerialNumber | 
| 
Original CountyLocation | 
| 
Last AmendedCounty Location | 
| 
Date OfLocation | 
| 
Meridian TownshipRange Section | |
| 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | 
| 
Book | 
| 
Page | |
| 
476 | 
| 
CM 476 | 
| 
CA106755778 | 
| 
2025-0238414 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
477 | 
| 
CM 477 | 
| 
CA106755779 | 
| 
2025-0238415 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
478 | 
| 
CM 478 | 
| 
CA106755780 | 
| 
2025-0238416 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
479 | 
| 
CM 479 | 
| 
CA106755781 | 
| 
2025-0238417 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
480 | 
| 
CM 480 | 
| 
CA106755782 | 
| 
2025-0238418 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
481 | 
| 
CM 481 | 
| 
CA106755783 | 
| 
2025-0238419 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
482 | 
| 
CM 482 | 
| 
CA106755784 | 
| 
2025-0238420 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
483 | 
| 
CM 483 | 
| 
CA106755785 | 
| 
2025-0238421 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
484 | 
| 
CM 484 | 
| 
CA106755786 | 
| 
2025-0238422 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
485 | 
| 
CM 485 | 
| 
CA106755787 | 
| 
2025-0238423 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
486 | 
| 
CM 486 | 
| 
CA106755788 | 
| 
2025-0238424 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
487 | 
| 
CM 487 | 
| 
CA106755789 | 
| 
2025-0238425 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
488 | 
| 
CM 488 | 
| 
CA106755790 | 
| 
2025-0238426 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
489 | 
| 
CM 489 | 
| 
CA106755791 | 
| 
2025-0238427 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
490 | 
| 
CM 490 | 
| 
CA106755792 | 
| 
2025-0238428 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
491 | 
| 
CM 491 | 
| 
CA106755793 | 
| 
2025-0238429 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
492 | 
| 
CM 492 | 
| 
CA106755794 | 
| 
2025-0238430 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
493 | 
| 
CM 493 | 
| 
CA106755795 | 
| 
2025-0238431 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
494 | 
| 
CM 494 | 
| 
CA106755796 | 
| 
2025-0238432 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
| 
495 | 
| 
CM 495 | 
| 
CA106755797 | 
| 
2025-0238433 | 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/7/2025 | 
| 
27 0160N 0140E 021 | |
**Total Number of Unpatented Claims = 495 Lode Claims**
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
February 2026 | |