What small‑cap mining companies filed NI‑43‑101 or 10‑K disclosures describing on‑site molybdenum processing plants?

1. Greenland Resources’ Malmbjerg: a DFS that implies a full‑scale project but stops short of explicit “on‑site processing plant” language

Greenland Resources’ Malmbjerg project is repeatedly referenced in the filings as having an NI 43‑101 Definitive Feasibility Study prepared by Tetra Tech in 2022 with an initial capital estimate of about US$820 million and a mine plan producing roughly 32.8 million pounds of molybdenum per year in the early life of the project — details consistent with a vertically integrated operation that would normally include on‑site processing, but the material provided stops at describing open pit design, modularized infrastructure and capex rather than quoting a sentence that an on‑site molybdenum processing plant is described in the NI 43‑101 filing itself ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Vanguard Mining (Redonda): an NI 43‑101 update tied to copper‑moly that may cover metallurgy but the press release focuses on exploration and geophysics

Vanguard Mining Corp. has publicly engaged a qualified person to update a March 15, 2024 NI 43‑101 technical report for its 100%‑owned Redonda Copper‑Molybdenum Project in British Columbia, and the notice details inclusion of recent drill data, historical Teck data and geophysical vectors important to porphyry copper‑moly systems — the company framed the engagement around resource and technical reporting rather than a processing‑plant disclosure in the quoted release, so the update may contain metallurgical and plant information but the cited announcement does not itself assert that an on‑site molybdenum processing plant is described ^[3].

3. What the filings typically contain — and why “processing plant” language matters

NI 43‑101 technical reports and DFS documents routinely include capital cost breakdowns, infrastructure descriptions and process plant design when developers propose a commercial mine (the Greenland DFS references capex and a mine design with modularized infrastructure), which is why the presence of an NI 43‑101 DFS is strong circumstantial evidence that processing facilities were modelled; nevertheless, the available excerpts do not reproduce the precise text of the NI 43‑101 or a 10‑K stating “on‑site molybdenum processing plant,” and that distinction matters for legal and investor disclosure reasons ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Small‑cap universe beyond these examples — where the reporting is silent

Other small‑cap or junior lists (for example, compilations of small‑cap mining stocks or molybdenum directories) mention companies with molybdenum exposure such as Northern Dynasty or directories of “moly” issuers, but the provided sources do not include citations of those companies’ NI 43‑101 or 10‑K texts describing on‑site molybdenum mills, so it would be speculative to claim additional filers beyond Greenland Resources and Vanguard on the basis of the supplied material ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification

Based on the supplied reporting, Greenland Resources’ Malmbjerg project (NI 43‑101 DFS by Tetra Tech) and Vanguard Mining’s forthcoming NI 43‑101 update for Redonda are the only small‑cap examples tied to formal NI 43‑101 documentation addressing molybdenum projects in the sample, but the excerpts do not explicitly quote language asserting on‑site molybdenum processing plants; reviewing the full NI 43‑101 DF S text for Malmbjerg and the Redonda updated technical report or corresponding 10‑K/SEDAR filings is required to confirm whether each filing specifically describes an on‑site molybdenum processing plant ^{[1] [2] [3]}.