"As proof of principle, Cardiff and colleagues used a lens to focus sunlight into a tiny vacuum chamber and heated 10 grams of simulated lunar soil to about 2,500 degrees Celsius (4,500 degrees Fahrenheit).
...
Actual lunar soil is considered too precious to consume for such research.

In their tests, "as much as 20 percent of the simulated soil was converted to free oxygen," Cardiff said. The leftover is called slag, a low-oxygen, highly metallic, often glassy material."
Cardiff and colleagues at NASA's Langley Research Center are attempting to figure out how to shape slag into useful products such as radiation shielding, bricks, spare parts or even pavement."
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Scientists_Working_To_Help_Astronauts_To_Breath_Moon_Dust.html

A couple things, first lunar soil shouldn't be too precious to consume for research. If lunar sample returns only cost around same price as an oz of gold, lunar soil wouldn't be to precious to consume for research. If we were importing lunar material somewhere in range of around 100 tons per year on average for decades and decades, then lunar material on earth would still be rarer than gold. This effectively means that were the Moon covered in gold bricks, it wouldn't be as valuable as the lunar dirt which is there. The only difference between a moon covered in gold and a moon covered with lunar regolith would that people would more easily see the value of mining the the Moon. People don't *easily* understand that the vacuum of the Moon is a "valuable resource" instead they think of it as *mostly* a liability in terms of not being able to breath the atmosphere.
Second making oxgen on the Moon is easy, if we do any kind of mining and processing on the Moon, we will have tons of oxygen as a "waste product". Oxygen is the "slag". For lunar mining one must focus on what is easiest to mine. If water is minable on lunar poles- that is first thing to focus on. Next is Iron. Iron is easy to sort- it's weight, it's magnetic properties and it's a common material in the universe- and we currently mine and use a lot of it here on Earth [because it's useful material, it's plentiful, and it's cheap to make in terms of energy cost].

The question is what stuff do you use or need. And rocket fuel is what you need the most of. If you have rocket fuel on the lunar surface getting to the Moon and back off the Moon is much easier [cheaper]. In the Apollo program, the "largest payload" in terms mass delivered to the Moon was the rocket fuel needed to leave the moon. Roughly, lunar landing craft which needs the return fuel weighs 20 tons whereas landing craft without needing to bring the return fuel it could be 5 tons.

If it costs 20,000 per lb to deliver anything to the Moon, then rocket fuel on the Moon worth $20,000 per lb, but this overly simplified. For example if you change the quantity you get a different value per lb, e.g. How much would 1000 tons of fuel [or anything] cost to deliver to the Moon? Only having one rocket deliver 10 tons is different than having 100 rockets delivering 10 tons, it simply "changes everything". But in the environment in which it costs 20,000 per lb and therefore it's "worth" 20,000 per lb on Moon you could roughtly suppose that having a price of 5,000 per lb rocket fuel on the moon for large quantities or small quantities would considered a pretty good price- from point view of buyer. From seller point of view it's all about volume- if there is millions of tons of water which can be obtain so as convert into rocket fuel and there is a demand for millions of tons of rocket in timeframe in which it is deliverable- there is huge profits. The gross sales a million tons [2 billion lbs] at this price is 5000 times 2 billion is $10 trillion. This of course is far too simple. One could simply turn this around and ask who is going to spent this 10 trillion and considering this is just for fuel costs it get even more far fetched.

Nope this is all about volume, the seller needs to sell to more "markets" than just the lunar surface. Obviously the seller of rocket fuel can't sell to Earth surface, but Low Earth orbit and High Earth orbit are more possible. From the Moon it cost more to ship to Low Earth orbit than compared to High Earth orbit [by High Earth orbit I'm including GEO and all L-points and Lunar orbits- in terms of delta-v there isn't much differences between these- I could even include other planets orbits such as around Mars or Venus- but let's exclude these]. From Earth, Low Earth is cheaper to get to than High Earth orbit and therefore High Earth orbit's rocket fuel is worth more- you can sell it at higher price. Therefore for Lunar rocket fuel company selling to High Earth orbit is more profitable- can ask for higher price and cost less to ship to- than Low Earth orbit, though it could be argued that Low Earth orbit has more traffic and therefore more demand [can have more volume].
If Rocket fuel cost $5000 per lb on Lunar surface, and you going to use rocket fuel in order to ship rocket fuel [or water which you make into rocket fuel at it's destination] then it's cost will be higher therefore it's price should higher in High Earth orbit. Therefore with price of $5000 at lunar surface, one might expect a price of around $10,000 per lb at High Earth. The "problem is" that shipping from Earth could beat your price- probably fairly easily especially when you are considering high volume {e.g.1000 tons}. A realistic target price might around 5000 per lb at High Earth- and therefore your lunar surface rocket fuel price should be lower than $5000 per lb. Now, if you had one company "doing all of this" you could over charge on lunar surface and undercharge at High Earth- but this wouldn't reflect true cost and you will be dragged in front of Congress for price gouging and "flooding the market" type stuff. Beside the political problems associated with this it simply doesn't make economic sense. What makes economic sense is for separate companies doing various functions- e.g. Selling electrical power; selling water; shipping stuff like water, rocket fuel, lunar dirt, etc; and making rocket fuel. In other words in true competive market in which price reflects cost lunar water or lunar rocket fuel will be cheaper on lunar surface than compared High Earth orbit. And this higher price would also lead to way shipping stuff off the moon at lower cost- such as using mass drivers [this competitor of rocket fuel makers would actually help rather then restrict by increase the volume of rocket fuel sold, because this lowered cost in shipping could open up Low Earth orbit as market for Lunar rocket fuel- not to mention the set up cost of such a mass driver operation would be another buyer for rocket fuel.
In summary it's my conclusion that any attempt at molopoly in regards to lunar development [including NASA "doing it all"] will *always* fail; it's practically impossible for a molopoly to work- though once you get a mature market- no doubt parties will attempt to form molopolies and these may work [not well, but it would be possible would "appear" profitable].