"What was the observed hydrogen levels around the Moon's poles? As I remember it was about ~1% water, which is a lot harder to extract than 25% in the NEOs. And some NEOs might be ice coated in asphalt (dust+kerogen sludge) which would be even easier to extract."

"It was once considered the most dangerous object in the universe, heading for Earth with the explosive power of 84 Hiroshimas. Now an asteroid called 2000SG344, a lump of rock barely the size of a large yacht, is in the spotlight again, this time as a contender for the next giant leap for mankind.
...
A report seen by the Guardian notes that by sending astronauts on a three-month journey to the hurtling asteroid, scientists believe they would learn more about the psychological effects of long-term missions and the risks of working in deep space, and it would allow astronauts to test kits to convert subsurface ice into drinking water, breathable oxygen and even hydrogen to top up rocket fuel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/07/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration

I would like to see the report and more details in general.

But this is about the best one could expect in regards to NEOs- it takes a couple months to get there and one could stay for weeks before leaving. And if you look at a time period of couple years, it's spending most of time at quite a distance from Earth. If one could move a NEO into a orbit which stayed near earth for longer periods of time, this would be significant difference. And some have suggested doing this with 2000SG344 [with the stated purpose of using it to deflect space rocks which could impact Earth].

Of course, if one is using robots, and/or one could tele operate at times when it's closest to Earth.

As for 1% vs 25%.
A key element is the Moon "could" have 1% concentration and a NEO "could" have 25% concentration of water.

Then if 1% concentration is accurate this doesn't mean that one has 1% concentration at a more human scale of acres or a sq kilometer. The resolution or "pixel" is 40 kilometer square [involving 160 kms in one data point]. The current India mission will hopefully provide better resolution.

But let us imagine you knew that a rock like 2000SG344 had 25% water concentration, and at best Lunar poles had 1% water concentration.
An important aspect of mining is how much one can get from a ton of ore and the cost involved with doing this.

In gold mining one does not have such concentration as 1%- if it was, gold would sold by lb and be about buck or maybe two. When gold is found where one can get 10 kg per tonne, you have a gold rush, but in terms of regular gold mining:

"An average lode mine with a production output of 50 to 100 tons per day, may have a cutoff point of .25 troy ounces per ton while an open pit mining operation producing thousands of tons of ore per day may be as low as .032151 troy ounces of precious metal or even less (1 gram). This given that the precious values are primarily gold."
http://www.assaying.org/AssayTon.htm

And in modern gold mining one is getting somewhere better than 99% of the gold in the ore. Getting all the gold is not cost effective- if it was one would mine sea water for gold. But a determining factor of how much of percentage of gold one removes from the ore is the price of gold

So, if you have 1% concentration of water, the critical question is how much can you get per ton of "ore" in a cost effective manner and this is in relation to the price of water.

How does one determine the price of water in space without an existing market in space that provides one an answer?
[And this is slightly "complicated" by the fact that potentially in the fairly distance future, water could be cheaper in space than on Earth. One could say water prices in space are similar to computer chip prices on Earth].

A fairly simple way to determine the price of water in space is replacement cost: A 1000 tons of water in space is worth the cost and therefore asking price of shipping water from earth to space. Or instead of 1000 tons, the question could be 100 tons or million tons.
And what is most valued and needed most in terms of quantity in space, "for space" in the near term is rocket fuel or rocket propellent.
With water being able to be converted into rocket fuel, or be used as a propellant, or used for shielding, and other human needs.

Next question. Where is rocket fuel or water most needed or valued in space in the near term?

There are two answers- LEO and High Earth orbit. And they are both the same answer, sort of.
One could say that if one had cheap rocket fuel in LEO, one could then have cheap rocket fuel in High earth orbit and beyond. So, "all you have to do" is make rocket fuel at LEO cheap, and "the rest follows".
BUT if you have cheap rocket fuel at LEO, then rocket fuel at High Earth orbit or beyond will be about twice whatever the LEO's price is.
Therefore if cheap rocket fuel at LEO is $2000 per lb [or $4000 per kg], High Earth orbit will be about $4000 lb. And lunar surface about $8000 lb.

With making rocket fuel on the Moon and selling it at $2000 lb, one could sell it at High earth orbit for about $4000 lb, but could not sell it at LEO for $2000 per lb. In order for lunar rocket to sell at 2000 per lb at LEO, it need to cost about $500 per lb on lunar surface.

If you are selling rocket fuel on the Moon for $2000 per lb, one is selling rocket fuel on lunar surface somewhere around 1/6th to 1/10th of what is "currently available"- replacement cost- [sending something like a Saturn V rocket which has a vehicle which will leave the moon fully fueled before it blasts off from Earth].
This means that if you selling rocket fuel at the lunar surface at $2000 per lb, you are providing a bargain and it will lower the cost of going to moon [if returning to earth is part of it] by more than 1/2 to total cost- or said differently, one needs about 1/2 the payload mass of a Saturn V to do the same thing the Saturn V did.
And if you have rocket fuel at lunar orbit, one reduces the size by about another 1/2. And if you have rocket fuel in LEO, then something about the size of a Soyuz could get to the moon and back to earth- and so a trip to the lunar surface and back to earth, could be somewhere around 100 million dollars [or about 5 times more than cost of currently going to ISS].

And if what you want to do is sell lunar dirt to Earth, having rocket fuel on lunar surface at $2000 per lb, will reduce your cost by somewhere around 1/10th.

So with that in mind, "25% water vs 1%":

I would say that in order for Lunar mining to be viable it has to be able to sell rocket fuel or water to High earth orbit- *in addition* to selling rocket fuel on the lunar surface.
With NEOs I don't see selling rocket fuel at the NEO, and it's market would be High Earth orbit, LEO, Mars orbit, Lunar orbit, or some other planet's orbit.

Now, lunar water miner, could say I'm selling water for 500 per lb, "it's in barrels behind the shed"- and the barrels have deposit fee. Lunar miner mines water and puts it in barrels behind the shed and others buy it and do whatever with it.

Now, the NEO water miner, is going to charge what for the barrels of water behind the shed?

Or how much would someone pay for barrels of water on a NEO?

If this water was significantly cheaper than lunar water, then perhaps water could be shipped to LEO [which in my opinion is not possible for lunar water in the near term]. Or in other words, lunar water and lunar power would need to be cheap enough to allow lunar rocket to be sold at about $500 per lb [so that leaves lunar water around $100 per lb and power around $10 or $20 per kwh].

Now, I would say a 1 million tons of NEO water delivered to earth orbit is worth the Universe. And I don't see the downsize of delivering a rock which has 1 million tons of water mixed with 3 million tons of rock and worrying about separating them after it gets to earth orbit. And partially is because a brick house in LEO sounds appealing to me.

But first we need to sell the first 1000 or 10,000 tons for around 1 million dollars per ton and I don't see this starting with NEOs.
And actually for the first 100 tons, it's been my long belief that it should start by buying water shipped to LEO from Earth- for paltry cost of less than 1/2 billion dollars. Pay for by the govt and it would save them more than that cost. And I suppose if not a the govt, some non profit entity who wants to save the planet or something.