Link to Bridge Street Capital Research Report, page-21

Just found out something interesting when comparing TMT to TNG.
The "Peer Comparison" table in the Spark report (page 8) gives
the annual production of V2O5 as 12,800 tonnes for TMT (**ba),
and 6000 tonnes for TNG.

Of course TNG is mining TiO2 and Fe2O3 too, and I calculated the forecast
income split from the three minerals over the LOM as 29% (V2O5),
9% Fe2O3, and 62% Ti2O3. I was a bit surprised to see that TNG will
derive most of its income from its titanium fraction. One could ask
whether TNG will morph into mainly a TiO2 supplier with Vanadium
and iron ore as bi-products ?

So to get more exposure to the Vanadium (and possible upside if the V2O5 price
goes up), TMT seems to be a much better prospect that TNG, since TMT will have
more than double the annual production of V2O5.

When you add in the recent additional income that could come initially from
Yarrabubba, the financials for TMT look even better.

For example, the pre-production Capex for TNG is $824m compared to ~$450m
for TMT (**ba), but TMT's capex could be ~$150m if done using Yarrabubba
as the initial stepping stone, as has been suggested by others here.

Note too in the Spark report table that TMT's annual production of V2O5 (12,800t) will be
the highest of all the V2O5 miners listed, the closest at 12,000t would be Largo Resources.

All IMHO, DYOR