As always your information is upon to date and you ask questions...

As always your information is upon to date and you ask questions that you already know the answer to.

My comment remains the same.
10.11.3.

No matter the time passed, it is retrievable, fixable and appropriate to consider.
At which point you would find most people are rather amiable on all other matters conducted in a professional, proactive and sensible manner.

Until then, nothing regarding the constant onslaught of blue sky graphite information presented is relevant to the principle matter of the possibility that historical transgressions possibly should be and may be dealt with in the very near future from the flanks.

Such things will not be washed over by constant discussion of graphite content simply glossing over the past which, is not resolved, and hoping to get a fish through the tuna nets with the end result being self perpetuated glossed egos that shall have the constant smear of doubt upon them which can not be simply glossed over to maintain a perpetual shine.

It is the same as the difference between solid gold and anodised aluminium coloured and polished to look like gold. I.e. a lesser substance than the original element which is then presented hoping that everyone forgets the original element was damaged and that everyone will be wowed by the new shiny anodised aluminium.

We want the gold, not the anodised aluminium that will shatter and break under load, unlike gold.

My opinion only and do your own research.
Which clearly you do.

Skaaland is good, thats why MRC bought into it.
Mineral sands are good, they always returned dividends until the current board performed their coup de tat.

This is not about the quality of the MRC assets, it its about 'anodised aluminium' being used to gloss over the outstanding issues, which must be addressed with severity in an appropriate forum.

Thank you.