@spid81"Mining has been allowed to take part in the $1.7mil...

@spid81"Mining has been allowed to take part in the $1.7mil capital raising and they are allowed to take up their rights in the Entitlement offer, In total Au Mining will still be able to invest $6mil, although they won't be allowed to take up any of the shortfall/underwrite the offer."
I think there's even a comment about this $1.7m in a footnote on page 1 of the media release, if this is what took Au mining from 28.2% to 31.1%?
Not sure if I follow for the remaining $6m though (do you mean $6.6m?).

On page 2 the media release says both parties will terminate their underwriting agreement in relation to the rights issue. I take this to mean the $6.6m is gone, and that shortfall has to be taken up by other shareholders. I haven't seen any word on how much equity has been raised from other shareholders so far, I'm guessing we won't know until they close submissions (maybe this Friday) and release an announcement.

@spid81 "I don't really see why MRC really needs more than $4-6mil"

When prices are at historical lows like this, they really shouldn't ask for more than what is absolutely necessary. I doubt they'd set a target at $14m if they could make it work with $4-6m. If they raise only enough for working capital then they risk having to raise more again in the future in potentially worse circumstances.

I am biased because I'm here for the graphite products, so I have an interest in seeing that new pilot plant in Australia. For clarity, is the pilot plant mentioned in the capital raise ($4.3m allocated) the same pilot plant for which MRC received $3.94m in grant funding? (ASX announcement 26th September). MRC also say they want a product qualification targeted for Q2 2023 and commercial scale plants in operation by 2024 (P13, Quarterly report June 2022). It's Q4 2022 and the funding for the pilot plant is still unconfirmed. The timeline seems very ambitious considering how long it takes to complete qualification testing. Do they plan on using techniques and designs from the MCC collab or will they develop their own?

As an aside, I also found this in the June report, but I didn't see any mention of it in the October investor presentation. Is it underway?
Phase 1 - A Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (Toll Manufacturing Agreement), in which MRC, via a 100% MRC owned Norwegian subsidiary (Ascent Graphite AS), will construct and operate an “Anode Plant” in Norway to toll treat graphitic material supplied by MCC for subsequent deliver to MCC.

This presentation also states anode qualification & commercial production is already achieved (big green tick on page 6). Is there already a plant somewhere? Is this a result of the collab with MCC? Is it actually commercial in quantity? The last information I could find on qualification tests indicated they were happily testing Skaland graphite in coin cells with the CSIRO, Munglinup graphite testing was underway (15 dec 2021, I'm aware this a year ago but I cannot see any newer anode testing announcements on the ASX).

I get the impression the regulars here grow frustrated by the lack of interest from the market. I think this may be, at least in part, due to the vague detail in the investor presentations. Maybe they are ok for people who read every single one, but they should paint a clear picture for prospective investors as well. The detail in their investor presentations and summaries could do with some clarity, especially around the anode pilot plants and qualification testing. I know I'm not the only person who struggles to understand exactly what this company is doing.

RE: Your last sentence, I'm only a spectator but even I'm annoyed by this.

The potential ownership stake would have been known at the beginning right. Did management know they were taking a risk, or were they ignorant to it? In addition, I see no mention of any negotiation in the Media Release so perhaps one party wasn't interested or the Panel didn't allow it. No nuance about this is mentioned in the Media Release so perhaps it was never an option. But I know I'd rather see a reduced allocation than no allocation. The rights issue clearly says "Up to" $6.6m implying they could have gone with less?