As the thread suggests - let's make it easier for our Brit top...

As the thread suggests - let's make it easier for our Brit top 20 attending in the UK. If you have posted a question somewhere on another thread over the past few days then maybe cut it and paste the text into this thread.

You have my two questions so far Pauldola, but sharing is caring so here 'tis again.

1. MFC clauses versus collar pricing. This probably has a broader backdrop of whether they're targeting few bulk customers or various smaller customers. It's an old question so I probably don't need to re-labour the whole point again. But high level recap - neither price clause is much use if there is only going to be one or a couple of bulk buyers - so if bulk is the plan, just how are they going to 'bulk it'. If little smaller pits here and there are the way to go - then time for one of those PR pieces on the Triton website - probably belongs on the same page as that Securities Trading Policy PR piece. A PR piece or presso called "Growth Strategy" and make it look like something the self respecting companies do like Panasonic for example - http://panasonic.net/ir/presentation/pdf/20131122_e.pdf

Who are the customers/purchasers of their graphite and just how do they plan to sell to them. I.e: are we just dishing out graphite for other people to test and tell us if they're willing to buy, or are management going to tell us how they intend on kicking down some doors to get these buyers. Which doors, which buyers and just what are they kicking these doors down with.

2. Mining method - a question for the new Tech Director with a Uranium background and a position with another ASX company with bucketloads of Uranium in Karoo. Open pit to a certain depth and then a different mining method? I don't know if it's worth theorising the mining methods as he could go onto to say anything - but you would think he could answer the direct question of "Given the current orebody you have observed to date, what would you theorise to be the most cost effective and practical way to extract both the shallow and deep graphite".

"If graphite and vanadium sales are the end game, do you see certain advantages for two separate plants as opposed to one plant that extracts both graphite and vanadium. Is it possible that with two plants, TON would be able to process the high value vanadium 'stuck' in low quality amorphous in one place very profitably while the higher grade graphite is processed elsewhere without any regard for preserving the integrity of the vanadium in that second graphite optimised plant. If for no other reason than the fact this separate plant may simplify the refinement of graphite to a saleable product in a much shorter time frame."

Have I explained it well enough - be direct in the questions you ask but always allow the person answering an opportunity to claim plausible deniability at a later date. People are adverse to speaking with conviction - and BB strikes me as someone very adverse to it. Alan on the other hand is not adverse to it in my view. The management team have been asked to behave this way in my opinion - that's why Alan's Twitter disappeared. I don't think there's any utility in asking why no more Twitter or even joking about it frankly.

And some additional questions - I'll keep adding as time permits. Hopefully other long termers add something of value throughout the day.

3. Does management understand the plight of other competitor graphite plays targeting the EV market and the length of time it has taken for their deposits to be proven as battery compatible. Up to two years of testing and refining of process, and that is purportedly before the graphite can be even sold for battery usage off the shelf as generic. Trying to sell to a certain spec will be much harder and take longer - do management agree?

With this in mind, does management also agree that targeting the EV market at this stage of TON's progress from explorer to producer is perhaps too aggressive as a first move (or even early move for that matter). If management is cognisant of this fact that an MOU or offtake in relation to battery grade graphite is virtually impossible at this stage of their development and only suited as a very long term goal, then why haven't management been outspoken about what their actual intended target markets are in the short to medium term.