MNS Vs TON, page-78

Hi JDragon,

Thanks for the effort in putting together the comparison between the two companies.
There are just a couple of things I need to clarify or correct as they can be mis-construed by some when comparing value propositions moving forward.

Firstly I must re-iterate that MNS and TON are two completely different business models.
TON must attempt to uncover as big a resource as possible as their neighbour at present is the market leader in terms of cap size and they are both operating in the exact same geography/location.
Their end product is essentially the same so TON needs to create a point of difference over its neighbour WITH A BIGGER RESOURCE.
Once again this is pointless long term as a 1000 year mine life and beyond is pointless.

Secondly MNS is focussed on being the first graphite company into production.
The graphite is free of deleterious materials, is found at surface and will be mined to relatively shallow depths due the the vast size of the area involved and the options available.
56% is in the Jumbo category, and 30% in the Medium to Large Category, with 14% in the Fine category as per the announcement on the 10/10/14.

Thirdly from reading between the lines MNS wont be attempting to uncover a Massive Initial JORC resource in the same vein as SYR or TON. Without quoting numbers I believe it will be concentrated on a hot spot with focus being on getting the data available for that hot spot to set up a plant to begin production asap.

12 months ago I was also quoting big numbers for Nachu however as time has gone on I have realised that the end game is not about massive numbers but it is about getting into production, signing the applicable deals, obtaining the finance required etc. The market will soon come to realise that this is the end game as the margins with the Jumbo Flake MNS has is enormous.
Brokers are yet to understand this which seems unbelievable however through discussions I have had it seems only the savvy are aware of of the end game.

Also with regards to your table there are a few errors -

Please note Jumbo category is for 300 microns and above.
As per my post yesterday I believe TON would have approx 10-15% in this category.
MNS has 56% in this category which is unmatched worldwide.

You had Jumbo from 180 microns and above and had MNS at 45%.
This is not correct because as per the announcement on the 10/10/14 the quantity would be more in the 75-80% range at least. (56% 300 microns and above and 30% 150 microns and above)
You had TON at 23% from 180 microns which is also incorrect as it was for 212 micron and above as per their announcement yesterday.
In reality I believe TON would have approx 10-15% in the JUMBO category from 300 Micron and above. This is based on their figures yesterday as per my previous post.

Also JDragon the depths are a little confusing.
Not sure what the 46-64 or 400 metres means?
As a comparison we know simplistically that MNS will be drilling to shallower depths as highlighted by TON drilling to 475 metres recently. From memory MNS were averaging 150 metres? Im not sure on this figure however you get the idea.
TON will be drilling a hell of a lot deeper in uncovering any of their Jumbo Flake than MNS that's for sure. Also keep in mind 76% of their product is fine to amorphous as per page 25 of yesterdays announcement.

Once again thanks in your effort putting the chart together.

Hope this makes sense and clears up a couple of things.

Cheers

Matt