Hi BD (for some reason I can't directly reply to your...

Hi BD (for some reason I can't directly reply to your post):

Thanks for your very lengthy reply. While there are valid reasons to some of your points I beg to differ on some particularly in regard to other assets other than Ancuabe which is centred on large flakes / expandable graphite which the demand is in China. No one is complaining about working with Jinan and China for expandable graphite.

The issue is what other opportunities is the management looking at while we wait for finance on Ancuable? What if Jinan walk away? What is Plan B? Is the survival of TON wholly dependent on Jinan? What is the role of TON management if not to continue to seek and expand on opportunities especially when TON have some many valuable assets / tenements? How many potential customers / companies have TON management had discussions with (Other expandable graphite users, graphite product manufacturers (what happened to AMK?) batteries makers, anode producers, car manufacturers, steels / metallurgy companies, graphene start ups, scientific tie-ups, government agencies etc etc especially with the issue of western governments concern on strategic materials) I remember reading on Talga CEO mentioning they contacted hundreds of companies before narrowing down to 6 that are serious for follow up. Project Business development is an endless and thankless job in most parts but all it need is just a a handful among the crowd that can become a jewels if both parties have corresponding and mutually beneficial requirement.

In this respect I have always been wary of bean counter or legal types jumping to leadership roles (especially prominent on penny stocks) without having done the hard yards of sales and marketing before progressing upwards.

You mentioned about the limited amount of funds in TON coffer which I agree that is somewhat limiting. But then again you got to ask where is the bulk of the cost centred on - yes salaries, the biggest chunk goes to PC. In this respect why are we paying that type of money to be burnt off doing no further business development to identify more major investors or JVs etc. PC did mentioned before he was looking at it so there is no issue in regard seeking interested parties for Nicanda. If there is any suitable party identified it will still take considerable amount of time to eventuate for take off. In any case no smart management will sit pat on their hands especially knowing very well the life and survival of the company existence hang in the balance of one and only potential customer. What exactly does we as SH want - just continue waiting until the funds runs out and the Chinese just swallow us for nothing?

Or to expand on our one and only existing opportunity (yes singular) and a potential re-rate on SP?

The biggest concern I have is whether or not our Chinese SOE cornerstone investor is limiting TON potential (to deter other potential investors / companies) given the world scale resource which they want it all for themselves. Given what is being played out in the geopolitical arena and thinking aloud, it is not at all imaginary Tianyi shareholding is taken over by a SOE to effectively allow China to have control over TON vast resource which in turn assure them of long lasting supply for decades to come? Think of it as the Simanadou of graphite. Is this part of China agenda?

Does the large shareholding by Jinan SOE have any bearing on management business development work with other non Chinese companies? If not, what happened to all the work done with the Japanese and Europeans which was reported much earlier?

Therefore your mentioned of needing more funds to seek opportunities does not arise. Business development does not need heavy financial investments more so now as a lot of discussions are done through zoom etc. Of course eventually it will need to be physical in attendance and site visits etc. As for permits and licensing, again this will be second step. I believe there is not much physical work required for Nicanda as far as resource proved / indicated is already on hand.BD,

I thank you for your thoughts and opinions but at times I am somewhat concern if you are trying to elucidate (correct or otherwise) on what PC should be doing but not doing - ie keep us inform as what a strategic and visionary CEO should, if he has one.

Or is his hands tied? Food for thought.

All my humble opinion.