Sean, your definition of "locked in" is arguable (and I do love to argue). You are "locked in" on a Chinese agreement, one where China is going to be the buyer, funder, and builder of your mine. So far, neither of LMB, SYR, or TON have their Chinese agreements going as smoothly as first trumpeted to the markets. I'd like MNS to be different, but history tells me that China are going to do what China wants, not what MNS (or TON, SYR or LMB) shareholders want.
Your "just waiting for ML" is also arguable, unless your comment actually means "just started ML". I saw a poster on MNS yesterday say that ML is due within 10 weeks. This is highly unlikely (I'd bet my house against it). MNS have only just started the environmental process, and that needs to be done and dusted before you can proceed with the ML. Now I'm not suggesting that the ESIA and ML can't be done quicker than KNL (and all things being equal, MNS or anyone else should be able to obtain a ESIA/ML quicker than KNL, given we we the first in 20 years to get a new graphite mine application going in Tanz, and now it's not "new" process anymore), but the timeline of doing all that in 10 weeks is ... ambitious. You are right that you are "just waiting", but I'd suggest you will be waiting more than other posters are posting. More than happy to be proven wrong on this, but balance of probability suggests I won't be.
Finally, if everything happens as the MNS announcements suggest, ML gets approved, and China is buying, funding, and building this mine, ready to start production at end 2016, then the chance of those being separate arms length transactions in favour of MNS shareholders is minimal. It will be a China mine, owned and operated in all but name only. MNS has a good deposit, (Tanz graphite is among best in the world), although they do have some met problems with their particular deposit, but they have gone for the big swing with one buyer (China, and yes I know it's technically split into two entities), but I believe they should have tried to build a sustainable mine with genuine buyers. At the end of the day, China provides 70% of the world's current graphite (approx 700-800,000 tpa) from internal mines , and if graphite demand doesn't increase exponentially in the next 12 months, does any MNS (or SYR, TON) board member or shareholder seriously believe that China is going to pay them top dollar to import graphite into a country that can dig it out itself much cheaper? The equivalent is that an Australian company goes and contracts to import coal and iron ore from Siberia, at a landed shipping cost greater than what we can dig it up ourselves. It's naive to think it will happen with graphite.
There is a sting in the tail somewhere in those agreements, and it will come out in due course.
Expand
