Ann: Revised Lac Rainy Exploration Update, page-48

My perspective being taken here is just to understand the work required to progress the project through exploration into feasibility and then to production. The best way to do that is with peer comparisons. Focus is the best peer to use due to their proximity.

Focus did their 15,000m campaign with guidance from nearly 8,000m of historic drilling and therefore had very good detail on what was already in the ground.

I think it’s an important comparison to provide some perspective on the amount of work potentially ahead.

MLS has not identified any historic drilling that would give them the same leg-up as Focus has had. Yes historic surveys, prospecting and trenching but no historic drilling.

Therefore 15,000m is probably optimistic for MLS to define a resource of the same scale as the Focus resource. They would need to target drill holes very carefully based on the channel sampling underway, but would help if they had historic drill data as well.

For reference, descriptions of the historic exploration at Lac Rainy in the following announcements:

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170330/pdf/43h4kjlh4tg6f0.pdf

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20161020/pdf/43c4cs0zlzg75j.pdf

This is the development timeline for Focus Graphite:

http://www.focusgraphite.com/wp-con...Jan-2018-FMS-Corporate-Presentation-Final.pdf




Anyway, hopefully the references are useful for better understanding the way forward. The preso and feasibility study are data points for MLS shareholders to benchmark MLS plans / progress.