Word of caution, page-12

Nasa, I understand the terminology used just fine. No problem there. I agree it's a sector with potential. Tick.

My point is, words and sentences are not facts when it comes to running a business. Numbers are facts! Numbers are absolute and don't lie (unless you want to be extremely precise and talk about accounting standards, expensing techniques etc but that's hardly relevant to a junior explorer).

I would rather know the cost to MRF of extracting each tonne of ore in the first year of operation, than that graphene is 200 times stronger than steel. The first statement gives me something to work with. The second is a nebulous statement that could have a hundred different implications and doesn't tell us anything about the unique business that is MRF.

I would rather you provide me with a estimated resource size than tell me with a number of articles that graphene is a strategic resource. Just because something is strategic does not imply that every company trying to mine that commodity will have the unique combination required to turn a long-term profitable mining operation with acceptable dilution to shareholders.

The list goes on, with the point being that we can all research trends in the commodity space and see what analysts predict will eventuate but 1) it doesn't always follow as analysts predict and 2) looking at broad macro trends does nothing to guarantee an individual company in that sector will get lucky and have the right combination of ore, offtake and timing.

Even you would have to agree that all future exploration is speculative and there is never a guarantee that exploration will lead to the desired increase in recoverable ore? You'll also concede that they are bypassing the usual JORC code for resource delineation and just taking it straight out of the ground and processing.