You just don't seem to get it, Croc. My point was simply that you don't get your facts right. Whilst I am here correcting facts, let me lay out the only facts that are relevant in the here and now:-
1. WKT is not yet a graphite producer... has not produced one flake of the stuff 2. WKT does not yet have the funding to be a producer 3. WKT management has been banging on about imminent finance for years 4. WKT is merely a dream at this stage 5. Production in practice at scale is not the same as in theory on paper
Management, you and your blinkered followers can believe all you like that your perfect resource with its impeccable DFS results will translate into perfect product in each and every bag from the get-go, but if you do, you will sure be in for a rude shock. I have stated it many times that what you have in the ground and on paper is impressive. However, funding does appear to be very allusive given the time that has been devoted to it. Perhaps the blinkers need to come off.
When I first visited the WKT forum several months ago and the SP was on its way from being a 4-bagger to a 5, I was very bemused. It was like party town. The hype was off the Richter scale. I knew that you guys were in for a rude shock. Yep, the SP halved in a matter of a month or so.
Anyone who thinks that what you have in the ground is going to guarantee a stress-free road to riches without seizing profit along the way has rocks in their heads. The amateur rampers (the blind faithful) ramp non-stop regardless of what happens SP-wise, regardless of market sentiment and regardless of the facts. The professional ones (the ones that initiate, the ones that head it) always seem to retreat into the background when the SP naturally comes off. Their job is done and the shares probably sold at a tidy profit. They are always very clever at evading the hard questions too. Evasiveness is the trademark of a ramper.
Croc, you think that by conflating one metric with another in an attempt to manipulate and twist the truth, you can deceive me, well, you can put whatever spin on the facts but you won't fool me. 5%TGC at a strip ratio of 2:1 is better than 5%TGC at a strip ratio of 5:1. You intentionally twist the facts in an attempt to make out that you know more than me. What it exposes is the fact that you are disingenuous. I know WKT has a much higher and more favourable insitu carbon content. Its a no-brainer that 19%TGC is better than 5%TGC. I have never said otherwise, mate. So, don't go trying to deceive people by discrediting me. It just makes you look untrustworthy.
I was not furious with our management over why they used FC definition in context of pre-production, I was simply perplexed. I have had it clarified by our CEO, since our discussion here failed to clear it up. It's now clear that the LOI method (defined in FC percentages) is implemented in their daily analyses at the head grade stage not in reference to insitu carbon. It is these figures that appear in some reporting. The insitu resource carbon content has always been correctly defined in terms of the LECO method of assaying and in TGC percentages in presentations. Another poster in our forum raised the issue and I mistakenly raised here... thats all nothing less. Now I do know more, so perhaps, in the end, it was a good outcome.
Its the ramping that is the problem here, not WKT's resource. Ramping starts with management of every company. All micro-cap companies have to use hyperbolic rhetoric to sell their project to prospective investors, financiers and future customers. Beware of the BS pushed by the company, its rampers and blind followers, though. No SP goes up in a straight line as we found out with Bass. It has nothing to do with the quality of the in-ground resource, but everything to do with the natural cycle inherent with project development and a company's agenda to sell an idea and sell a product.
There is no need to be aggressive towards me, Croc, I am just another shareholder like yourself who just happens to be a holder of another in the G-space. The thread was supposedly initiated on this forum in light of the SYR dilemma. "Big is Best" is what has damaged their position and the fact that they have poor FSD, unlike Bass and unlike WKT. Just hope WKT does not make the same mistake SYR has made and aims to churn out high volumes of large and expandable in the future (IF and when they get funded) because it can bite the company in the arse in the same way as SYR. The following article for anyone invested in any graphite company is advised:-
To be bagging Bass Metals on the grounds that is small and not profitable yet is a big mistake. It shows just how narrow-minded, blinkered and shallow your views are. Bass is miles ahead of all the graphite "hopefuls" at this stage. WKT may very well surpass us in the future... but the future is the future and tomorrow is allusive.
Short memory bank you have, Swimmer! WKT's massive dilution is merely disguised by the 1:23 share consolidation carried out a few years ago. I here you had over 4 billion shares on issue. We still have miles to go to realise that sort of dilution!!! And, are you guys producers yet? And, have you guys even got the money yet? Glass houses, mate, glass houses.
See you anon. I'm heading out for a surf! Bye
PS: Rolly what is the processed carbon content of your finished product? Zero... FACT. Thats right you dont have a product to sell yet! FACT
(20min delay)