Thanks for the further info. With all due respect, though, you have presented documented information that is outdated and of little relevance given that Bass transitioned from Loharano to the bigger deposit of Mahefedok ages ago. There is also a number of false and misleading statements in your post.
What is important and relevant is that we know precisely BSM's "recoverable" carbon grade by virtue of the fact that they are in production. We are currently producing >94% and up to 96% FC purity grade. At the end of the day, that is what counts. Bass is achieving the 94% FC threshold, along with flake size greater than 180 microns (largeflake), which is recognized as the industry benchmark for premium graphiteconcentrates.
Yes, the process of recommissioning and modifying an existing plant has been frustrating but with it came some operational know-how and did not involve massive CAPEX. We are mostly debt-free. Teething problems are inherent with all junior mining startups. You would be naive to think otherwise. All the preparation done on paper and in the labs can't prepare for the on-ground, in-practice realities or accurately forecast all metrics.
Getting back to the TGC vs FC debate... it is still unresolved. Each time I go back to the info I provided earlier I read expert statements like "using TGC alone could provide with much lower recovery rates". Whilst you state
"TGC is expressed as a head grade while FC ROM will have been achieved through the beneficiary process whether reported or not IMO [by WKT]", I don't think you can expect anyone to accept that as substantiated fact. So, I guess I will be doing further research elsewhere.
To say
"IMO your reference to TGC ROM and FC ROM are of little consequence" when experts have written articles on the subject to the contrary says more about your lack of diligence on the subject than mine. To also say
"IMO you could do your self a huge favor learning more about head grade" when the subject was precisely about defining the carbon grade of the raw resource which is
head grade, is just bizarre. It was never about the method to define the processed recoverable carbon grade. Hence why I raised the subject in the first place. This just confirms that I have wasted my time here. Aaargh... sorry, Croc, perhaps I set my expectations too high. Nevermind, it suited your agenda to use the exercise to promote WKT and denigrate BSM. Hopefully, some here will recognise the parody for what it is... a lesson in bias and flawed interpretation. See you later.
