Ann: Preliminary Final Report, page-39

Hi Maverick I can hardly "shoot down" your critique (as some would expect me to attempt) because at least your post has merit, substance and is expressed in a respectful manner. I tend to give credit where credit is due, as you know. In fact, it was you who complimented me on my composure by saying the following: "You have maintained a positive spirit even after being considerably down on your investment in this company and have maintained a sense of decency in your replies to those of us who are critical of the management of this company".Just to set the record straight:-

Firstly, I can be just as critical of the management of our company as anyone else - I have stated it numerous times that they are not beyond reproach. Criticism does need to be fair and factual though, and a lot of what has been posted by the naysayers has contained contradictory and unfair comments. Do not conflate my support of the business model, resource or our competitive edge for a love of our management team. I have certainly don't deem them to be perfect and am still dirty on management over certain fiduciary duties. I have only "shot down" posters if their posts contained untruths, false accusations or unfair criticism... or have been disrespectful towards me.

Secondly, I don't think there is much to like, if at all, in the financial report. I stated that there are details that I believe require itemisation. I also had a rant over the size of payments made to BCP over the years. Posts I wrote in this thread were merely to try and keep matters in context with the company moving forward. The Prelim Final Report is a retrospective report afterall. The financials are also reflective of a company in its FIRST YEAR of production as such.

Thirdly, I believe I am unfairly judged simply because I am of the opinion that Bass is ahead of the graphite "hopefuls" by having chosen a business model that has got us into production with customers on our order books... and for believing that it is just a matter of time that the company will be producing at a rate to be financially stable. I apologise for that bit of optimism. Sorry that my opinions and those of similar opinions are so objectionable that we cause so much offence.

Anyway, Mav, just wanted to clean the slate, I guess. As far as your expressed concerns regarding the financing of our company via the Con Notes go, I am unable to find much fault in your argument. I actually meant to ask wdgt72 why he dislikes Con Notes so much. Well, you have answered that question. As you could imagine, it is very hard for someone like myself to defend the company's choice for such financing, other than to say they probably have little choice. I recognise that and go so far to say that it benefits those partaking in the offer immensely. But, that is my point regarding the Big Boys' Game and regarding the alternative being how the graphite "hopefuls" who have been trying to get funded with cup in hand for bloody years. Its either our model or their model. You might not like it but the reality is that there have been dozens upon dozens of ASX-listed companies vying for finance for years. The fact is only Syrah Resources and Bass Metals are in operation. Is Syrah profitable? No... they are not.

Look, I am no fan of how Bass is choosing to finance our operations, but I am no fan of how the other companies in the graphite space are going about theirs either. There is a hell of a lot hyperbolic rhetoric and outright BS out there that has a lot unsuspecting investors being misled. How many shareholders of other companies are being spruiked to that their project is the best and that finance is just around the corner. It seems that finance is just around the corner for them each and every week, and for some, it has been for years.

Sorry, Mav, this rant seems to be becoming less about your post and more about the bigger picture. Well, I guess I can't help but try to keep things in perspective (which I get shot down for time and time again). I really do respect your view and see exactly why you are critical of Con Notes. I recall someone (in a different context) making the statement "It's only a rort, if you are not in it". It is rather poignant here, wouldn't you agree? There are several here who are cognisant of the games going on in the background. However, the games are nothing new and are typical of what goes on in the micro-cap sector of our stockmarket. Junior companies require ongoing capitalisation... there is no getting around it. Getting finance (big finance) to design and develop a project from scratch is difficult and often fruitless. The graphite space is even harder to get a foot in the door due to the fact that a resource is one thing and a product another. Buyers have extremely particular specifications, pricing is opaque and production is fraught with issues. Financiers require more than just offtake partners before committing even an interest in a project, they want binding offtake agreements which no doubt come with all sorts of clauses and conditions. Look, I could go on and on... you get my drift... its either our model of small but regular funding to keep our operation gradually progressing towards profitability or its the "all or nothing" model with the huge task ahead of building a production plant followed by the startup process with all its inherent teething issues along with the noose of interest repayments around the company's neck.

Despite what some posters here will have you believe, I have learnt a hell of a lot in the last few months about the graphite space, about the technical side of things and the Big Boys antics that are rife throughout the micro-cap sector of the market. Had I learnt it 12 mths ago, I wouldn't be here now. The fact is that graphite production is no mean feat... it is not straight forward and for so many reasons. Why are there so few companies in production, do you think? It is difficult being a "wannabe" and equally difficult being a producer... but that is why Bass does have the competitive edge on the former. Funding of our operations will be ongoing until production reaches a point where we are self-sufficient. There will be times when the financials will look dubious and the talk of insolvency will raise its ugly head. As much as I don't like the "look" that the connection our BoD has with Bizzell Capital Partners, the connection is proving to be our life-line. Whilst all the "wannabes" are wanting $40 million-plus AND not getting it, Bass has secured funding so far without any trouble. Okay, it comes with conditions, but finance deals don't?

The other reason why I may appear oppositional to the negative perspective, Mav, is the fact that our SP is down the gurgler. Unlike when the SP is going gangbusters on speculation, where holders get swept up in the hype and get caught being at the peak of the highs, the reverse is true here. I have not been one to encourage anyone to buy shares in Bass yet. Whilst I may sing the praises of Bass, the company, I have stated many times that to play it safe, one should wait til later in the year when I anticipate that there will be further confirmation of production improvements. For that reason, I don't approve of negative sentiment that is expressed by way of baseless sarcastic quibs. To me, it is a destructive behaviour resemblant of down-ramping that may influence a holder to sell which, at these levels. may prove the wrong move.

My belief is that if it weren't for the macro-economic headwinds (to be someone else's words) sentiment towards Bass and others in the same sector may be a lot different. I take solace in the fact that no major shareholder in this company has sold shares (as I am led to understand) and all directors and management are shareholders who are also in the red. They have a lot more to lose than we as shareholders have to lose too. Their jobs, their reputations and their shareholdings are on the line.

I cannot help but consider that a lot of the oppositional views resemble scare-mongering. Okay, I accept your concern over the Con Note financing and see the rationale behind your adversity to it. However, I feel that others are simply hanging off any excuse to get an opportunity to exercise their ego-driven entitlement to post a negative view just for the sake of being able to say "I told you so". It is not nice or particularly helpful. I am not putting you in that category, Maverick... far from it. I actually appreciate your take on the Con Notes subject. I can now say I have a better understanding of how it works. In saying that, I guess I am still of the opinion that "It's better to stick with the devil you know".

I agree that "the broader market no longer trusts management's ability to deliver on promises" which is of concern in relation to the SP. For me, personally, I intend giving the company a couple more quarters to prove their ability to deliver. That's because I am willing to put your concern and everything else I have learnt in perspective and give consideration to the big picture. I am not saying I am right or that I will be proven right. I don't know what the next few months will unveil... nor does anyone else.

Longest rant ever in my history thus far, I think, so shall sign off. Thanks, Maverick, for your considered and reasonably respectful post. I do intend keeping your points in mind. Btw, can I please ask for some elaboration on your last statement about the company "double-checking the basic layout of their ASX reports" Cheers.