All such comparisons are effectively meaningless for graphite....

All such comparisons are effectively meaningless for graphite. Typically wielded by those with an agenda, parameters tweaked to have a certain company/deposit show in the top few of a list.

Vital characteristics of a natural flake graphite deposit (crystallinity, flake size distribution, gangue mineralogy, nature & conc. of deleterious elements, resource geometry, oxide/fresh processing etc.) are commonly overlooked in favour of grade and resource size. Numbers that can be manipulated and are thrown around for comparison of apples and oranges.

Unlike precious metals, grade takes somewhat of a back seat to flake/deposit quality (of course, requisite economic thresholds apply...). Global natural flake graphite resources are reported at 4-15% TGC (quite a spread), almost all of which are readily beneficiated to a 96-99% concentrate through simple mechanical flotation.

Resource size is perhaps the least informative deposit comparison. Graphite is a bulk commodity - most reported resources represent only a fraction of the in-situ deposit that has been drilled at sufficient density. Of what value is a DFS mine life of 100+ years upfront? Resource figures are very fluid - a slide along the grade-tonnage curve. Want a larger resource, arbitrarily lower the cut-off grade. The recent Epanko MRE offers a good example - a 38% MRE increase without a hole drilled in anger. Simple geophysical reinterpretation.

The exhaustive testwork completed by EGR, right up to commercial scale PSG processing, and the favourable results yielded are far more valuable than topping these contrived lists.