Furthermore it's ESG credentials to produce synthetic graphite...

Furthermore it's ESG credentials to produce synthetic graphite are pretty awful.

So for those EV makers marketing themselves as ESG conscious also need to ensure the supply of the raw materials meets the mark. This is why you see EU/Japan/US battery makers and car manufacturers getting involved on end to end supply chain.

Hence why the process flow sheet is both good from a cost perspective being acid free and secondly mitigates processes. The viability of the resource as a project will be as per the scoping study.

But @ 16% from surface means that the strip and Front end design throughput will be extremely cost competitive. Process half as many tonnes as other for the same output. The recoveries and process flow-sheet now for CSPG is similar to what RNU used.

For context. RNU is in the lowest quartile for AISC. So whilst the bux resource isn't nearly the same size - it also doesn't need to be. If they can prove 10mT or so it can underpin a nice 15-20Y LoM potentially at the lower quartile of the cost curve. (Await feasibility study to delineate exact economics).

Given the MC is 25M here not 250M+ you don't need a massive NPV to get a massive re-rate. Graphite bull looks like a legit project to me, there's no real red flags at this stage. The only thing that they need to do now to underpin a genuine solid feasibility study is grow the resource. last drilling program proven the deposit is at least twice as deep and extends 2-3 times as far. I posted about this previously Post #:67356352

"Well hole 1 is pretty interesting. Intersected 30m odd meters at 18% in what was previously considered a hanging wall to the south.

Additionally the hit at depth is confirmation that the surveying of the sheer system extends at depth. Was what i was eluding to back in March Post #:66582700

"There a few comments about 'over burden' but the graphite deposit actually starts from surface.
One can review the angular nature of the drill cores. It's not responsible to drill vertically on a sheer system if you're trying to test the thickness along strike.

What do I mean?

In my view the drill program aimed to achieve 3 things.
1) Does the thickness displayed at 0-100m in depth continue beyond that depth?
See image below. You need to drill on an angle to get a better idea of the thickness. The graphite is from surface or close to surface in most areas.




2) Does the mineralisation continue along strike. see below.
Drill holes positioned to test if the EM surveying is representative of a continues strike. Noting RC1 hit 2 zones 20m and 30m thick one at 40m one at 160m. Probably indicating a slightly non-continous shear system. See image above for the multiple shear system

Also note RC3 and RC4 also hit similar thickness results at similar depths. RC4 140m-200m was 40m of minerilisation in there. RC4 had 30m of minerilisation.

RC5 only hit a small area of minerilisation either indicating that the angle of the drill core missed the main shear lode, or that the sheer is not as thick at the very western end. (which seems to make sense given it's on the outskirts of the EM results.

Essentially in my view, this shows that the shear system does continue along strike. It also showed that the shear system continued beyond 150m's, which again validates the theory that the system probably continues at depth. Likely would be open pit to start and then move to underground mine - but that's all a long way off and the met work and studies will need to come first.

"Tip of the iceberg is a fairly accurate statement." EM survey would indicate there is a fair bit along strong and at depth. Drill intercepts confirm the theory and the grade is solid. Met work now in the midst building on previously results. If we get back the confirmation that amenable for anode material you then look at a targeted drill program intended for MRE increase and maybe through a diamond drill 300m and see how thick it is at depth. No need to go too stupid as i believe can get a very sizeable resource by extending along strike and then extending depth slightly in main lode.



So this isn't a case of "IF" they can increase - but "WHEN". Given the graphite price is yet to start moving at great pace - i've been perfectly ok with them progressing this in the manner they have. There are quite a a few graphite plays proving very big resources and the S/P is doing nothing. It's because the met work is what the project lives and dies on. That takes 2years+ to prove CSPG and you don't always get the guarantee. The difference with BUX is all the other aspect of the project are quite advanced from a practical mining perspective.

Plus this is only graphite bull, copper wolf is also a company maker, and then we have half a dozen other projects most of which IGO is paying for the exploration on.

Great RvR for me and has done well so far, think it can well continue. Looking forward to the copper wolf core affirming the porphyry system and to what extent.

SF2TH