@jumpstart gee whillakers there is so much here that is so close...

@jumpstart gee whillakers there is so much here that is so close to being correct that just falls a little short. There are some decent points as well.

Can you show me where Elcora plan to ramp up to 18ktpa of graphene (not graphite) also lets not forget who has first dibs on 9ktpa of this.

Can you show me what process elcora use to produce graphene? is it exfoliation? Can you even give my any idea at all as to the process that elcora use to produce graphene? and i don't mean a flow sheet of 'flotation - blah blah' this is hardly worthy.

If you only measure impurtites with an atomic number of 11 or more then you've missed Boron for a start, do you know if boron is an issue in such things as sensors or battery anodes? moreover PPM isn't even very low, I can measure sodium to the ppb without a problem using a flame and lamp, and can measure femptomolar amounts of other material with a laser and a camera. But the important point about impurities is how persistant are they? and by which means should you eliminate them? these are the questions you need to ask along with what tolerance will any particular application have for these impurities.

So then on the one hand you're critical of FGR's process and state they can't provide a product of comparable quality to Elcora, then, with a caveat that its 'slightly mockingly' say that they could get some tafe guys to design a process to do it, but also add that you would worry about such things as whether process has a patent, despite your previous perspective on the utility of patents. A little all over the place here jumpy.

I don't see why FGR can't employ a post exfoliation process to purify the graphene. Perhaps in the process of oxidation if this is required for the BEST, they could add a step or two, but then again if they use condy's crystals they already have to remove the manganese, if they can or if it is at all a necessity, personally I don't see why they'd need to use such a harsh oxidiser, they could probably use something milder that won't add the issue of manganese contamination. So then you kind of already answered one of your own questions there no?

I can't see product additives commanding or requiring too much purification, not when the stuff you're adding it too contains these impurities in greater concentrations. Sensors yes. SuperCaps - i just don't know what the tolerances would be and also how deleterious any particular element would be.

Some impurities will be easily removed, if they are soluble and not bound to the graphene, just by a sieve and using ultrapure solvent (solvent may be water or something else, I don't know). Or if it's in some way associated and bound with the graphene and needs to be removed there are means to do this also, basically you'd be adding something else that wants to bind that impurity more strongly and then getting rid of both at the same time, again many ways to do this.

Price for any of these products (ultrapure vs dirty vs additive vs sensor grade etc) in the tonnes of supply scenario is an unknown as far as I'm concerned, and debating this is rather speculative right now. FGR do have a product sheet with their material, so they are at least somewhat aware of what is required as far as product specification. I think folks get caught up on the things they see, that they don't consider the behind the scenes stuff that does not need to be announced.

But I think you're getting yourself all in a lather over this, whereas these particular fears may indeed be unfounded. Perhaps you should do as others have stated and call the company and voice your concerns, you are a part owner in the company so have every right to do so.