hey jumpy thanks for laying out your calcs and assumptions....

hey jumpy thanks for laying out your calcs and assumptions. sorry for being so pedestrian it bores you. but still.

you interchange volume with mass in arriving at 2409 tonnes.
Your assumptions of 365 days/3shifts per day were not clear subtle or otherwise.

48 is not from SA 20x25. six fortyeigths of the width of the material must be vein to cover costs, by your model.

costs to produce graphene from graphite will be mainly electrical - by your own wisdom - which will most certainly scale with production.

your model does not gel with a revenue from royalty approach which is the only way transport costs also wont scale with production, because of aggregation problems and the small amount of what is shipped actually being graphene.

SWOT analysis by an outsider, sure you have a bunch of experience in mining stuff, what do you know about producing/selling graphene, the critical part of any model that is going to give 20k/t for the outputs? I most certainly did not confuse SWOT with DD, show me where this would be inferred? get off your high horse mate you really aren't the revelation you think you are.

You accuse spid of being lazy. But then you could have, like spid did, find out the mining dimensions to put in to your model.

you're critical of my suggestion to use the dhtem to estimate vein width, but it really isnt when compared with a simple assumption of a 2mx2m mine interface travelling at 0.55m per shift.

I'll stick with my initial observation that the model is garbage, that your assertion that you had laid out assumptions and calcs is also garbage.

You can sit there and preach and get all smug and self congratulatory. I don't buy it.

You claim that one need not justify assertions, and then went and tried to justify them. How can anyone assess a model if the assumptions aren't clear? what a load of mumbo jumbo. Perhaps fix your errors and take in to account how costs rise with production and maybe then you'll have a sounder model, but as it stands its no better than any other back of the envelope calc.

talk down at me some more whilst continuing to make fundamental mistakes in logic and reason, might impress some, doesn't fool me for a second.