I think what people are missing here is that it all comes down...

I think what people are missing here is that it all comes down to the met work as to whether a deposit will be mined . Big is good in the case of SYR but they do not, as I understand it, have definative met work completed on samples from diamond drilling. Some work has been done on weathered trench samples but this does not necessarily translate to the whole deposit. Hard rock samples taken from DC may prove to be different as liberation of flake may prove difficult and TGC may not come up to 94-97%.

Now I hope that is not the case for SYR holders but the point is that the total metalurgical picture is not known for SYR yet. Size is important and there is no doubt that they have a very large deposit but if they cant economically liberate the flake graphite then it will lose its shine.

In the case of AXE we dont have definative met work from DC samples either but we do have excellent results from unoptimized flotation of pulverised RC samples showing excellent recovery and TGC %. So the next step for AXE is to conclusively show good met work from DC samples and JORC the resource at Campoona Central and Shaft. Once this is achieved as I believe it will then we can move towards offtake agreements and feasibility studies for mining.

So it is not only about size, no doubt SYR will be much larger than AXE in tonnage but critically it is about met work as well and at this stage AXE is further along that path than SYR and the signs are very good.

This is not a criticism of SYR just a post to convey the importance of met work in determining the viability of a graphite deposit. I hope both do well as shareholders we are all in it for the same reason to make $$$$$

Cheers

Retrac