Need I reiterate? Probably not but what needs to be highlighted...

Need I reiterate? Probably not but what needs to be highlighted is the fact that you are applying ONE metric that effects ONE cost outcome, Blitz. Strip ratio affects mining costs and those costs only. TGC affects processing costs and those costs only. Once cannot apply one metric and say that is the reason for say SYR's non-profitability and therefore EGR won't be profitable. You simply cannot apply that logic across the board especially with regards to a graphite project.

SYR's cost issues are associated mainly with the fact that graphite is fragile. Processing causes a reduction in flake size distribution. SYR does not have a particularly good spread of differing flake size. It also didn't do exhaustive testing and pilot plant testing before going into production. They are trying to play catch up for not having determined profitability by doing extensive testing for a BFS. They took shortcuts into production. They are also selling their product to China. Prices commanded by the Chinese are lower than those paid by European offtakers.

Please don't be misleading, Blitz by applying single metrics to determine the profitability of EGR's projects. I think the Kwf Bank know better than you and anyone why they are putting their support behind Epanko and why EGR were able to raise $54 million in a placement to progress the company's SPG plant/s and business model.