I'm ignoring your first point, if you understood why the DD was...

I'm ignoring your first point, if you understood why the DD was done on the pre-fes, you wouldn't have made the drilling comment.

You are quoting the dollar cost as a reason to not undergo the BFS, the shareholders would have to pay for a DFS, instead, they are getting a beefed-up BFS. The cost difference is minimal if any. Just admit you don't know what the differences are between the two studies - if you did, you wouldn't be running such a stupid argument.

The term bankable is sometimes used in connection with final Feasibility Studies. This just means that the study achieves a quality and standard that would be acceptable for submission to bankers.

What if the BFS isn't robust enough?...I'm actually not sure if you are trying to make yourself seem stupid or just continuing your recent run of own goals.

I could write a long response about the DD process, the use of pre-fes assumptions, their board appointment or the fact that Castlelake did their due diligence on all graphite peers and settled on Graphex...but honestly why bother, you don't respond to the main arguments and just change the subject when you know you are out of your depth.

The fact you consider the BFS a finance hurdle and not a risk mitigation process speaks volumes to your answers.