The answer was by all means appropriate for the nature of TCB's...

The answer was by all means appropriate for the nature of TCB's question. He keeps harping on about flake size and how it has not been reported for Nicanda Hill.. I provided exactly what he requested, Nicanda Hill flake size, he can do his own research.

I assumed he must have read "Where's the flake part 1" before so gallantly creating "where's the flake part 2". If he did he would have noted:

"Hi All,

I don't think some of you have considered what is required when reporting a representative sample for flake size analysis.

The domains and possible geo-metallurgy need to be properly understood/considered before drawing any assumptions when compositing samples for analysis. Otherwise you are just cherry picking.

Brad has mentioned there are a variety of sizes available, this tells me there is probably a multitude of different lithotypes of graphitic mineralisation. With the potential size of the resource this is not hard to believe.

What would you prefer, immediate flake sizing reports on samples that do not accurately represent the resource or flake sizing that is representative of each of the domains?

Yes there are 30 (or so) holes drilled but of these 20 odd are RC, RC cannot be used to determine flake size due to the destructive nature of the drilling process. Of the diamond holes only one of them has been reported for grade thus far. It is not a case of drilling a sample and submitting it for particle size distribution, grades must be considered first.

Remember Sh!t in = Sh!t out.

Just have patience.

Cheers,

John"