What are we missing,…

My concerns are additional costs for Infrastructure. Costs for All-season road (4-5 km), Power (constance Lake or Hearst), Natural Gas (Same as Power). Water is not an issue in the area, an over abundance, however a facility will be needed for clean water, storage and pumping facility.

Look forward to this PEA release which should capture the markets attention in a positive way.

I actually don't see production cost or infrastructure build as an unknown at this point. We know at $8,500 this will be a cash cow mine and obviously if the average sales number is $15,000 the numbers will just be almost unbelievable.

To me the only question is the revenue number. For the 43-101 they used $8,500 and that seemed to catch some people by surprise as they were no announced off takes to go by. Even with that number we know it may be very conservative as the Company is targeting the $16K + market. But, and this to me is the unknown, what is the annual size of each sales level? If you have a 100,000 tonne per year mine but can only sell 2,000 tonnes over $16K and say 25,000 tonnes at $10K, etc. does it make more sense to only mine 50,000 tonnes per year as there is more value in delaying the output? If this was a gold mine, the optimum mine output is driven by recovery and mining cost/efficiencies.

For this project, the margin is so high, the optimum annual output will be driven by the value and number of off takes.

Here is another idea. If you are a graphite user and are currently paying $20K per tonne and using 40,000 tonnes per year. Why mine more than that and sell it for less or far less than the $20K, just mine for your own use and 'save' yourself $18K per year (based on $2K production costs).

I think most people and this probably includes institutional buyers can't get a handle on this. So it will be interesting to see what number they use in the PEA and where they can show prooof of the sales number. This to me is the only unknown of any consequence.