Fisrt, a few words of advice,
Don’t try and write above your pay grade, it's so obvious and weird and it’s disturbing. Just stick to words you know apply in the context of your statements.
Since transparency is clearly not your thing, allow me to inject a little into this discourse. You keep saying that you are here in an objective capacity (paraphrasing) and then proceed to write a 1,000-word MANIFESTO justifying the smoke and mirror claims of NGC while making unsubstantiated claims against myself, FMS and FMS management. YES, UNSUBSTANTIATED...NOT A SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE QUOTED BY YOU, WHY?
You post multiple times per day to NGCs board, vigorously defending all legitimate criticism of the smoke and mirrors going on over there. You have posted, by my estimate, hundreds of times. So please spare us the “I’m not here to promote my NGC shares on your board” routine, it’s been so way overdone by posters like yourself.
Man-up and acknowledge that you are a staunch, blind defender of a company that is losing millions on a mine that will never be able to make money.
If you are so confident in the prospects of NGC, why are you writing a 1,000-word MANIFESTO on some other board. Clearly the truth about NGC hurts but don’t pretend this is not desperation on your part.
You made the statement “these are the facts” without a single piece of corroborating evidence! Your biased, slanderous opinions are not fact unless you present credible evidence or references. Which I will do shortly (for the 10th time).
HERE ARE THE VERIFIABLE FACTS WITH SOURCES QUOTED, SIR:
BTW, Your attempt to avoid discussing how the process of bringing a mine to production works makes sense given that NGC does not have a battery grade deposit (references to come). Nice dodge though, but it won’t work.
Broadly speaking, it’s a 3-step process:
First is the EXPLORATION phase. I assume you are aware that we are not mining anything yet, right? Focus has done what NGC hasn’t bothered to do, (since they do not have a worthwhile property) and paid an independent engineering firm to determine if LacKNife is an economically feasible deposit. Result: (one of the best deposits in the world FOR BATTERY GRADE MATERIAL and clearly the best deposit in N.A.) “"This feasibility study update marks a new significant milestone in the development of the Lac Knife Project," said Marc Roy, President and CEO of Focus Graphite. "It confirms that the project hosts a graphite deposit with an average graphitic carbon (Cg) grade of 99.7% in +80 mesh flake concentrate, which is exceptional in this industry.”
Focus is also investing shareholder money to EXPLORE Lac Tetepisca. Results thus far: It’s the largest, most promising deposit in NA. Not because I say so or Focus says so but from an independent source:
These are all facts friend, not conjecture. I would say you should do the same, but it is not possible given that your statements are untrue.
After determining that a deposit has value, then comes the 2nd phase: Financing/partnership: What Focus needs now is not miners (since we are obviously not mining yet). What Focus needs most for this phase is to have the most qualified management to negotiate with battery manufacturers and/or car makers. Jeff and Marc are by far the most qualified in this sector and indeed a couple of the most qualified in any Canadian business. Look what happened to Mason (and their “old school miners”). They negotiated their way out of almost all the future value of lac Gueret. The stock has lost 90% of its value since their blunder. NGC doesn’t need to worry about this happening as they do not have a property to negotiate with! Good thing for you guys' as old man Bowes (old school is an understatement) wouldn't even know how to start such negotiations. But alas, old man Bowes can explain why 2.5g carbon is not a problem. This is such a laughable statement. No miner, even one as old as Bowes, has ever dealt with battery grade graphite deposits. Again, one more time, they do not exist in NA. Pencil grade deposits exists as you know all too well. Good luck with that!
The 3rd stage is the Mining/processing battery grade material phase: Only after the negotiating phase. Get it? Why? Because not a single graphite explorer in this space has the roughly 2-300M needed to go it alone. Will we need a mining team then and only then? Obviously.
About your false claim that Grafoid has only a “speculative U.S. Military contract award”. That was your most brazen lie yet. You completely ignored the source which clearly backs up my statement.
Page 14 of the link below: Q1, 20233 and I quote “PORTAGE – 1st Purchase Order from US Military SHIELD– First Projects in Africa (Uganda); Indigenous Communities (NW ONT) REVOLUTION – 1st installation (Picton, ONT)
And I will not waste my time educating you on the steps required for a successful IPO except to say that validation of your product (and BTW selling to the U.S. defence department is as validated as it gets) is a critical milestone before approaching investment bankers. Of course, a company can take the smoke and mirrors approach and buy into an unproven technology.
Investors should ask themselves...do I want to be part of a smoke and mirrors purchase into an unproven technology or ride the enormous gains of proven, proprietary graphene products about to go public?
The failure of the Bisset creek project is the reason for all the smoke and mirrors. I am not a geologist and don’t need to be one as I can read. 2.5% cg is not minable.
Here are the criteria for a battery grade deposit. LacKnoife and YTetepisca have it, Bisset creek does not. If NGC management belived in Bisset creek thety would have updated their 11 year old deasibiloty study.
"Battery grade graphite deposits typically need to meet the following criteria:
-
High Graphite Purity: The graphite in the deposit should have a high purity level, typically 95% or above. This ensures that the graphite can be easily processed into battery-grade material.
-
High Carbon Content: The carbon content of the graphite should be high, typically 98% or above. This is important because carbon is the primary component of the graphite that makes it useful for batteries.
-
Flake Size and Shape: The graphite flakes should be large and well-formed, with a high aspect ratio (the ratio of the length to the width). This ensures that the graphite can be easily processed and purified.
-
Low Impurity Content: The graphite should have low levels of impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and other metals that can affect the performance of the battery.
-
Consistent Quality: The deposit should be able to produce graphite with consistent quality over time, as fluctuations in quality can impact the performance of the battery.
-
Accessibility: The deposit should be accessible and located in a stable political and economic environment, with adequate infrastructure and transportation options available for shipping the graphite to end-users."
As far as the recent purchase of the smoke and mirrors pencil grade deposit goes, I will quote from NGC sources:
1.5 million burned in 2 months, wow! NGC has less than 6 months before bankruptcy (IMO). I cannot see anyone giving a handout to a company that is going under.
I have backed up every statement with a credible source. You have failed to cite even one source to back up you attacks on Focus or your defence of the NGC smoke and mirrors game. Why no sources? Because your statements are all B.S. A smug imposter misusing terms to try an impress people all you will ever add up to. Readers are ion this board are not idiots.
I assume you are aware that mining battery grade graphite in NA has never existed (that is the point of the current scramble). So spare us the claims of how old man Bowes or any of the people you just hire (without the cash flow to support) will be of an value right now. In fact all the extra fat (smake and mirrors) will only serve to expedite the
-writing a 1000-word MANIFESTO on another board to defend NGC smacks of either NGC management or someone paid by management. And for the record that previous statement is conjecture not fact!
-A little more knowledge and verifiable facts and a little less bravado and arrogance would serve you well.
EVERYONE OF THE STATEMENTS I MADE IN TGHIS POST HAS A SOURCE. NOT ONE OF YOURS DOES. IF YOU (1STUDENT) ARE AN INVESTOR IN NGC THEN GET OUT. IF, AS IS LIKELY THE CASE YOU ARE MANAGEMENT OR A PAID CONSULTANT, THEN GO BACK TO DEFENDING THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON YOUR BOARD.
HAVE A NICE DAY!