Just posted this back to TJ on the SYR forum even though I had covered this detail on this graphite forum already.
"TJ, if you go back over our previous discussion in the graphite forum you will note that I highlighted the Chalieco MOU was for a 3 part requirement, not just anodes. You can read it yourself in the SYR announcement. The three requirements for Chalieco announced in the SYR release were:
1. To supply the distribution shortage in China. 2. Anodes in Al smelting. 3. Cathodes in Al smelting.
It is Adkins that is talking about blending as I pointed out to you, of which you originally denied. It is not SYR nor Chalieco, but I can see how some people can jump to the conclusion that it is talking about blending if they don't enquire for clarity first. So, I also posted in that thread that the proposed 10 to 15% substitution is for anode blocks as a whole and not for blending. As I commented, that means a third type of anode block.
Besides your failure to understand that there has never been any announcement to use 80k to 100k tonnes of graphite for anodes alone, any use for blending is not feasible. Besides the technical problems, I suspect it would be uncommercial to mix natural graphite with either mix of the two existing pre-baked anodes because there would be little, if any, efficiency gain. Go back and read all the posts I made on this topic in that thread.
One type of existing pre-baked anode is graphitized from petcoke or anthracite and the other is only carbonized from petcoke and left over anode butts. Both use calcined petcoke in their mix. As I said, that is where Adkins and others reading the announcement have misunderstood and jumped to incorrect conclusions. They didn't comprehend that the substitution is a whole natural graphite anode block and not blending with either of the two existing types. Do you understand the difference between graphitizing and carbonizing including the process, different costs and different performance?
You are chasing your tail with a bee in your bonnet. Please just read what I have posted properly. I suggest if you want to continue having a lot to say on this topic then you should speak to the SYR people yourself instead of guessing and pontificating."
Jaded, you should recall that I highlighted to you and TJ that the Chalieco MOU was not just for anodes. Here is the link to my post on this thread I made on 20/10/14:
Anyway, whether a new market eventuates from Al smelting anodes might be more important to other graphiters than it will be to SYR. My concern for SYR is now overload not under demand. Their plans are mighty ambitious and face many challenges. If they succeed then no doubt in my mind they will be hugely profitable. Massive.
