Ann: EcoGraf Signs Framework Agreement with Tanzanian Government, page-68

Not exactly sure that I follow the relevance of what you are highlighting... unless, of course, you are suggesting that locating a single BAM facility in Tanz is the way to go. And, of course, logic tells us that the economics of building a single (larger) SPG or CPSG, as was originally proposed for Kwinana, but in Tanz is the best option. But, perhaps it is the best option based on economics but may not be what prospective customers want. They may want such a plant in the vicintiy of their operations in each of the three global locations.

Whether some or all of the mined and processed graphite requires ultra-purifiication or not, it all has to be shipped from Tanzania. if purification plants are deeemed to be best located in the US, Europe and Asia, then I believe it makes sense to localise the shaping process at the mine for that graphite requiring that particular graphite. Then all graphite is good to go to their respective customers and purification plants. The fact is that the small and medium flake graphite has to undergo micronising and shaping, so why not locate one of those plants in Tanz and three purification plants at the customer locations (if thats where customers want them)? 1 + 3 = 4 versus 3 x (1 +1) = 6. Sure some of the the other graphite will go elsewhere but that will be the case regardless of whether the shaping or PSG plant is in Tanz or not.

Please don't misunderstand, I don't favour three separate BAM plants really either I think that is a bigger mission and will cost more than a singular BAM facility in Tanz or Kwinana. But, if prospective customers demand BAM be processed in their neck of the woods, then separating the micronising / shaping stage with a solitary plant in Tanz makes sense.... that's all I was weighing up.

Btw, only containerised shipping suits graphite due to the fact that it is bagged and shipped in much relatively smaller quanitities than the bulk commodiites like iron ore. Micronised graphite is about the tenth of its original size - a substantial 90% reduction in volume saves space storage and shipping wise... ultimately reducing carbon footprint.

You are right, we need for the co to lay out the plans in detail with costings, etc., which we shouldn't expect to be too far off.