Oh dear, it looks like Shell is going to eat humble pie once...

Oh dear, it looks like Shell is going to eat humble pie once again since I'm not here to upset people... promise. Sorry, Chingy, I didn't mean to upset you. It's obvious that HC causes me to have trust issues! SoWo and CPK will be having a laugh right now. Really sorry, Chingy.

Btw... I can assure you, it wasn't Shell who reported your post. I wouldn't have replied to it otherwise... besides I thought was a scream! Someone else was being a party pooper!

You may not realise, Chingy, that the question being asked by NL is re Urbix's costs of spheronisation. We know the cost of purification (very low) but we don't know about the former. We will not be getting our graphite processed by Urbix as such. You meant well, I accept that now. Urbix's purification, SPG and other downstream proprietary processes we will be utilising... yes, but not toll treatment of raw graphite. Nevermind, Chingy... I recognise its difficult to come in halfway through an ongoing discussion. So, I will make allowances and take your word for it that you weren't downramping or cross-promoting. All forgiven, mate.

While you're here, though. You might want to consider looking into BEM's outstanding test results across all the downstream uses as per this snippet from Mr G's article link.

I notice that Archer's Campoona graphite, whilst described as encouraging by Urbix, fell short of benchmark high purification grades required for battery anode requirements. Urbix managed only +98% with your graphite and didn't i read that Archer used HF leaching??? Anyway here's BEM's superior test results to date performed by other experts in the industry, which I'm confident in Urbix deriving even better results!