I'm merely presenting the case In context of downstream...

I'm merely presenting the case In context of downstream processing for battery anode material. Its irrelevant how much graphite will be shipped out in its traditional form (large and jumbo flake) for other applications such as refractories or expanded graphite uses. It goes without saying that locating shaping facilites in Tanz won't have any bearing on costs related to shipping those proportions of product. They will be bagged separately regardless becasue their destinations will be different.

In context of our proposed PSG facilities, which is what I thought we were discussing, reducing the volume of product being sent to four different global sites is likely to derive some benefit in terms of road transport and shipping costs. A 90% reduction in volume via micronisation is a rough figure. According to information published by Northern Graphite, fine flake graphite is <75 microns and is micronised down to a size of 10 to 15 mircons. So, the volume reduction is substantial.

The one thing I am assuming, though, is that there is no reduction in weight when micronising and spheronising the graphite (which in hindsight is probably unrealistic). But, I'm also assuming you are working on the premise that the yield loss is asociated entirely with the shaping process. It could be that its a result of both the shaping and the purification process. What % of each, I can't say that I know. All I do know is that the proposal of locating the shaping facilities in Tanz and purification facilities at the customer's locations makes logical sense to me. In other words, its IMO that the proposal would make economic sense across three fronts with potential transport cost savings. They would represent the smallest savings to be had in context of the other savings associated with CAPEX.