Thanks for highlighting that and reminding me of our Recarb part...

Thanks for highlighting that and reminding me of our Recarb part of our overall business model. Its a highly efficient and green aspect that other graphite operations and project developments lack.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Balduran.... what you have outlined suggests that there a 36% loss (weight and volume) due to the physical/mechanical shaping process in creating the initial desired product - unpurified micronised and spheronised graphite. But that loss is retained as a byproduct for "green" steel industry applications. That exemplifies EGR's well-designed and highly environmentally conscious business model. Its easy to forget the due diligence gone into every aspect of the overall Ecograf model.

I think conflation (for want of a better word) finally got us (or rather got me) here. Thankyou, Balduran. Funnily enough, I think this further supports the logic behind why a shaping facility is best located in Tanz. It negates double-handling... depending on whether 96% TGC is considered high enough purity for "green" steel manufacturing and other end-use products from our Recarb program to avoid ultra-high purification which BAM requires. The other question that this now leads onto, of course, is where the binding and pelletising process facility/s will be located? The waste byproduct fines can be sent directly to them or the purification facilities located in the same country.

All I can say is that the environmental due diligence and closed-cycle nature given to our business model, means there's a lot of moving pieces BUT if they can lock them in....