Jaded, I think it's a process of elimination. It's highly likely...

Jaded, I think it's a process of elimination. It's highly likely the EGT is German, given the German exclusivity wasn't offered to ThyssenKrupp (themselves a German based global group). At the very least, the EGT would be a European group likely based in Germany.

The "Trader" moniker throws me a little, but I suspect that they are a user more than a trader, because there wouldn't be the annual sales volume to make a lot of money. (likewise, Asbury could be both a trader and user)

From conversations I had with management about the financing aspects back when we only had the EGT and not TK, I picked up that management were extremely comfortable with the size of the EGT, and that they were of more than sufficient standing to satisfy a bank with regards to the validity of their contract (i.e. as opposed to accepting a binding off-take or other contract from a $2 shell company). In addition, I know that management has been focused on expanded graphite uses, while everyone else was spruiking batteries and other things. SGL has a whole areas geared for expanded graphite and building products. Incidentally, building products and expanded graphite are something that Andrew Spinks has mentioned in presentations for the past 12 months. Finally, I note that we listed in Frankfurt last Feb, a couple of months after formalising a deal with the EGT. That further indicates to me that there is a German connection, and that KNL management were setting the groundwork for future trading and raising in Frankfurt.

So while I don't know for sure who it could be, I definitely attach a strong possibility to SGL.

Mainholm, the reason is quite understandable from the EGT's point of view as to why they are still unnamed, and I have queried KNL management extensively on this after we first signed the deal. The deal is a genuine, binding off-take. However, it is obviously contingent on getting a mine into production, so the ball is in KNL's court. The EGT wants to secure additional supply, but in a small market (and let's not forget with all the graphite companies currently trying to find buyers, the global graphite market is still quite small, and necessarily opaque), the EGT aren't going to want to show their hand. They (EGT) obviously have existing supply from somewhere (my belief is that it's China, which would support KNL management's oft stated view that a number of potential non-Chinese graphite buyers want to secure supply away from China), and they aren't going to want their current supplier knowing that they have tied their future supply to someone else, not until they know with greater certainty that that supply will in fact be forthcoming. Or to summarise myself more succinctly, they (EGT) don't want to back the wrong horse before they get to the straight.

At the time of financing, the EGT will be known to the funders, and and I presume that in turn shareholders will also know (I've discussed this point with management too). You'll notice in the EGT announcement that the off-take was prepared (by the legal eagles) in conjunction with a potential funder (i.e. to make sure clauses were acceptable). At that point, with funding secured, the EGT will have a greater level of comfort knowing that their chosen horse will in fact get into production.