KoH, I'm guessing your question was rhetorical, but nonetheless...

KoH, I'm guessing your question was rhetorical, but nonetheless there are a number of compelling reasons to do so. While it's not necessary for KNL to do so, it's certainly beneficial.

1. Merelani offers the company a two mine strategy, which in investment terms is gold. Two independent cashflows help smooth out inevitable problems when they arise at one mine or the other. And either can be upgraded independently of the other if/when demand increases.
2. Merelani flake distribution is significantly different (better) than Epanko, as the geo report that Louza refers to attests. As per a previous point, graphite is more of an industrial product, not a commodity. And Merelani offers us an additional "product". The recent TK deal highlights that both products are going to be in demand, for their own reasons.
3. The Merelani "product" is going to provide a higher margin product (due to the significantly better flake distribution), even after accounting for the likely additional royalty stream we'll have to pay to Richland/STAMICO.
4. Merelani provides access to some existing infrastructure (including some existing mine/processing infrastructure) which saves on some upfront costs.
5. As per my previous post, current graphite buyers want smaller amounts of annual production from smaller mines, and current graphite buyers are not in the realm of buying 100ktpa today, regardless of what MOUs the super-pits are spruiking that they are chasing. What buyers want, is what buyers should be getting, and KNL management understand the current graphite market extremely well and are providing that. If TK want 10ktpa from each of our mines, who are we to say "no". We'll likely be working on a 3rd sales agreement before most mines even lock down a single one, so KNL's strategy is going to pay dividends, as will become apparent when the majority of juniors can't find buyers.