I hope you know how much I love you!As far as I’m aware, EGR did...

I hope you know how much I love you!

As far as I’m aware, EGR did their research work inside a pizza-sized oven that, was in a small corner of a dusty old room which they called a pilot plant over a one year period and have since made minor tweaks. On the other hand, ANZAPLAN are a 125 year-old company, with a world-leading metallurgical testing laboratory and engineering facilities. Year in, year out their laboratories prepare flowsheets and assist in adapting them for a range of worldwide companies on a regular basis and on a variety of raw materials, including graphite, lithium, kaolin, etc. Therefore, they are high-end professionals offering a readily available and customisable service ‘calibrated’ to your specific raw material and needs. EGR offer no such service because they have no credible facility or have any track-record or capabilities in this matter. So, it’ll be highly unlikely that they will be able to match or obtain the same level of product qualifications when you delve into the detail. Hence, why ANZAPLAN, the experts in this field, have achieve a 99.99% PSG for both ITM and RNU which is much higher that EGRs, ie it’s a better process.

IMO, EGR is merely pulling the wool over your eyes. It’s an opportunistic marketing exercise in an attempt to capture SP value while the Australian graphite market is still in its infancy. It’s worth repeating that IPAustralia initially rejected this patent before back-flipping to approve it 6 months. Fortunately, ANZAPLAN and RNU were quick enough to recognise the BS and have called EGR out on it. So, to save face EGR now have no choice but to go through the IP opposition process. Regardless of the outcome, ITM and every other graphite company that holds a resource in Australia will ultimately thank ANZAPLAN and RNU for being on the front foot and challenging their overly broad application when they did because it now forces them to narrow their application.

If the Kwinana business model is fundamentally flawed, I’d suggest that it stands to reason that an Australian patent application is also fundamentally flawed because you have none to apy it to. So, if and when EGR narrow their specs to eliminate any ambiguity, there’ll likely be no Australian resource who’ll need to adopt it, even if they are successful i.e., every resource flowsheet will have their unique and customised version that will likely see pass any plausible breach. This is normal commerce.

Furthermore, don’t you think it’s odd that EGR have made no attempt to lodge this patent with any other ‘international’ jurisdiction outside of Australia? That in itself says all you need to know about EGR intentions! I’d suggest that the Australian Government who owns IP Australia will not take to kindly to that.

All IMO, DYOR, GLTA(patient)H