FinancingFeed working capital, export credit, trade finance & asset leasing — explore options
Reference Delivery

Premix and concentrate plant — Saudi Arabia

Anonymized reference project: a Saudi group producing its own premixes and concentrates instead of importing them. Small tonnage, high value per tonne — the requirement was dominated by weighing accuracy, contamination control and documentation, not throughput.

Saudi Arabia
Country
Premix, concentrates and additive blending
Category
3 t/h · 18,000 t/year
Scale
3
Reference outcomes

Load requirements

Design loads used to size housing, utilities and equipment.

Capacity
3 t/h, 500 kg batch
Weighing range
0.5 g to 500 kg across four scales
Mixer
Ribbon mixer, CV <3% required
Containment
Booths with local extraction on hand adds
Climate
Conditioned storage, 22 °C for vitamins
Documentation
Lot genealogy per component, CoA archive

Results

Representative KPIs achieved on projects of this scope.

Mixer CV
2.6% on tracer test
Micro weighing accuracy
±0.2 g at the manual station
Carry-over
<0.2% after flushing sequence
Documentation
Component-level lot genealogy per batch
Utilisation
82% of nameplate, year 2

Challenges and how they were resolved

What went wrong in the first definition of the requirement, and what changed before suppliers quoted.

Vitamin stability in ambient storage

Warehouse temperatures above 40 °C degraded vitamin activity before the premix reached the mill, undermining formulation assumptions.

ResolutionConditioned raw-material storage and a defined maximum residence time were written into the project scope rather than left to operations.

Cross-contamination between medicated and clean blends

A single mixer for medicated concentrates and vitamin premixes created a carry-over exposure the buyer's own QA rejected.

ResolutionA second small mixer plus documented sequencing and flushing were priced explicitly, so the compliance cost was visible in the CAPEX comparison instead of discovered later.

The business case was not the equipment

Supplier offers were compared on machine price while the real question was landed cost per tonne of premix versus continued import.

ResolutionOffers were normalised into a cost-per-tonne model including duty, freight, labour and QA, which changed the ranking of two suppliers.

The numbers

Indicative capital and operating figures for a project of this scope. Ranges, not quotations.

Indicative CAPEXUSD 2.2M–2.8M
In-house premix costUSD 1,180/t produced
Imported equivalentUSD 1,450/t landed
Annual savingUSD ~4.8M at 18,000 t
PaybackUnder 1 year at full utilisation

Representative outcomes

  • Weighing chain specified from 0.5 g manual station to 500 kg macro scale
  • Dedicated dust containment on every hand-add point
  • Import substitution assessed against landed premix cost, not equipment price

Run these numbers yourself

Background reading

Note: This case study is an anonymized reference scenario. Specific client identities, contract values and commercial terms are withheld under NDA. Figures reflect typical outcomes for projects of this scope and are not a guarantee for your project.

Get a Free QuoteExplore Financing