Great News, page-60

@Welsho54, I have made mention of the bespoke reagent before and my aversion, but this is probably not the forum. I am not saying it is impossible and it is clear that LITs current pilot work has demonstrated lithium carb production (albeit at sub optimal grade and recovery). Hazard to say that fluoride chemistry is difficult for materials of construction, safety/handling and lithium separation (lithium fluoride is not very soluble).

With respect to EMH, I dont expect to hear anything soon - very slow movers. Given my holding in LPD I would hope they choose L-max. I know it will be the lowest cost option. @tukebay, yes it is similar to spodumene processing except for some key points:
1. Spodumene is roasted with sulfuric acid.
2. Zinnwaldite roast uses sodium sulfate and recycles it.
3. The sodium sulfate that is recycled has 66% water associated with it. At a 1:1 reagent ratio 3 times more sodium sulfate is required when compared to sulfuric acid.
4. Spodumene grades 3 to 3.5% lithium, Zinnwaldite grades ~1% lithium. On this basis alone the sodium sulfate roaster will be 3 times larger but given the sodium sulfate addition, it'll be more likely 5 to 6 times larger than the equivalent spodumene roaster.
5. Impurity removal circuits will be required to deal with troublesome alkali metals.
6. Sodium sulfate roast of Zinnwaldite will have to deal with fluoride.

Roasting will not be economical (Its not linear, but for example: $400M for greenbushes roaster, one could extrapolate that to $2B for Cinovec roaster).

I could be completely wrong, but given the speed of project development I think Cinovec is being dressed up for sale and this may influence the process selected.