<0.8% = High quality Battery grade, page-24

40031857

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/40031857/single

In reply to posters linked above....

A ten year gap from date of publishing means nothing (0) when Talisons says this in the take over prospectus 2009 pdf that I linked to:

“”The major growth sector for chemical-grade lithium will be the secondary battery market, including growth in batteries for consumer goods such as mobile phones and laptop computers. The most significant upside potential for lithium demand is in the mass production of electric vehicles using lithium rechargeable batteries.”

Talisons prospectus >> https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/6025565/single <<

And recently in a corporate presentation Talisons continues to confirm it makes one battery grade SC6, a chemical grade SC6. Easy for you to Google.

The secret on iron oxide for battery grade is out even more so now.

And also how hard technical grade is to achieve economically, PLS has not made an offtake for TG SC. Correct me if wrong but they did state offtakes were advancing on the Metallurgical testing data they had for TG SC.

To reiterate, based on the Tianqi benchmark, a producer must have less than 0.8% in their SC6 to meet battery demand. In some cases for highest quality battery demands, expect 0.5% which tips into TG level obviously.

But my main concern here is whether PLS can produce CG battery grade lithium spodumene economically, if not as easily as Talisons, because up till now all the testing prior to feasibility studies is not reflected in the current SC product.

Iron oxide is the leading issue for spodumene producers where it’s locked into the lattice structure, from milling circuits and high iron species according to Talison’s independant technical reviewer, Behre Dobear (BD). This is rarely discussed openly as many here will appreciate unless your Talisons with nothing to fear as you have mining pits specific to each grade, with some overlap naturally.

Tianqi Lithium, for example, as I’ve made abundantly clear, from Talisons Greenbushes, makes one battery grade / chemical grade product : SC6. It has an iron oxide level last recorded in 2018 August (for Tianqi IPO) of maximum 0.8%. The crush size is maximum 6mm.

Based on the resistance detectable in this thread some PLS holders are largely in denial about what battery grade spodumene should look like. Yes PLS Management have a plan to get there with for example an extra LIMS unit, which could also reduce recovery rates hence higher opex IF they are seeking a ‘secondary purpose’, if feasible (BD says impossible), that is, removing iron caught up in the lithium spodumene lattice besides “high iron mineral species”.

Behre Dobear BD for Talisons states its impossible to liberate iron oxide from lithium spodumene lattice so there is a gamble here for PLS if iron staining is due to locked up iron in the spodumene lattice, and this is besides the easier task of removing iron contamination sources from milling circuit, whether PLS can get iron oxide levels down below 0.8% is still moot.

Some will argue but PLS is only removing introduced iron from milling circuit. But is this entirely true, because PLS themselves state in a recent announcement that LIMS primary purpose is such removal, yet this statement is also hinting at other purposes beyond the stipulated “primary purpose”. In fact the manufacturer is quite clear LIMS units are used for a variety of tasks not just for introduced iron in the milling circuits PLS emphasise. https://www.metso.com/products/separators/lims/wet-drum/

I suspect all the JORC adjustments to determining levels of iron oxide made over last three - four years was an attempt to raise confidence in the resource and postpone the reality to a later date. Hence the extra LIMS unit being ordered now after the last two quarters show high iron oxides levels and well over Tianqi’s benchmark, maximum 0.8% for iron oxide.

Obviously technology has improved and so has the stringency for specifications for batteries, from LifePo4 to NCM NCA and further ahead higher density iterations.

All this means with ramp up of EV production, higher opex lower quality spodumene that is iron oxide over 0.8% with variances in crush size, moisture/ dust levels, such products will need to vertically integrate into a derivative product to absorb high opex costs of processing the spodumene. This is what all the WA producers want to do besides increase $ margins as they (except for Greenbushes) struggle to meet chemical grade specifications.

Anyone doubting Tianqi data please ask PLS to show the Ganfeng specifications for SC, then we can have a proper debate. Otherwise what I am showing in this thread with Talisons benchmark is the best evidence so far PLS is still producing an industrial grade product for the battery market.

The additional LIMS will be interesting to see whether contamination from ball milling operations; “tramp iron” is the issue or the real issue is iron oxide caught up in the lithium spodumene lattice. Iron oxide staining in SC has been alerted by PLS in a Gov doc, page 22 https://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/documents/our-work/licences-and-works-approvals/Applications/W6051-2017-1ap.pdf as a separate instance to ‘milling circuit sources for iron contamination’, so on the ASX platform PLS needs to clarify the source of contamination as both milling circuit and deposit or just milling circuit? I have found no instance of iron staining mentioned in an ASX announcement and wish to know is the real source for high iron contamination in PLS’s SC6 thus one of the metrics rendering and relegating it to the industrial grade bin?

“Tramp iron” as Behre Dobear reports for Talisons, should be easy to remove? Is it possible LIMS is being used to remove iron oxide caught up in the spodumene and so this means a lower recovery rate to meet chemical grade specifications?

To avoid misinterpretation, I showed the Albermale Tech Grade PDFs to show formatted detail on lithium spodumene specifications otherwise hidden from retail view, And to compare to the level of transparency that does NOT exist with new lithium spodumene producers on the ASX including PLS.

Clearly, from PLS recent announcements PLS is ordering another LIMS unit for removal of iron oxide from SC indicates that it is NOT currently meeting customer specifications. Unless those customers now want lower iron levels? Lower than 1.8% and lower than 1.2%?

Point is, as evidenced from Tianqi’ Lithium’s benchmark specifications, PLS need iron below 0.8%.

Keep reading over what I posted till it becomes clear the level of opacity to date we are all being fed.

Ask yourself, why isn’t PLS showing [me] what Albermale shows on its specification data sheets? Don’t ask why is he asking me this but no one else is, ask yourself, why is it Talisons has the confidence to show ( see Albermale SC spec pdfs in this thread) yet no other WA lithium producer does NOT have the confidence?

For example, from those PDFs:

Crush size and variance

Iron oxide and other deleterious element %count and

Moisture content are all aspects readers of public reports have a right to know about to know whether PLS for example are on target. Documentation from buyer, PLS customer is best.

In this post which you missed 40029820 I showed a screenshot indicating that in a Behre Dolbear document lodged in 2018 for Tianqi’s IPO, the specifications for iron oxide in SC6 chemical grade now often known as “battery grade” bears little change from 2009 to 2018. I also provided the google search query command to tweak for results as that document is not directly available on HKEX after one year but you can see the proof that DB retain same specifications for SC6. So it’s clear, Tianqi makes a battery grade SC6 with iron oxide no greater than 0.8% with a crush size no greater than 6mm.

For those pointing to only consistency matters, that does not contradict what I’m stating —you just don’t recognize the industry thresholds for grade because it’s usually confidential but that’s just been busted by some good sleuthing on the internet.

The Albermale PDFs, Talison Greenbushes product, show what values are considered with their range and quality. Have a look at them, all referenced on this thread for transparency and substantiation, and my I urge you all seek same transparency from your PLS management going forward as they are being clearly abstruse in comparison to the tabling of specifications from Albermale and earlier Talisons.

Low iron content SC that is, below 0.8% is necessary for high quality lithium chemical production for battery market. And that’s being conservative —- it’s probably desired even lower as the tech advances. Many here and elsewhere in the lithium investment ‘society’ throught 1.4% was the penalty threshold (BGS aka MLL, published a figure on it) but that 1.4% threshold is incorrect for chemical grade thus battery grade. Whatever that 1.4% reflects it is a low quality SC product.

PLS so far, based on incontrovertible evidence from Talisons/Tianqi, is in the industrial grade bin in the market place and it’s pricing is hence linked to China domestic industrial grade spot price. With Ganfeng for example that’s contracted for ten years. Will they renegotiate better terms for PLS shareholders?

I have not seen an announcement after 6 months indicating Ganfeng was changing the pricing to favor PLS bottom line and yet the likes of CATL makes a surging profit www.chinadaily.com.cn › ...Web resultsCATL Q1 profit surges on booming NEV sales - Chinadaily.com.cn

What is going wrong?

Something seems to be terribly wrong with the pricing in the lithium market (Rodney Hooper has tried to address it and Simon Moore’s to a lesser extent and historically Airguide had a go till the legal came out with MIN) and my opinion is it’s to do with an abundant surplus of industrial grades (high iron spec among other deleterious counts) revamped into a battery grade market product. Because so far there is only one consistently chemical grade SC supplier, and that’s Talison. As many here know, to turn this IG into BG requires greater processing costs. There’s likely a more complex state of affairs also affecting the price where for example a supplier of low quality SC (industrial grade) reprocesses the product to meet battery grade specifications and going forward that supply is tagged irrespective as “battery grade” supplier hence quantitatively the effect is one of lowering prices as it appears there’s more of the same.

“More of the same” is just not the case and yet the market lives with this obfuscatory manipulation probably by leading converters in China. You know who they are.

It’s vital to ask what is the knock on effect to spot pricing when industrial grade supplies are co-opted with higher grade but smaller quantities of battery grade lithium supplies to a China domestic lithium carbonate market where there is a lack of transparency on the classification or separation of those supplies?

Question to ask management is, no, I will ask:

Dear Ken,

Can Ganfeng manipulate the spot price to favour all the upside to itself (and it seems outfits like CATL)?

Can you show us the SC specifications from Ganfeng that is normally hidden from our view as confidential?

Signed

Just another Dad seeking transparency to make the right investment choice.

——

To reiterate, there are three grades, technical, chemical, and industrial. Sometimes we here of ceramic grade but that’s a subset of tech grade.

‘Battery grade’ for hard rock lithium spodumene processing aims for a ‘chemical grade’ level of ratios in its constituent parts. We can see from Talisons (Albermale and Tianqi) What those parts are expected to be. And in some customer cases, edges closer to technical grade level specification, especially where lower iron content is demanded, for example below 0.5% this could well be the case with solid state batteries. If I’m doubt call any SC producer/developer.

So the arbitrariness you sense on specifications such as Iron oxide is really the opacity and hence capacity to mislead on what constitutes “battery grade”, in the lithium market.

By my showing what Tianqi says (and we don’t discuss their product much I suspect because it’s hard to find the specs), I suspect that arbitrariness is now locked into 0.8% maximum for iron oxide battery grade because until now though it’s been lying around to be picked up, there’s been no documentary proof shown of what for the battery market ‘chemical grade’ iron oxide maximum specification is.

0.8% maximum Fe3O3 for high quality battery grade