'0.8% maximum Fe3O3 for high qualitybattery grade'
You can make battery grade carbonate orhydroxide out of just about any type of spodumene concentrate irrespective ofiron content because the iron is generally pretty easy to remove.
“Generally” — which means there is roomfor contradicting your own claim. If you go through carefully what I’ve postedyou’ll see that what I’m focusing on is what Behre Dolbear employed by Talisonspointed out which is what iron is impossible to remove. I’m open to that theremay be techniques to reduce that stated “impossible” by Behre Dolbesr butyou’re and I are arguing with the consumate professionals in this industry whohad no competition in WA when they made the statement. I think new incumbentswould have less reason to be stellar in clarity than Talisons.
If anyone has forgotten we are talkingabout benchmarking and the loss of distinctions in the minds of retailbasically because industry insiders are not sharing with retail, for example,Ganfeng’s specifications for Lithia products and in particular SC products. Bypointing to Talisons Greenbushes documentation you can see where perspective is‘lost’ to be polite.
Some impurities do drive up costs, forexample magnesium contamination in lithium brines from some domestic Chineseproducers but iron isn't a huge issue and definitely doesn't stop theproduction of battery grade carbonate/hydroxide for EV use.
It’s not just matter of stoppingand you and I can not state for sure it hasn’t ‘stopped’ a converter. As for hugeissue how huge is huge? I’ve presented evidence that there arespecifications and that chemical grade is a struggle to realise for newproducers much more than they’ve admitted in their metallurgicals andfeasibility studies.
Here is an interesting discussion of theissue (link),
'There is wrong impression that iron andmica cause excessive troubles in the converter. I had used low grade spodumeneconcentrate with both iron and mica reached around 4% to produce much betterthan battery grade lithium carbonate in a commercial plant. Some forms of ironand mica may create problems, but in general, the iron and mica are nuisancesrather than trouble markers. Iron is very easy to remove during or after leachand mica is hardly leachable in the typical sulphate process.
Other impurities may cause more troublesthan those caused by iron and mica. It is impossible to cover the topic in fullin this short article.'
This is a good point, and I’ll add to itwhy hasn’t anyone pointed out the SC5 technical grade with iron below .014%that Tianqi and Albermale market?
In this quote i can see where you’veadopted your “generally” from. If you go through the documents I’ve presentedyou’ll note I’ve addressed the different kinds of iron contamination conformingto Talisons Behre Dolbear descriptions. Fact is, Talisons, an experiencedindustry insiders’ technical reviewer Behre Dolbear says a certain kind of ironis impossible to remove. PLS in its export compliance document lodgement to WAgov DER notes iron staining an Issue in its SC. So iron is an issue. LIMS isfor removing iron and the question is it only for introduced iron or is fromthe resource itself? It’s taken a while for them to realise they need anupgrade....
Off-take partners have specificationrequirements that miners need to meet.
Exactly and that’s why PLS need theextra LIMS unit.
And that’s why I’ve shown thoseAlbermale PDFS so retail can see what they are missing out on, Regards meetingspecs.
Where is Ganfeng’s specs so we ALL knowthe requirements?
Their plants are calibrated (this takestime) to the concentrate they use and thus, more imporant is consistency of theconcentrate deliveries.
That’s right hence why retail need moreperspective from new producers than they are currently served. (Refer toAlbermale PDFs for what perceptive looks like). You do realise that consistencywill be an ongoing issue simply due to the common broken up geomorphologies or zonations? This is wherecomparisons to Greensbushes serves as useful benchmark for pit and zoneselection within, a luxury that seems to completely evade current newproducers.
Namely ensuring that ships that arriveshas a product similar to the last. I never saw the iron issue as a problem forPLS if it was within specs (nor have offtake partners according to PLSannoucements)
Well the high iron oxide, well abovebattery grade specifications (Tianqi/Talison benchmark)
last two quarters suggests whatincluding ordering another LIMS unit? I can’t see how what you “never saw”relates to actual reality in this instance.
but was more concerned about thevariability which is something that PLS seem to be addressing.
I guess they have to address it since,it’s offspec....hence why shareholders in everylithium stock should demand the same data points Albermale conveys to the market in those PDFs I linked in this thread topic
With respect to the slow down inexports, I don't think its really an issue with quality as opposed to simplemarket oversupply.
I didn’t discuss slow down in exports.
The issue is not just quality that’spart of the basis of how SC is being conflated as if one product, it startswith for example quantitative terms like LCE and SC6 as undermining chemicalspecificity of each lithia product. Meanwhile there is no clear reference tobenchmarks for specifications from the new producers. This WA wide ‘obscurantism’needs cleaning up, its as if SC6 and wobbling around over what for exampleTalison specifies is ok. It’s not and it’s further reflected in how the Chinesecan bend Australian producers to their dark and inchoate market conditions.Conditions does anyone ask if Tianqi and Albermale are subject to?
For example why is PLS and AJM linked toa China domestic lithium carbonate spot price and likely an industrial gradeprice when its clear they can’t compete with brine producers in this market? Tolink SC to a derivative with opaque market conditions is akin to walking into atrap and what has happened since late 2018 though the market took some time toreflect it in the price was an avalanche of industrial grade product hittingthe China domestic market — who can be sure battery grade really is batterygrade in that market, and from a bagged ready for export point of Talisons? Whosets the price in China? How are they doing it? Albermale is on the recordsaying it doesn’t like spot pricing, doesn’t like commoditisation of lithia,I’m not sure what’s right to be honest, but what seems to be the case is amassive case of manipulation as SC6 for battery grade is specified by whatTalisons says it is and I don’t see an oversuppy of that grade. If and when PLSsought specification issues can they do something aBout their pricing and ripup the 10 year contracts with Ganfeng and GL? I think the problem starts withlinking to LC but also grades being arbitrary by `convention`.
A40 high prices were being highlightedas an example of quality superiority over PLS. Turned out to be completenonsense with A40 struggling to sell anything at those prices today. GXY's highprices should of been a give away with their low grade and higher mica content(improved in the last quarter). GXY have also come down now in sale price butlikely have customers whose converter plants have been calibrated well fortheir output over time.
The next nonsense is a new explorerneighbour of A40 and Mt Marion, and is very opaque (compare to Talisons forperspective) on iron oxide for example and other deleterious elements to date.
So while the long term position of EVdriving demand is still there (50% growth YOY so far in 2019), a lot of SC6 —where’s the datasheets specifying? outputhas come online at once, flooding the market and thus putting everyone intodifficulty (lowest cost established producers like Greenbushes obviously doingthe best -they don’t do the pricing mechanismAJM and PLS have). Just to give one example,Greensbushes export output went from 31kt in Jan to 76kt in July according tosome posted numbers. This increase just in 2019 is literally AJM+PLS combined.Little wonder the market needs time to absorb it all with demand growth andconversion capacity.
The change in market started early 2018but this was not for high quality battery grade, Lifepo4 materials “purchase intention” was not strongresulting in a decline in price of lithium carbonate.
http://www.gg-lb.com/asdisp2--33625-.html(July 2018) The same article notes high quality lithium concentrates [were] stillscarce around the world.
The market started to be flooded then with subspec SC from Qinghai for example and to some extent revamped, which naturally costs,to pass as battery grade. The story is, perceive this as provisional on furtherproof as you like, Ganfeng played games due to the market not being able todifferentiate between quality and “nonsense”. Someone has to pay for nonsense.And the not at spec for chemical grade “battery grade” market continues buthow many are recognizing it when every new producer declares battery grade?There’s no one to regulate these distinctions or is there? I don’t think JORCor ASX can cope with it.
As per my earlier post I’ve addressed toKen Brinsden, can Ganfeng manipulate the spot price for IG and or ‘BG’ lithiumcarbonate pricing? And please share the Ganfeng specifications or acknowledgethey exist but you can’t share them because you don’t have Ganfeng’s permissionto share....
Apparently you need to talk to theprocessors like GLC, Ruifu, Tinci, Chengtun, Ganfeng. Tianqi Lithium. I hopesom here appreciate what I’ve shown from Talison’s corner to convey truth ongrades and how that reflects on pricing.
(20min delay)