Running discussion on SP, page-24762

Glencore may be a tax evader but they are not an artisanal miner. Nor will AVZ be an artisanal miner. In terms of Glencore, DRC needs to ensure benefits flow through to its residents etc.

So below in the linked posts here is the difference - human rights issues are the result of artisanal mining in the DRC - understanding the difference cuts through the crap posted on these threads when the issue arises. AVZ will be an open cut mine, not an artisanal mine. Refer: Post #: 41571292 and Post #: 41582506

Now to cobalt source - well, the reason why cobalt comes from the DRC is because of economics and grade, and most of the other cobalt deposits in the world are ordinary (and are infact bypoducts mainly of nickel operations like in Australia). Glencore has ownership of the Murrin Murrin mine in Oz and it does produce cobalt as a byproduct from the nickel laterite in that mine (but not enough to power needs of EVs btw) and laterite deposits are far more expensive to develop than sulphide deposits btw (I'll let others do own research to understand the difference). In the DRC cobalt comes also with copper, mainly by the way and Glencore's operations are open cut not artisanal mining.

Now to the next question - I posted this on the PLS thread because ultimately without NCA or NCM batteries hard rock plays for the time being would be dead and buried (and possibly re-emerge with solid state batteries). I did it so that people can understand the importance of cobalt in batteries and what it means for hard rock plays, because if cobalt is substituted out of batteries, you might find that hard rock is then not required (unless of course hard rock then has a role in solid state batteries, which is likely given impurity levels, but SSBs won't become predominant for over10 years IMO so i'll let others work out what that would mean for hard rock plays if NCA and NCM batteries go and howlong the delay to production would become). Post #: 42311483

I am getting quite sick and tired of these 'cobalt' throw-away lines because lithium investors in other hard rock plays appear to have no idea what it actually means for their stock, and I suspect Elon has come to a view you can't fully substitute cobalt out of batteries for the batteries been put into his Tesla's (reality bites) because if you don't use cobalt in teh cathode along with nickel and manganese (NCM) or nickel and aluminium (NCA), battery types might be more expensive and given batteries account for 1/3rd of the cost of EVs it would reduce the takeup of EVs compared to ICE (ultimately when it comes to the wallet, consumers in choosing a choice between an EV and ICE will still look at the price and savings arising). EV takeup will increase as price reduces is the point here, which is what is starting to happen IMO. So in italics is what I wrote on this issue in PLS: Post #: 42311483

".....turning to battery types as some of your more recent posts around hydroxide are essentially about this, and again using a post i did in another thread in another stock, here are the specs for battery grade lithium carbonate and Fe is in PPM terms at 10 or essentially 0.001%,with LiCO3 been 99.5%:
http://palith.com/english/product/index.php?act=&sid=23

For hydroxide battery grade impurities need to be less:
https://livent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/QS-PDS-1021-r3.pdf

The specs for hydroxide are tougher than carbonate is the point so when it comes to cost estimates well it does boil down to meeting the specs of hydroxide as not all hard rock or brines can get there at a reasonable cost. For hard rock the ones that are likely to get there are the deposits that are high grade and have low impurities in a vertically intergrated concept.

The continued move to NCM (and NCA) IMO is going to clearly accelerate the process of hydroxide been required in battery chemistries, because it is these battery types that are the basis of increased hydroxide needs. This article sums that up well and I'll just take this quote from it - https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1836977-lithium-hydroxide-demand-to-overtake-carbonate-aabc:

"But the higher nickel content in NCM cathodes can present challenges in terms of chemical stability. If the metals are used in a ratio of six parts nickel to two parts cobalt and two parts manganese (6-2-2), or 8-1-1, rather than 1-1-1 or 5-3-2 as in the past, the chemistry requires lithium hydroxide rather than lithium carbonate. Cathodes using an 8-1-1 ratio are some way from commercial viability, owing to safety problems with the chemistry, delegates heard.....As nickel content approaches 60pc, the higher temperature required to synthesise cathode material with lithium carbonate damages the crystal structure of the cathode and changes the oxidation state of the nickel metal. But lithium hydroxide allows rapid and complete synthesis at lower temperatures, increasing the performance and lifespan of the battery, said Marina Yakovleva, global commercial manager for new product and technology development at lithium producer Livent."

Without hydroxide all hard rock plays will be done and dusted is my point, because if the battery type doesn't require hydroxide (but carbonate) well that is certainly the domain of brines.

Solid State Batteries will, from my understanding, require a lithium carbonate input, but not the type of lithium carbonate people may think. The key is not about comparing carbonate or hydroxide here in the now IMO, because IMO SSBs are going to be about controlling the impurities, because conceptually SSBs are going to need very very low impurities (probably of the scale and better of those of technical grade applications in the higher end markets you see for lithium per se). If others have comments please share as a debate worth having at some point.

The idea behind solid state batteries is to increase energy density in a battery, meaning you have smaller batteries but having a higher range. To increase energy density IMO means the battery has to be more pure, meaning the impurities in the battery would need to be less than those associated even with hydroxide or else the charge in the battery and release of energy is adversely impacted. Hence some of the comments you read that SSBs can be potentially unstable IMO. With solid state batteries you are also relying on a solid, possibly polymer, metal electrolyte instead of a liquid electrolyte and replacing graphite in the anode as well.

I calculated that you need 0.9kg LCE for each kWh of battery installed capacity, but the theoretical efficiency of lithium would actually be around 0.371 kg LCE per each kWh meaning the lithium ion batteries are not operating at efficiency - calcs in this post from another thread: Post #: 41223014. The objective of SSBs is to get closer to the 0.371 kg LCE objective per kWh IMO, that is what they are aiming to do, but they won't get there in full, but even getting to say 0.5kg LCE per kWh is a huge improvement in energy density and efficiency. That is, higher density and efficiency means lower impurities and differing cost structures because the smaller a battery gets but gives you the same bang, the more unstable the battery can become if its pureness is not increased IMO etc etc.

In other words, I suspect SSBs (and the carbonate input) are going to need impurity levels within the scope of higher end technical grade carbonate (TG) applications (which is what you use in say glass and high end use where impurities are low) - hence my comment around cost and that these batteries will probably be used in the higher performance end markets, whilst NCA and NCM batteries will remain the predominant battery types for ordinary consumers of EVs.

Chemical grade (CG) lithium carbonate is what you currently use in batteries, albeit in effect converted to hydroxide for NCA and NCM battery types, but the difference between TG and CG is simply impurity levels, and at the moment higher end TG applications is only (or predominantly) produced from Greenbushes from my understanding. PLS thought it could produce TG but to date has been unable to do it, as well as your brine deposits. This post of mine is a bit outdated but does go into some issues around TG and CG - Post #: 38364396

Below are the specs from Greenbushes so others can get a handle on what TG specifications are - in the table below the CG specifications for the battery market are SC6.0 - the rest are your TG products and you produce different specs depending on the TG market. Because I suspect that is where the input parametres to SSBs will need to be IMO.

There is a role for both brines and hard rock in the battery market. Obviously I am speculating as little data on SSBs lithium inputs (impurity wise) is known."

@Roller62, absolutely agree. The DRC needs to get rid of artisanal mining. But to better the lives of DRC locals lets hope the tax revenues they derive from mining are used to better improve services in those countries. Turning to AVZ if the project gets up I can see benefits for Manono town through employment opportunities and even improving infrastructure there. Take the latest power plant announcement - if AVZ is able to fix and use that old power station some power will go into the town as well.

Rather than people whinge and whine about the DRC, not directed at you Roller btw, the way you take people out of poverty is through economic development (not foreign aid). Encouraging sustainable and 'healthy' mining development in the DRC and ensuring benefits are shared between the DRC and SHs of the companies concerned is a key.

All IMO