To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. My understanding is that GLN’s Phase 2 Mining Permit allows for the production of up to 21 ktpa of lithium chloride, whereas AGY’s EIA approval covers up to 12 ktpa of lithium carbonate. I don’t have a clear grasp of all the specifics regarding GLN’s permit, but the distinction between chloride and carbonate production seems significant for any potential third party or acquirer. Please correct me if GLN does indeed have approval to produce lithium carbonate—at present, I don’t believe this is the case.
That being said, there’s been recent news about directly producing LiFePO₄ (LFP) from lithium chloride rather than lithium carbonate. If this process proves viable, it could eliminate the need for carbonate as an intermediate step, potentially reducing costs. Should that happen, GLN’s strategy may turn out to be quite advantageous—but we’ll have to wait and see how it plays out.
I completely agree with your point about the resource—GLN is in a different league compared to AGY on that front, making them a much more attractive M&A target (IMO). I dislike both management teams though, and I think each of them have made some pretty poor decisions over the last 12-18 months.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)