I think the problem you are having here is you are only seeing 1/2 the equation. Some points:
1. Yes shipping will be longer - agree, and yes that will have a higher
shipping footprint than say the US was able to source its own inputs and/or we shipped to China. On China, no we don't want to be shipping to China - China has been manipulating the lithium price and breaking China's dominance in markets is a key. In terms of shipping too USA or Europe, I would prefer spodumene concentrate was converted in hydroxide in Australia and shipped (as you need 6.5 tonnes 6% grade spodumene to produce 1 tonne lithium hydroxide monohydrate you would be shipping less volume is my point, but obviously a much more higher valued product) - refer
Post #:
71669290
2. Don't confuse grades with costs. CXO has a much lower grade product and its high opex costs were because it failed to achieve its recovery rate. LTR's underground section has much higher grades than CXO and if it achieves its recovery rate it will have much much much lower costs is my point - refer
Post #:
69711272
if want to understand grade, process and CXO's issues.
3. I would prefer EVs be produced in Australia but we can't. So how do you feel about all the commodities we buy in Oz that are imported into Australia. We no longer have a car industry, for example but we all like driving cars.
4. And here is crux, ESG is about total life cycle not one element such as shipping, hence my previous post to you on waste. Processing lepidolite is a real environmental issue, getting lithium from brines in Chile is a real problem given the issues around water and the fact that not all deposits, because of deleterious element issues cannot be converted to lithium hydroxide monohydrate at reasonable cost, and finally the USA if it was to 'own spurce' lithium in the USA would need to be developing this from clays and other deposits as it doesn't have a lot of spod, again meaning ESG issues. Obviously Canada is closer to USA, but deposits have to be commercial to mine.
5. Australia exports a number of commodities, such as iron ore - why, the product has better overall ESG outcomes than sourcing it in own country and is more commercially sound to use than sourcing it in their own country.
6. Economics and viability is about a lot of things. On carbon, yes there will be more carbon in transport, however I suspect in terms of ESG overall life cycle it is better sourcing it from Oz or elsewhere where quality is better. In producing hydroxide the carbon footprint is not in shipping it is actually in converting spodumene to lithium chemicals in the calcination process - i.e. meaning poorer quality inputs will have serious implications at the calcination stage.
All IMO
(20min delay)