Done a little study into the logistics. I may be wrong i may be...

First 60 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Motorheadbeany

1,229 Posts.

126

06/08/23

16:13

Post #: 69186289
Share

Originally posted by HOOPZ ↑

I have seen a few comments/concerns about the logistics of trucking lithium chloride compared to lithium carbonate. This is a little surprising to me given that the lithium chloride product has the equivalent of 31.9% LCE. This means that it is 2.13 times less efficient to transport lithium chloride than carbonate - which is extremely minor in the scheme of things. For some reason people don't question the logistics of trucking spodumene. Consider that a 5.5% Spodumene Concentrate product has the equivalent of 13.6% LCE which means it is 6.35 times less efficient to transport than a lithium carbonate finished product (on the basis of Lithium Units).

Lithium is so profitable that many companies are looking to sell DSO in order obtain early revenue. A 1.3% Li2O DSO product has the equivalent of 3.2% LCE which means it is 30 times less efficient to transport than carbonate. Basically, transporting lithium chloride is the next best thing to transporting carbonate (or hydroxide) and beats transporting spodumene by a long shot.

Here are some quick numbers to understand the magnitude of the logistics costs relative to the value of the product (this is just one of many options):
1) A standard tanker holds 40,000 litres or more (depends on the design, some hold up to 60,000 litres).
2) The specific gravity of the lithium chloride product might be around 1.23 (it could be higher than this, I just know brine is around 1.2 and a concentrated chloride product will be higher). If someone wants to provide more specifics on this for a 31.9% LCE product that would be helpful/interesting.
3) Using my specific gravity assumption, 40,000 litres will weigh almost 50 tonnes.
4) 50 tonnes of the lithium chloride product will contain the equivalent of 15.95 tonnes of LCE.
5) 15.95 tonnes of LCE (in the form of lithium chloride) using the $20,252 US/tonne price in the DFS would be worth US$323k or $475k AUD.

So each tanker is carrying a payload of almost $500k AUD worth of lithium chloride. If the numbers are done based on an LCE reference price of $40k US (where spot has been hovering) using a 72% payability (keeping in mind that payability could easily be much higher e.g. 80-90%) then I get a payload value of $675k AUD, at 80% payability it is more like $750k AUD per tanker.

So what does it cost to truck it to port? At a guess it could be something like $2,000 to $3,000 AUD for the round trip. The value of the product is $475k to $750k (depending on where the lithium carbonate reference price sits and payability obtained). Yes, Smith71 I think you are probably right it would still be profitable to transport to port by helicopter.

ALL IMO DYOR.

Expand

Done a little study into the logistics. I may be wrong i may be right DYOR. But there is a railhub at Olacapato. Rough map below add 1 to 2 hours to get to hombre muerto. Road to follow in route 17 and 27.
Most roads are gravel in this region. I have actually been to Atacama desert in Peru and Chile 2010 &2018, but not Argentina. I would guess the rainfall is low like the two places i visited, which is less than 10mm per year on average. This means roads are not subject to being destroyed as much from rain as in other parts of the world.
Rail seems to be big carting minerals in South America, although slow, is cheap. 5 hours by truck is not unfessible. Most other mining companies in the region are banking on the Chiliean port for deliveries according to my google searches.
Anyway not upramping, just a point of view of what could be the possible logistics- cheers

Last edited by Motorheadbeany: 06/08/23

GLN Price at posting: 77.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
13 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply