For those interested around EVs and carbon footprint - refer...

For those interested around EVs and carbon footprint - refer Post #: 63836050

I suspect most people haven't a clue how hydroxide is made - at this stage the energy source for producing it comes from either diesel or gas (because that is the energy source used in the kilns. Let alone how synthetic graphite is made (which is your anode material) which is also a highly energy intensive process - What is Synthetic Graphite? (Updated 2023) (investingnews.com) - and is largely derived from 'hydrocarbons' (petroleum coke/coal tar pitch) and it is why some are seeking to move to natural graphite which is better ESG.

But I would be expecting EV processes to improve and that is the point improvement in technology and production process is what will reduce life cycle CO2 emissions (further reduce life cycle CO2 emissions), compared to ICE (which have basically got not much more room for reducing CO2 footprints)

Reading this Ann I have a few questions:

1. What was the specific gravity of the solution used in HLS/DMS?
2. Apart from the 5.5% Li20, what were the amounts recorded for deleterious elements in the concentrate and were they at specifications? If they were at specifications - marketable without incurring penalties if specs did not comply - then the +90% recovery rate for DMS is exceptional and with a floatation circuit added would certainly get 6% Li20 concentrate IMO easily, or simply just play with the HLS solution to get to 6% provided the product continues to remain on spec with a 6% solution, but it does boil down on the SG in the solution used in the METs and whether deleterious elements came in spec. So the full MET data would be good here IMO to actually gauge what the 93% means, including how the process was undertaken.
3. Furthermore, is the spodumene sample used in the METs representative of the whole deposit - refer point 2 above? If it is not and the deposit itself has a greater element of fines within it then recovery rates would be lower. Obviously, if the deposit is largely coarse, which based on information provided to date appears to be, then the resource is amenable to DMS and would appear, if deleterious elements are on spec, recovery rates can be exceptional.
4. In other words a lot of positives here, and as more data comes onstream, if positive, investors will do well here. Furthermore if they are indeed the recoveries, and on spec, then LRS should consider a floatation circuit to get higher than 6% Li20 and target high end markets (like Greenbushes that can produce technical grade (TG) concentrate of greater than 6% that target higher end markets - noting in terms of Greenbushes its TG concentrates can be used in chemical grade applications (CG which is your EV applications), but CG cannot be used in TG applications because deleterious element counts need to be better. Note, as most know Greenbushes produces both TG and CG concentrates.

Example:
Take CXO: CXO is a DMS only operation and its issue is the recovery rate by and large which is less than 50%. The problem with CXO is that it has mis-forecast the mix of fines verses coarse spodumene and it is coarse spodumene that is a key to a DMS process and recovery rates. From CXO's latest quarterly, and obviously we know what happened after that which I feel for investors there:


Background - HLS:
A solution of specific gravity at 2 .9 works best, from those companies who have documented fully their METs works, to sink the spodumene and float the rest. A number of the deleterious elements have specific gravity less than 2.8 so need too ensure the solution has SG above that, but not significantly above that that does not sink spodumene (which has a specific gravity of above 3).

In the DMS process you crush and grind the specimens to the appropriate particle sizes you are seeking to the separate in the HLS solution. If you can’t liberate the spodumene appropriately then you are left with needing a floatation option to meet specs. And if can't liberate then the sink/float of HLS doesn't work appropriately.

Clearly the sample used by LRS allowed liberation of some sort, and produced a 5.5%Li20 concentrate at 93% recovery, although specifications are not known in terms of deleterious elements and the HLS solution (specifically SG) used.

One thing that is interesting here is what would METs be like here with a DMS/floatation circuit. Time will tell.

WOF/DMS/floatation etc
For those interested a while ago I posted around the reasons why companies may chose various processes for producing spodumene concentrate (WOF/DMS/DMS-floatation). From this post I go through the choice process - Post #: 54283727 Half way down in this post.
What also helps recovery rates is grade of resource and low deleterious elements. The higher the grade the less tonnes required to get to 6% grade spodumene, and the lower deleterious elements in the resource the less cost to remove them to achieve spodumene concentrate specifications - refer Post #: 67888140

All IMO