EB, I read GM going "Full Korean" in a positive...

EB, I read GM going "Full Korean" in a positive light.
https://www.wsj.com/business/lg-chem-gm-sign-19-billion-deal-on-cathode-materials-b7888ccb?mod=autos_news_article_pos4
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2024-02-07/business/industry/GM-head-talks-with-Samsung-LG-execs-over-EV-battery-auto-parts-cooperation/1976876

My take is:
1. GM are really focussing on their nickel rich chemistry. The US is a larger version of the Aussie market: big utes/pickups and SUVs being driven long distances in a society dominated by spread out suburbia and a love of holidaying road trips across sections of large continents. These vehicles are going to require a large capacity battery to meet their customer's needs. To further enhance the brands attractiveness and EV-whispering to the masses, a long range battery that is IRA compliant will be a MUST have to knock $7500 off the purchaser price. US battery cell factories & critical minerals using utilising free trade agreement entities such as Korea and Australia fulfill this.

As @PieChart has noted previously, the cell manufacturer gets a subsidy as well as the vehicle purchaser:
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/the-ira-and-the-us-battery-supply-chain-one-year-on/#:~:text=This%20tax%20credit%20grants%20%2435,cathode%20and%20anode%20active%20materials.

The sum total of all these friend-shoring subsidies should
a) destroy any made in China advantage and
b) easily cover plenty of clean green mineral inputs that the automakers can genuinely spruik as such.

Enter SG / Minister King / Albo stage right.
Surely QPM have a place on the spreadsheet in this LG-GM $19.6B cathode spend.

2. GM are looking to the Elon / BYD playbook somewhat by bringing more key suppliers 'in house'.
By using more Samsung or LG components in their vehicles, the ROK supplier can generate more revenue with GM across a greater variety of product streams. Should their costs vary periodically in one area (e.g. nickel sulphate), then they can more easily cover margin loss in one of their other products, whose inputs may be less volatile. In doing so, the vehicle manufacturer has a more stable/decreasing cost of vehicle production, bringing the EV to a progressively wider audience, and assisting the automaker's ongoing opex cost of the ICE-EV transition. Doing more business with a smaller number of partners decreases the costs of business to both parties.

In other news:
https://www.mining.com/cybertruck-musk-needs-mines/
This article builds the Cybertruck pre-order numbers into what is required minerals wise, focussing on some currently unloved critical minerals graphite and nickel!

The Cybertruck is just one pickup coming to market.
I mentioned last week about all the other forms of vehicles well suited to Ni-based chems which are just starting to transition to EV.
Should/when Tesla nail the 4680 cell production and chem mix, then with the CT and Semi, that's going to chew a whole mountain of the silver stuff.

Final bit of clearer/positive lens news - here's snippet from the Resources Minister today:
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/king/transcripts/interview-matt-brann-abc-nt-country-hour

Happy Friday to all!