@TRr this post is not directed at you but your post gave me some thoughts to repeat.
Why quality matters - putting together thoughts from other posts done in this area by me
The key to spodumene concentrate is ensuring that your concentrate is to specs specifically in relation to the deleterious elements. If you are producing 5.5% Li20 concentrate (which seems to be what PLS produces) it implies that is your sweet spot whilst meeting the deleterious elements in the concentrate specs, because producing say 6% Li20 means your recovery rate falls further (whilst still meeting deleterious elements specifications) and results in you making less profit than if you sold 5.5% concentrate. If your spodumene at low grade has high deleterious elements like SYA, in your example, then you are going to get a crap price.
LTR doesn't appear to have these issues, - because of its higher grade ore with low deleterious elements IMO it can produce concentrate above 6% Li20 whilst meeting the deleterious element requirements.
Example 1: Li20 ore grade 1% - you will need to treat at 7.5 tonnes of ore, assuming an 80% recovery rate , to potentially get to 6% concentrate. But if say you have 1% Fe203 in the ore treated, which is a deleterious element, you also need to deal with the cumulative total of 7.5% F203 to get to a 0.8% F203 spec allowed in the spodumene chemical grade concentrate sold which comes at a cost and can impact your recovery rates.
Example 2: Li20 ore grade 1.5% - you will need 5 tonnes of ore at a 80% recovery rate to produce 6% grade spodumene concentrate. Now if say you have 0.5% Fe203 in the ore, ou also need to deal with the cumulative total of 2.5% Fe203 to get to the allowable 0.8% F203 spec in chemical grade applications.
Clearly one is better off under example 2 than example 1 in terms of the ore they would like to have in their deposit. Moreso, the lower grade ore you have and higher deleterious elements means you might maximise your 'assumed profit' at possibly producing less than 6% grade spodumene concentrate as that is also where you can meet deleterious elements specs and have your best 'recovery' scenario.
LTR is in a unique position because of the high grade ore having low deleterious elements. Fe203 is only one of the deleterious elements btw, but just using this as an example.
Going to converters, most converters operate on the assumption of recovering 85% - 90% of the lithium concentrate in the 6% grade concentrate exported, when converting to say carbonate/hydroxide for example. Now, high deleterious impurities means that these impurities, if not removed in the 6% concentrate making process adequately to meet sales specs, stick at high enough concentrations in the 1050 degrees roasting process meaning they form clinkers and therefore in their removal you end up losing more lithium in downstream converters, and this is why downstream converters (those producing lithium carbonate of lithium hydroxide monohydrate) would penalise sales not at right specs for example and/or pay a premium for concentrate products with very good deleterious specifications. This article explains the concept of clinkers in more detail: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-chemical-grade-spodumene-concentrates-same-harman-grant/
So in summary, for converters to operate commercially they need to source feedstock that maximises their potential net worth. When LCE prices are high they may use 'lesser quality input' material as the higher LCE price balances out lower recoveries. But that is not sustainable when LCE prices drop. As the lithium market matures I suspect lithium pricing will become less opaque and pricing will be set against quality. Only have to look at how spodumene producers like PLS were receiving prices above - if I recall - what were published Chinese prices at the time.
The crunch is here - at 85% recovery in downstream of 6% grade spodumene feedstock, for lithium hydroxide monohydrate (EV battery spec) need 7 tonnes of spod 6% feedstock (6.5 tonnes at 90% recovery). For carbonate - 8 tonnes 6% grade spod feedstock at 85% converter recovery, 7.5 tonnes at 85% recovery. Those recovery rates can only occur IMO if the feedstock is on speck, and by that I mean meeting specs or having lower deleterious elements than the speck requirements. The lower the deleterious element count the better of converters are.
Now if you are selling only say 5.5% grade spodumene, for a start you need more tonnes in the chemical conversion process which means added cost and and recovery rates downstream may not even be the above, even if on speck in terms of deleterious elements but selling lower grade feedstock than 6%. Now in terms of not on speck sales, well recovery rates are going to be even lower.
Lower deleterious element count also help in your spodumene sales whether they go to high end technical applications or the chemical market - note Greenbushes supplies both.
All IMO
Further info in: 1. Post #:71113718 (WOF process versus others, and quality) 2. Post #:73230166 (this post deals with clinkers where spod is not on spec - and what Greenbushes supplies) 3. Post #:69711272 (WOF/quality/brines etc) 4. Spodumene specs: Post #:72712088
3. Lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) has a Li content of 18.8, so need about 7.5 tonnes of 6% grade spodumene at a 90% recovery rate in the roasting process (i.e. 2.78% Li * 7.5 * 90%).
4. Lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LioH.H20) has a Li content of 16.5%, so need about 6.5 tonnes of 6% grade spodumene at a 90% recovery rate. This is generally the 'hydroxide' price quoted at 56.5%
5. Lithium hydroxide (LioH) has a Li content of 29, so need 11.5 tonnes 6% grade spodumene at a 90% recovery rate.
6. Lithium sulphate monohydrate has a Li content of 10.85% - or roughly requires around 4.3 tonnes of 6% grade spodumene at a 90% recovery rate -https://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/Li2SO4.H2O. Or in other words around 3.4 tonnes of spodumene feedstock if producing lithium sulphate monohydrate 80%.
(20min delay)