Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

GXY

Click for more information

0.00%

$5.28 galaxy resources limited

Thanks for the informative post. Much appreciated. i guess I am...

First 9 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Dukun

78 Posts.

139

10/05/19

15:27

Post #: 38509402
Share

Originally posted by Darkstone: ↑

Firstly, conventional brine involves pumping water (brine) from below the surface to be evaporated in ponds. The amount of this water is a small fraction of the total water supply in the resource, but over a very expanded time if the aquifer is not replenished by ground water flows there is a risk that the water table of the region will drop. Fresh water floats in salt water so dropping the salt water also lowers the fresh water, but conversely in some regions pumping out the underlying salt water will in fact improve the region's ecology by lowering the salt water and reducing desertification from rising salt water. Each region is different and needs to be addressed uniquely.

Secondly, the remoteness / ecology of the region is relevant. Chile's brine mines caused a problem because the land is dual use and farming a vegetaion depended on water table for successful operation. Other brine mines are in desert / unvegetated areas where the land is otherwsie baron and the reduction of the salt content might actually be an improvement.

Thirdly the aquifer itself may be continually replenished by the local climate, so the net reduction of the water table is zero, although the mineralisation of that water may necessarily be reduced. Each region is different and needs to be addressed uniquely.

Fourthly direct extraction technologies which are increasingly being examined/developed/proposed and built, generally return the water to the water table after extraction of the minerals. Some approaches require significant supplies of cheap energy, however. Forced evaporation versions oose more of the water than other approaches, but still a relatively smaller amount than conventional evaporation. Going forward it is likely you will see more direct extraction solutions than conventional evaporation solutions as the cost profiles of the two equalise and demand increases. Direct extraction is less impacted by rainfall events than conventional evaporation. There is a potential risk of target chemical concentration levels dropping when water is returned to the acquifer, but this is more an issue for the miner than the environment.

I believe with high confidence level (not know) that there is little on going risk from most brine sites due to remoteness/desert location, local climate, commercial pressure to go to market faster & reliably with direct extraction, the economically/socially advanced stage of most countries holding active brine targets and/or the political strength of local farming communities (eg Chile) applying pressure for preservation of farm land productivity or rural environments. Lithium brine operations are very long term (40+year) investments and due to the risk of expensive law suites, political/legal consequences in foreign countries, asset risk, etc the matter should /would be factored in by commercial operators in those regions. The considerations for a multi-generational operator in a foreign country are different from those for a short term miner as the former will be resident long enough for the consequences of their decisions to impact them.

Expand

Thanks for the informative post. Much appreciated.

i guess I am a little worried that these companies SHOULD do their due diligence and properly consider their impact on the environment and local communities but external pressures and the bottom line might relegate these considerations.

Also with the shared area/boundary with other projects in Chile etc, this might mean that if only one miner conducts itself unethically (using the evaporation technique or something similar - that uses a bit of water) then other projects are put at risk.

my original investment in galaxy was because it had diversified investments in three different areas. Now I'm not so sure about the viability of one. Nonetheless thanks for clearing up some of the issues for me.

btw, everyone seems to use imo etc. Is this necessary for small scale private investors on a forum or just people that work in the financial industry? Anyways just in case this is all imo.

GXY Price at posting: $1.62 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
3 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

SRL

Scandium a priority metal for Sunrise as it plans feasibility update at Syerston

SPR

Spartan sniffs 126g/t gold ahead of resource upgrades at WA's Dalgaranga

OCC

Orthocell shares jump on record revenues from sales of collagen bone repair devices globally

MSB

Mesoblast resubmits US FDA application for approval of Ryoncil in children with graft vs host disease; shares dip -4%

PL3

Patagonia looks to raise $2.15M for South American exploration and development

There are more pages in this discussion • 2 more messages in this thread...

First 9 Last

Add GXY (ASX) to my watchlist