This could be read many different ways and depends on the...

This could be read many different ways and depends on the comprehensiveness of the research. If the statement is taken from a battery manufacture level, for example, you could look at the potential nameplate capacity rates for all registered factories in existence and summed them all together, which is what you get if all factories run at full capacity all of the time with no shortage of feedstock and no breakdowns. This is also similar for data considered at the compound processing level and again at the raw material processing level. It is quite possible therefore that the data considered referring to capacity might be far from what is achievable to produce in reality.

But assume that it is not about capacity and somehow is about production. The question is, is it even relevant? The supply/demand story often reiterates that the rise of EVs is the main driver of the lithium demand and therefore price increase. But what is the current/last years, penetration rate? Globally, it was miniscule. That's a fact. China was expanding and those figures are out there but what is the actual penetration of EV's in China overall? It's still tiny. So why the importance and pricing of Lithium? Not because of what it did last year, but because of what it is going to do in the years ahead and manufacturers need to secure that supply now to be able to produce their products into the future. The lithium that went into the batteries of last year were converted into feedstock compounds before that and bought from producers before that.

In conclusion this article is potentially dealing with out of date information and is another case where confirmation bias may have been liberally applied.