Some good points
@cmonaussie.
I guess the point of the post was to highlight that Ioneer offtake will take longer to feed Ford the carbonate they need, which may create a shortfall in their planned feed.
And it just so happens the timeline for NAL's production of carbonate seems to fit well with their plans.
As Jow Lowry recently quoted during Ford's EV mineral Investor day-
So, Ford is now going in hard...
And as you said, Fords latest announcements were stitching up hydroxide offtakes....basically because they are so far behind the 8 ball.
But who will supply enough carbonate? A lithium salt Ford keeps spruiking they want to use more and more....
Jim Farley-
Ford’sdiversification of its battery chemistry would help the company reach its targeted annual run rate of more than 2 millionelectric vehicles(EVs) by the end of 2026.
“We’re delivering on our commitments as we scalelithiumiron phosphate (LFP) and NCM batteries and thousands, and soon millions, of customers will begin to reap the benefits of Ford EVs with cutting-edge, durable battery technologies that are growing more affordable over time,” Jim Farley, Ford’s president and chief executive officer, said in the announcement on Tuesday February 13.
One of the main reasons the automaker is focusing on LFP is due to lower costs and available supply ofbattery raw materials.
Ford has already laid out the groundwork for its lithium supply, signing abinding offtake with producer Ioneer in Nevada and a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Compass Minerals in Utah.
Sorry Jim,Ioneer has stalled...with the BLM's EIS not expected until at least 2024, probably longer...have a chat to the Arizona Lithium boys about the BLM and how long things take....
Carbonate will be a big part of their LFP chemistry and I believe we are yet to fully realise the growth and advantages of LFP.
Remember, LFP is mostly about keeping cost down.
No Nickel,, no Cobalt..
If you use hydroxide you need nickel, for without it, the range suffers and is no better than an LFP.....NOT using Nickel is the MO for LFP, which essentially then precludes hydroxide.
As you rightly said, you can use hydroxide in an LFP, but then you need Nickel and both those are both expensive and spike the cost curve...so what's the point then?
You might be able to point me in the right direction here, but I don't know any EV chemistry using hydroxide in an LFP.
For reference, Ford aren't the only ones headed this way. Amongst others, BYD, Tesla and
VW-
From Volkswagen's announcement, hydroxide-dependent nickel-rich chemistries will not be the presiding norm, with carbonate clearly set to play a more significant role.
Where is VW setting up its shiny new Gigafactory? Ontario..
But the VW story is for another time.
And as for GM, very risky heading down that path.
Not too many, if any projects are running on time and on budget. Thacker Pass still faces renewed legal action by environmentalists and the indigenous population, and although will probably come to fruition, could be further delayed.
They are planning on coming online late 2026...but who knows???
I believe most ranges of cars will have an LFP option, particularly in the cheaper segment and the high volume/ lower specced cars.
Having said that, LFP's range has been steadily increasing and is now at acceptable levels for most users, particularly urban commutes.
Even the packaging has been improved with the LFP pouch battery, which makes it a lot more space efficient, squeezing more into a smaller volume in a car.
There is also some manufacturers using dual chemistries with both LFP and hydroxide chemistries. The LFP battery used for the daily commute with its high cycle life, with the smaller hydroxide battery assisting on long weekend drives. So, I see a big future for LFP.
NAL's proximity, to a lot of their production is also a big advantage, both in logistical cost and minimising carbon footprint.
The last study I looked at, we were very competitive as an integrated producer.
In terms of cost, if Ford were to come onboard, they could secure IRA compliant carbonate and probably JV (Blueoval/SKon) the chemical plant with SYAQ.
Securing supply at a competitive price. I also don't think our carbonate will be at a cost disadvantage, actually its quite competitive.
JV 'ing in chemical conversion seems to be the norm these days.
Having said that, I am 50/50, whether we are going this alone, or will partner up.
With this latest cash injection, revenues ramping over the next 12 months, Soquem/PLL sharing costs and tax concessions, taking on debt ... maybe even a grant, we are within striking range of going it alone. And we all know SYA's cost for the estimated $300M carbonate refinery, could be well under $200m, or more accurately $157.5M, with PLL's share and 30% tax concessions....how much did we just raise again????
So for me, NAL concentrate and Carbonate is the obvious choice for Ford, amongst other manufacturers...
(20min delay)