i've just discovered this post now. pretty interesting question, wich i'll try to answer (even i don't have one of your glossy resumes. my background is insignificant.)
stopping the evaporation process is not possible without a total loss of the brine, which will confront gln with significant new economic (financial) and environmental technical challenges. there are a handful ways to slow it down, wich i will discuss later.
so that everybody understands why stopping this process isn't technically possible - the process of evaporation begins with the introduction of the brine into the first pond. the ponds were planned in such a way (depth, width, angle, ...) in order to bring the introduced brine into a high quality end product in the best possible way. there are, or rather there were, especially at the peak of the lithium price, many companies that called themselves 'explorers' and tried to make as much money as quickly as possible with the hype. these 'explorers' still had to be divided into brine and hard rock. hard rock is a bit easier as there are many experienced mining engineers that know a lot about open pit mining and mining site design (without deny anyone his expertise). however, the real art lies in the specific processing of the brine. each brine is unique in its composition and particles. the processing of brine into high quality lithium containing end products such as carbonate, hydroxides or chloride is a chemical process. this is also the reason why, objectively, it is not a mining company in the classic sense but rather a chemical company. there are only a handful of experienced pond builders who have demonstrably led projects to great success. as already mentioned, this chemical process begins with the introduction of the brine into the evaporation process of the first pond. why i am of the opinion that stopping this process (or rather terminating it) can lead to economic damage or disadvantages for gln is as follows: previous studies have also discussed tailings. regardless of whether this is the place of disposal of the remains of the evaporation process or their limit values. in my opinion, the associated environmental permits specify exactly the chemical limits which this waste may contain. the space for this waste will also be specified in the studies. should the process be stopped and the brine evaporate completely, leaving only the waste, it would probably have to be disposed of at great expense, as the chemical composition is completely different than what was noted in the studies and environmental permits. in addition to the lost of future revenue, there could be costs for professional disposal and/or possible penalties for violating environmental regulations.
there are several methods to slow down the evaporation process:
* introduce and dilute with fresh water
* covering the ponds to avoid intense sunlight
* the structural change in the ponds (deepen)
* the supply of chemicals (you can add calcium chloride (cacl2) or magnesium chloride (mgcl2) this can increase the overall ionic strength of the brine, which can lower the evaporation rate due to a higher boiling point elevation
* you can also add surfactants (surfactants are special substances that reduce the interfacial tension between two different liquids or the surface tension of a liquid, this can also reduce the evaporation rate by forming a barrier at the water air interface.
there are a few other options, mainly with the addition of various substances/chemicals, all of which will probably permanently destroy the structure and highest quality of the brine. i'm afraid that almost no one here understands the complexity of this process and the incredible technical prowess behind it. anyone who advocates slowing down the evaporation process has completely lost their minds. i don't want to talk about stopping construction at all, since the costs a) won't be cheaper or less and b) the maintenance of the systems and ponds that have already been built is still on top of that. plus possible disposal of the brine already in 'production'.
yes gln needs almost ~1.1x of its current market cap to complete stage one (i estimate that there is currently a deficit of ~usd 60m.. yes, this task can hardly be managed with their own resources. jv? uncertain for stage one alone. perhaps with a drastic levy of more than 20% ownership. sale of the project? at this point? this would probably only work with the relevant expertise. the ponds were developed and modeled by a real professional. a circumstance which, in my opinion, was not taken into account in the company's valuation.
so what can be said in conclusion - stopping construction is not an option as long as there is some hope of completing an offtake with advance payment. there are no two opinions here. slowing down the evaporation process is theoretically possible to a certain extent for the reasons i stated above. here special attention must be paid to the chemical composition during the process, which in my opinion does not justify the effort.
Expand
(20min delay)