The reasons for my posting today is simply my skeptism with what is happening with the LCE price in the face of rising EV demand. As well as reducing LCE stocks, my other theory is that China is also sourcing a lot more lepidolite than what it might be reporting, and all I will say is that lepidolite is not essentially a preferred source of feedstock for producing LCE. Furthermore, I would even go one step further and say if I were to purchase an EV I certainly would not be purchasing one where the feedstock came from China (unless I knew where that feedstock came from) given you need to limit your impurities in EV batteries to ensure they run efficently and effectively. (You only have to look at China stating they were going to reduce producing vanadium from slag but over the last few years you haven't seen vanadium prices increase to support develpment of standalone vanadium mines.)
It is why China is seeking to vertically intergrate as well - why reduce cost structures - as well as move away from exploitation of its own internally poor lithium mine resources. And controlling downstream processing, getting control upstream will maintain China's monopoly dominance, but for all it is better if downstream chemicals start been more produced outside China (as helps market development and price stability IMO). As well as China trying to source spodumene instead of lepidolite as spodumene has better ESG credentials and sooner or later people in China ain't going to like all that pollution that is around their from inappropriate production processes -Post #:65016146
I like the fact so many who preach EVs talk about climate change and then turn a blind eye to how China makes lithium chemicals from lepidolite with its poor ESG credentials. But to repeat a vertically intergrated producer of lithium chemicals will have lower cost structures in production than someone who has to source spodumene from a miner and then put it in its own production processes.
As to your posts, I wouldn't be surprised that lepidolite was the input to what the Chinese converters are now rejecting. 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 dpwnstraem converters, and this is why downstraem 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 potnetial networth. 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.
Just a few thoughts, but posted for debate and if people don't agree it will be good to get the alternate perspective.
(20min delay)