Oz,
there have been some references to grade. This one taken from the half year report released 3/3/2016
The Olaroz Lithium Facility first produced battery grade material in May 2015 with median values of 99.98% - 99.99% achieved for the lithium carbonate production in May and June, as reported in the June 2015 Quarterly Report, released on 28 July 2015. Samples of lithium carbonate were first supplied to battery market customers in July. The majority of tonnes produced outside of product produced for battery market customers for the final product approval process was sold to technical and chemical market customers while battery market customers worked through the final product qualification process. The fulfilment of commercial orders to the first five of these battery market customers commenced in February 2016.
I saw a couple of similar references last year and at least one other time this year.
Then their presentation at the LasVegas conference (released 25/5/2016) attempted to silence the quality criticism. It showed results from the previous week's production on slide 11. The header was clear enough Battery Grade & Technical Grade (min spec >99.5%, typical spec 99.9%)
In the footnote it noted that "typical" was median values from their sampling
The graphic on this slide caused a bit of confusion and probably needed the accompanying speech for absolute clarity. The pie chart was clear eneough - 86% of samples tested through that week met battery grade spec and thus the balance (14%) were technical grade. The minor elements information was a bit more confusing but made sense if the header and pie chart were already understood. Of the six elements listed it showed 14% of samples falling in to technical grade with respect to Mg and Na, and 5% with respect to Cl. Minor elements matter, and probably with different significance to individual customers. If you look around you won't find two "battery grade" specs agreeing on what these should be as mostly you will be finding suppliers specs rather than buyers specs...
As for Joe Lowry, much of what he writes makes sense but he is not infallible - he called me out as being Richard Seville and I can assure you that he was 100% wrong on that matter... I think the quality slur started when ORE sold some of their "in process material" late last year and early this year - they needed the cash so it was the right thing to do. It ended up being reprocessed in China and thus the story began. They have since fixed the issue causing material to drop out in tanks within the process and stopped selling "in process" material, but the story lingers on. Never mind - the cash is rolling in...
ORE Price at posting:
$3.32 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
