PLS Iron Oxide Content, page-104

I am not a holder, but PLS has reported that it can produce both technical grade lithium (for the ceramics market) and chemical grade lithium (for the battery market).  TG can be used in CG applications as in effect the only difference is iron content (TG has lower content), whereas CG can't be used in TG applications (due to teh iron content).  That sought of suggests the likely iron content is low after processing  to spodumene by PLS.  The fact PLS has Offtake Agreements, including with Ganfeng, suggests its sales will meet the required specs.

A key comment in the opening post is this comment in one of the extracts: "Therefore Fe03 is not considered to be a deleterious element as testwork demonstrates most Fe2O3 can be removed by a standard metalurgical process"

So whilst the above is in the context of producing TG spodumene, and as I said above the real difference between TG and CG is essentially iron content in the saleable product,  and by the looks of it their pilot can achieve the required targets.  Essentially the stock standard process for producing spodumene concentrate is an ion exchange of positive and negative ions using resins to remove the impurities - such as using positive ions to remove potassium, magnesium and iron.  Obviously you also  have a grinding/gravity separation/and the floatation process in this process to get the required specs.  The whole aim of the process at the minesite in producing spodumene concentrate is to ensure you have as little impurities as possible to minimise downstream processing costs and hence get the best price for your spodumene provided you can get to 6%.  If doing the total process to say carbonate you would then roast the CG spodumene (or TG spodumene if seeking to actually use it for battery use) to remove the remaining deleterious elements by heat at the 1050 degrees to get rid of the remaining impurities, and then go through a cooling/wash process and then reheating process at 200 degrees celsius to get to your required lithium carbonate specs.  VB blabberings because I tend to write long winded posts.

The key assumption in the OP is that the greater amounts of impurities to be extracted in the metallurgical process will make it more difficult for them to produce battery grade lithium carbonate.  The starting base is the  level of impurities in the ore, but it is not about quantum per se it is about the potential/easiness of extraction and that boils down to elements such as grain size etc.  There seems to be a confusion around what is in the ore and what is actually then left over in the spodumene process in the OP.

From recollection in the spodumene concentrate process  PLS was assuming a 77% recovery rate, and  I suspect part of the reason why it is less than 80% has to do with the impurity stripping process personally so where PLS is been hit IMO is on costs I think which is at that point (at production)  as against its 6% spodumene concentrate sales (i.e. the saleable product is at required specs but higher impurity in the ore increases costs of extraction albeit I recognise the claim that PLS will be a low cost producer).  For the record, in the AVZ thread I have made comparisons to PLS, but price received for the  spodumene should not be one IMO, but recovery rates possibly because that is where a higher iron/impurity content in the ore impacts the spodumene making process for PLS but what it sells in concentrate would be in the required specs.

The actual issue with impurities such as iron, phosphorous, potassium and calcium is that they can melt  at low temperature, compared to the temperature required to melt your spodumene crystals  btw in the roasting process,  and these molten minerals can mix with other minerals in the overall melt in the calciner and as a result form lumps in the lithium carbonate process which have to be sorted out.  These lumps  adversely impact producing lithium carbonate, as well as lowering spodumene recovery in the lithium carbonate process itself.  I read somewhere, can't remember where, that recovery from clinker is less than 75% compared with calcine without clinker (meaning if your product has higher iron/impurities in the concentrate you are likely to get a lower price but it would appear PLS is dealing with the issue itself at the minesite process for producing spodumene concentrate rather than in the product it sells) by the lithium carbonate producers.

I'll leave it at that and this post is not to bait anyone btw.  I am probably going to get hit on the head from both sides here.

Finally, I had a read of the May 2015 announcement and the only thing I can possibly say, despite the above, is that the samples they used appeared to grade 2% Li20 in that 'experiment/verification' process, compared to the actual grade of the PLS resource of 1.26%.  Suspect subsequent test work was actually done and that might be now reflective of the 77% recovery grade assumption in the DFS for getting to 6% grade spodumene.
http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/PDF/1499_0/PilgangooraTestworkConfirmsPotential

Anyway, we will soon find out what the law of the land is when PLS enters production.

All IMO