Seems odd to fisk such a short radio station article, but here we are, and there are so many things wrong packed into this WFAE piece that I am not sure where to start.
First, I guess we should look at this:
For example, some mines in Nevada pump mineral-rich brine from underground into surface ponds. The brine evaporates, leaving behind a highly concentrated solution with lithium and some impurities.
Currently, there is one operational lithium mine in the United States, and it is in Nevada. It is the Silver Peak mine operated by Albemarle. Yes, it uses evaporation ponds, but that is it. All proposed brine projects, not only in Nevada but across the United States, are going to use some form of direct lithium extraction (DLE). The brine is pumped to the surface, the lithium is extracted, and the lithium-depleted brine is pumped back underground.
Mineral refining is a water-intensive process; 500,000 gallons of water yield a metric ton of lithium.
I have discussed this one before and even explored its origins. This is the first time I have seen it used in the context of refining. Normally, the claim is that it takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce 1 tonne of lithium. This is false. It can be traced back to a decade-old study promoting recycling, which confused brine consumption at evaporation ponds with fresh water usage. In reality, the hydrological concern is not fresh water consumption. The concern is the migration of fresh water resulting from the decrease of brine in underground aquifers.
This, however, is now being debated. Newer reports show that because of the high salinity of the brine at lithium extraction sites, and the fact that these projects are located at the center of brine aquifers, the dense brine effectively creates a barrier. This limits the movement of freshwater into these zones, making such migration rare, if not impossible, except in areas that already contain brackish water. These findings challenge earlier claims that lithium brine extraction significantly depletes freshwater due to mixing once the brine aquifer volume drops, suggesting instead that the two layers largely remain separate, except in locations where natural mixing already occurs.
The result is a white powder called lithium carbonate that varies in purity, depending on who’s buying.
As I have said many times, lithium precursors are source-agnostic. The final product does not depend on the source. While OPEX is directly affected by the source, such as the need to remove high levels of impurities or, in the case of oil field brines, organic species that can foul the extraction process, the final product will always be manufactured to meet the client’s specifications.
OEMs have stringent qualification requirements, which is why it can take up to a year or longer for a company’s lithium to be fully qualified. These requirements encompass not only purity, including maximum and, for some metals, minimum allowable amounts, but also morphology, such as particle size distribution and shape (e.g., spherical or irregular).
For lithium-ion, what may be considered an impurity in a lithium precursor for one OEM can be a desired element for another. For example, a study on lithium manganese-rich layered oxide chemistries (LMR), found that doping with 10% copper increased capacity by 21% compared to the undoped material. This improvement is attributed to copper’s role in modifying the material’s structure and enhancing its electrochemical properties.
Companies like Ford and GM are exploring LMR chemistries to bring smaller, more affordable electric vehicles to market. This means the lithium precursor they would use for their cathode active material may not match the specifications that LG Energy Solution will use for their new NMCA90 or Panasonic uses for their NCA that Tesla uses for domestic models.
Now, I can allow some slack, as there are varying degrees of purity categorized as technical grade and battery grade, a point the article mentions but without real-world context. In practice, the demand for technical grade lithium is very small. For example, Ioneer’s Rhyolite Ridge lithium project plans to offer technical grade lithium initially while it ramps up both production and the refinement capabilities needed to produce battery-grade lithium. That site alone during its commissioning could easily meet the total domestic demand for technical grade lithium.
Car and battery manufacturers don’t just purchase the refined lithium — they can also provide the refinery with the raw materials through black mass, the shredded remains of end-of-life batteries.
Ahh, no, not really. What manufacturers would be providing is production scrap, and the mention of end-of-life (EOL) threw me for a bit, so it honestly took me a moment to even understand what they were talking about.
Scrap and rejection rates are normally not released publicly, but they can be as low as 5% for well-established sites and 15% or higher for newer sites just coming online. Cell manufacturers produce two types of waste.
The first is dry waste, which includes cathode clippings and waste from the cathode active material. It is called dry because it has not yet been combined with the electrolyte. Even rejects from the production line at the winding stage, where the jelly roll is created, are considered dry. Dry waste is much easier to handle since it does not contain the electrolyte, which is highly flammable and chemically reactive.
The second type is wet waste, which consists of material that contains the electrolyte. This can include cells from the production line from the moment the electrolyte is added through final charging and formation. Wet waste is more hazardous because the electrolyte can decompose during a short circuit causing thermal runaway which will then cause it to produce flammable gases. Some electrolyte compounds can also react with air or moisture to form toxic gases such as hydrogen fluoride.
Now then, Tesla does process, well they collect end-of-life batteries for recycling. If they actually process them as well is unknown. I would hazard a guess they send those to third parties like Redwood Materials for processing.
So in reality, EOL will go to cradle-to-gate recyclers and black mass producers also knows as shredders, as these facilities hold the specific permits required to handle what is considered universal waste. Cells, like those being shipped from Moss Landing to American Battery Technology Company in Nevada would be categorized as hazardous waste, which is how they would be classified if damaged. Even if they appear undamaged, such as being in a fire without scorch marks, hidden damage is still possible. There are strict regulations at both the federal and state levels that dictate facility requirements and the permits needed.
For this reason, OEMS facilities would not process these cells into black mass. Instead, the EOL cells are far more likely to be shipped directly from the collection point, such as a dealer or an authorized EPA-approved storage facility, to the recycler. This is why there is growing emphasis on geographic co-location rather than just on-site co-location.
As for the production scrap, that will most likely be handled either through a on-site co-location platform or simply shipped to a third party with a facility capable of processing it, such as Ascend Elements in Covington, Georgia.
And finally, we should discuss the premises of the article, particularly the lack of refinement in the United States. One of the reasons Tesla is building its lithium refinery in Texas is that, beyond what Rio Tinto can do in North Carolina and what is done at Silver Peak, there is no commercial operation producing battery-grade lithium in the United States.
Imported concentrates from Australia and the Lithium Triangle will be one of the main sources for the production of domestic lithium precursors. Several companies are on-shoring the refinement process, which can be deployed in 1-2 years, unlike a mine, which can take 10 or more years from first staking of the claims to the NEPA review. This imported raw material, once refined domestically, will be supplemented by lithium produced from secondary sources i.e. recycling.
Together, these will serve as the main sources of lithium until around 2030. After that, imported lithium will be replaced with primary domestic sources, from mines, while recycling will continue to serve as a loss-prevention platform and supplement the domestic lithium supply from cells produced in China and other countries. Recycling is expected to begin significantly replace the supply from mines around 2040, with a more realistic shift by 2050, and over the decades after that become the dominant source not only for lithium but for all battery metals.
What the article ignores is that almost every project proposed in the United States for lithium production, including Thacker Pass, the only one currently under construction with the necessary permits for production, will include precursor production on site. This detail is frequently overlooked and is the missing context when the discussion is about China’s dominance in the refinement sector. Next-generation projects are developing an integrated approach, combining mining and refinement into a single operation. This is why the Kings Mountain Mine in North Carolina, home of this radio station and mentioned in the article, will have not only SC6 production capabilities (the concentrate created from spodumene) but precursor production as well.
A good example of this integration, and how it is expanding, would be the actions Aquatech has taken over the last few months, once again not to be confused with the black mass processing startup Aqua Metals. Aquatech was at one point primarily providing purification and lithium precursor production for projects. They recently acquired the Li-Pro DLE platform from Koch Technology Solutions, which makes them the largest extraction and precursor platform provider in the United States. This is because they now provide the basis for platforms for projects from Nevada to Arkansas. Even Berkshire Hathaway is entering this part of the industry with their joint venture with Occidental Petroleum’s subsidiary TeraLithium and the geothermal project at the Salton Sea.
While I have been known to be very abrasive when it comes to articles with this amount of feldercarb in them, it is a sunny day and I have not done a fisking in a while, so this was fun so to wrap it up I will just say this:
WFAE, you need to pull this article, have Zachary Turner do some research on the current state of the industry, learn the terminology, and resubmit it.
DISCLAIMER: This article should not be construed as an offering of investment advice, nor should any statements (by the author or by other persons and/or entities that the author has included) in this article be taken as investment advice or recommendations of any investment strategy. The information in this article is for educational purposes only. The author did not receive compensation from any of the companies mentioned to be included in the article.