Originally posted by Shikari
Interesting comment from the Times. Still a lot of conjecture on this acid leach process
For that matter, when policy people and the more optimistic auto manufacturers speak of reducing European dependence on the DRC and those cobalt-mining children, they have in mind increasing the proportion of nickel in EV batteries.
Nickel is a problem. Most nickel we have used for the past century comes from high-grade nickel sulphide deposits. It is not technologically challenging to refine those ores to the high purity necessary for battery manufacturing.
Readily mined nickel sulphide deposits are being depleted, however, and over the next decade we will become dependent on the more common lateritic ore deposits. These are relatively easy to refine into low-purity grades, say for stainless-steel kitchenware.
To make battery-grade nickel from lateritic ore, though, miners hope to use a tricky process called high pressure acid leaching (HPAL). If you do not do things just right, you have sulphuric acid under high pressure coming out of the machine. Try not to be around when that happens. Did I mention the process is energy intensive? A Russian nickel refining engineer refers to the HPAL manufacturing complex as “the Bermuda Triangle of death”.
The good news from the point of view of European pro-EV environmentalists is that HPAL nickel will be produced, when the process is perfected, in places such as Indonesia. The bad news is that the Indonesians are increasingly bothered by acidic mine waste and are becoming even less tolerant of foreign mining companies.
The dependence on materials imports from difficult countries is bad enough. On top of that, an EV-centric European auto industry will be dependent on key foreign technologies if it is to meet its production goals.
Most European vehicle manufacturers use Asian battery cell technologies, though they can handle the assembly of cells into battery packs. Yes, the foreign partner transfers the technology for the current generation of battery cells.
However, while the European manufacturer grapples with a rapid, policy-driven production ramp, the Asian battery cell partner is leaping into the following generation.
There is a precedent. Korean companies took 20 years to move from production based on Japanese battery technology to producing their own designs. For now, battery manufacture requires production art, which can only be acquired with experience.
It would be better to take more time to develop the science of how batteries work. That would require years of work with sophisticated equipment, and the policy requirement is for a rapid switch from fossil fuel engines. In any event, Europe and the rest of the world will depend on diesel power for large trucks for the foreseeable future.
The politics, the supply-chain difficulties and the requirement for better science all suggest that the European battery push is too frenetic to work well.
I've worked on many HPAL (High Pressure Acid Leach) plants
Like many things it is usually dated information that is floated and not the whole story is told.
At least one of the HPAL plants that I expect will be announced in the next few months will be constructed in Australia and is to be generation 5 HPAL (well known process flow sheet with minimum risk)
Sulphides are much higher grade and lower capex - many supply briquettes and have to convert these briquettes to sulphates to be suitable for the battery manufacturer - so lower capex but some additional processing
The HPAL process I am referring to produces the end product the battery manufacturers want on site so the value add is done in Oz - so higher capex but delivers the product the offtake partner wants. The unknown with some of the laterites is whether the Scandium they also have will be commercialised in the near term - as it is currently about USD $4 million dollars per tonne - and though the price will come down if commercial take up for EV chassis evolves, rather than just aircraft fuselages, it will still command a very profitable price
What's best - I don't care - I'm not interested in any this is better than that scenarios - Risk Management 101 - I've invested in both because I believe there is value in both - both will be multi billion dollar facilities (IMHO)
Another risk management strategy is not to be totally engrossed in Battery Minerals are the answer to everything - though I doubt it will happen quickly, technology changes can throw curve balls - at least with high grade Nickel there are the well known uses aside from Battery mineral uses.
I hope that John talks/is talking to the offtake partner from the laterite I follow when it's the right time - they have already announced 3 battery manufacturing plants in the US, Europe and China - and I believe they need more feedstock than their current offtakes cater for.
The world (including the vehicle manufacturers) is moving toward ethical nickel cobalt supply and there is enough to go around for everyone.
Most focus is also on EV's but battery storage facilities, gigafactories (and many other use cases that none of us really know yet) will all evolve quickly.
The battery storage revolution really has a chance to make peoples lives so much better in many third world locations - in a relatively short period of time
BTW St George remains what it started out as in 2012 for me - my favourite nickel sulphide stock - unless there is a left field major new discovery I just cannot see better value in this space (IMHO)
Cheers
Interested Onlooker
(20min delay)
