Tuesday 22nd September 2020

Resource Clips


Posts tagged ‘graphite’

Robust or bust

May 7th, 2020

Will supply chain challenges culminate in a long-overdue crisis?

by Greg Klein | May 7, 2020

It might take premature complacency or enormously good fortune to look back and laugh at the Early 2020 Toilet Paper Panic. But from today’s viewpoint, bumwad might be the least of our worries. There won’t be much need for the stuff without enough food to sustain life. Or water. Medicine, heat and electricity come in handy too.

Sparsely stocked supermarket shelves have been blamed on hoarders who thwart the industry’s just-in-time system, a process credited with “robust” reliability when not challenged by irrational buying sprees. Consumer concern, on the other hand, might be understandable given the credibility of official positions such as Ottawa’s facemask flip-flop and initial arguments that closing borders would actually worsen the pandemic.

Will supply chain challenges culminate in a long-overdue crisis?

A North Vancouver supermarket seen in mid-March. While
stockpiling has abated, supply lines show signs of stress.
(Photo: Steeve Raye/Shutterstock.com)

Meanwhile Canadian farmers worry about the supply of foreign labour needed to harvest crops, dairy farmers dump milk for lack of short-distance transport and deadly coronavirus outbreaks force widespread closures of meat and poultry plants across Canada and the U.S.

Highlighting the latter problem were full-page ads in American newspapers from meat-packing giant Tyson Foods. “The food supply chain is breaking,” the company warned in late April. “Millions of animals—chickens, pigs and cattle—will be depopulated because of the closure of our processing facilities.”

Within days the U.S. invoked the Defense Production Act, ordering meat plants to stay open despite fears of additional outbreaks. 

Just a few other pandemic-related food challenges in Canada include outbreaks at retail grocers, a shortage of packaging for a popular brand of flour and an Ontario supermarket warning customers to throw away bread in case it was tainted by an infected bakery worker.

Infrastructure supplying necessities like energy, fuel, water and communications faces pandemic-related challenges of its own, including availability of labour and expertise.

Supply chain complexity has been scrutinized in The Elements of Power: Gadgets, Guns, and the Struggle for a Sustainable Future in the Rare Metal Age. One example from author David S. Abraham was the electric toothbrush, a utensil comprising something like 35 metals that are sourced, refined and used in manufacturing over six continents.

Dissecting a 2017 smartphone, the U.S. Geological Survey found 14 necessary but mostly obscure elements. As a source country, China led the world with nine mineral commodities essential to mobile devices, and that list included rare earths in a single category.

In a recent series of COVID-19 reports on the lithium-ion necessities graphite, cobalt, lithium and nickel, Benchmark Mineral Intelligence stated: “From the raw material foundations of the supply chain in the DRC, Australia, Chile and beyond, through to the battery cell production in China, Japan and Korea, it is likely that the cells used by the Teslas of the world have touched every continent (sometimes multiple times over) before they reach the Model 3 that is driven (or drives itself) off the showroom floor.”

Will supply chain challenges culminate in a long-overdue crisis?

Consumers might not realize the complex
international networks behind staple items.

Or consider something more prosaic—canned tuna.

That favourite of food hoarders might be caught in the mid-Pacific, processed and canned in Thailand following extraction of bauxite (considered a critical mineral in the U.S.) in Australia, China, Guinea or elsewhere, with ore shipped for smelting to places where electricity’s cheap (China accounted for over 56% of global aluminum production last year). Then the aluminum moves on to can manufacturers, and transportation has to be provided between each point and onward to warehouses, retailers and consumers. Additional supply chains provide additional manufactured parts, infrastructure, energy and labour to make each of those processes work.

Still another supply chain produces the can opener.

Daily briefings by Canada’s federal and provincial health czars express hope that this country might “flatten the curve,” a still-unattained goal that would hardly end the pandemic when and if it’s achieved. Meanwhile the virus gains momentum in poorer, more populous and more vulnerable parts of the world and threatens a second, more deadly wave coinciding with flu season.

And if one crisis can trigger another, social order might also be at risk. Canada’s pre-virus blockades demonstrated this country’s powerlessness against a force not of nature but of self-indulgence. Even a cohesive, competent society would have trouble surviving a general infrastructure collapse, a scenario dramatized in William R. Forstchen’s novel One Second After. When transportation, communications, infrastructure and the financial system break down, so do a lot of people. Dangerous enough as individuals, they can form mobs, gangs and cartels.

How seriously Washington considers apocalyptic scenarios isn’t known. But prior to the pandemic, the U.S. had already been taking measures to reduce its dependency on China and other risky sources for critical minerals. Now, Reuters reports, COVID-19 has broadened American concerns to include other supply chains and inspired plans for an Economic Prosperity Network with allied countries. Questions remain about the extent that the West can achieve self-sufficiency and, in the U.S., whether another administration might undo the current president’s efforts.

Certainly globalist confidence persists. The Conference Board of Canada, for example, expects a slow return of supply chain operations to pre-pandemic levels but a renewed international order just the same. “Global co-operation is needed not only to tackle the health crisis, but also to restore trust in global supply chains and maintain the benefits that the growth in global trade has brought over the last two decades.”

Will supply chain challenges culminate in a long-overdue crisis?

New cars leave the manufacturing hub and disease
epicentre of Wuhan prior to the pandemic.
(Photo: humphery/Shutterstock.com)

One early COVID-19 casualty, the multi-continent diamond supply chain, already shows signs of gradual recovery according to Rapaport News. Despite mine suspensions, “there is more than enough rough and polished in the pipeline to satisfy demand as trading centres start to reopen. Belgium and Israel have eased lockdown restrictions, while India has allowed select manufacturing in Surat and special shipments to Hong Kong.”

Also struggling back to its feet is global automotive manufacturing. Writing in Metal Bulletin, Andrea Hotter outlines how the disease epicentre of Wuhan plays a vital role in making cars and supplying components to other factory centres. “If ever there was a masterclass in the need to disaster-proof a supply chain, then the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a harsh reminder to the automotive sector that it’s failing.”

So regardless of whether apocalyptic fears are overblown, there are lessons to be learned. As Benchmark points out, COVID-19 has disrupted “almost every global supply chain to such a profound extent that mechanisms for material sourcing, trade and distribution will likely never be the same again.”

In the meantime, a spare can opener or two might be prudent. Or maybe several, in case they become more valuable than bullion.

Li-ion under the pandemic

April 20th, 2020

COVID-19 cuts energy minerals demand but heightens future shortages: Benchmark

by Greg Klein | April 20, 2020

The pandemic will shrink lithium-ion battery demand by at least 25% this year even prior to further economic setbacks. But electric vehicles hold greater likelihood than many other industries not only for recovery but growth. Current reductions in lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel supply will only mean greater need later this decade, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

COVID-19 cuts energy minerals demand but heightens future supply shortages

In an April 16 webinar presented by managing director Simon Moores and head of price assessments Caspar Rawles, the two warned that pandemic conditions and responses will worsen an already critical supply scenario later this decade.

That “lost quarter” of a 25% reduction in demand will likely be just the beginning, Moores said. “If there’s going to be a longer economic impact, which is most likely going to happen, a severe economic impact globally, then of course we lose more than a quarter.”

Yet exponential growth should continue for Li-ion battery megafactories. Five years ago just three such plants were in production or planned, with capacity totalling 57 gigawatt hours. By 2018 the number of plants climbed to 52, for 1,147 GWh. This year the figures jumped to 130 plants totalling 2,300 GWh now in production or slated for completion by 2030. That’s enough for 43 million EVs averaging 55 kWh each.

That future seems distant, compared with the current production limitations brought on by health-related mine suspensions, along with delayed expansions and development of new mines. Transportation challenges also loom large, such as the South Africa lockdown that restricts cobalt transshipment from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As the pandemic cuts supply, it curtails demand as well. Chinese automakers, the main producers of EVs, have largely shut down.

Lithium faced over-supply well before the pandemic, prompting cutbacks among majors like SQM, Albemarle, Ganfeng and Tianqi. “Also we saw that the majority of Tier 2 or 3 converters in China were already planning on going offline due to the low pricing we’ve seen in the market,” Rawles said.

So what that means down the road is those expansions which really need to be happening now to meet the future demand are not happening.—Caspar Rawles,
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence

“The key thing is that downturn in conversion capacity in China will mean that the backlog of spodumene feedstock material that’s sitting in China will take longer to work through, so we’re looking at a longer-term potential low-price environment,” he explained. “That threatens the economics of new projects of course and an increased risk of price volatility going forward…. So what that means down the road is those expansions which really need to be happening now to meet the future demand are not happening.”

What does a typical (35 GWh) NCM Li-ion battery plant consume in a year? Benchmark estimates 25,000 tonnes of lithium hydroxide or carbonate, 6,000 tonnes of cobalt hydroxide, 19,000 tonnes of nickel sulphate and 33,000 tonnes of graphite.

“The supply chain won’t be able to build quick enough to meet this electric vehicle demand,” emphasized Moores. Even if estimates of EV growth were cut by 25% to 30%, “you’re still not going to have enough mining capacity, chemical capacity in the supply chain to make these. The lithium-ion supply chain has to grow by eight to 10 times in a seven-year period, and now that might be pushed to a 10-year period.”

You’ve got a big lithium problem on the horizon, [supplying] only 19 million EVs, compared to the 34 million we think we’re going to need.—Simon Moores,
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence

Production from current mines and those likely to enter operation suggest about 900,000 tonnes of annual lithium supply by 2030, enough to power about 19 million EVs. That constitutes “a big, big problem,” Moores said. “You’ve got a big lithium problem on the horizon, [supplying] only 19 million EVs, compared to the 34 million we think we’re going to need.”

Showing “a similar trajectory,” cobalt supply estimates come to 228,000 tonnes by 2030, enough for only about 17.9 million EVs.

“The mining companies are being super-cautious or even beyond super-cautious, considering we’re going to need 34 million EVs-worth. And even if that goes down to 25 million, you’re still way off,” he added.

Future demand will continue to be dominated by China, Benchmark maintains. Of the 130 battery plants currently expected by 2030, China would host 93. The country’s capacity would equal about 1,683 GWh, enough for 31 million EVs averaging 55 kWh. A dismal second, Europe follows with 16 plants totalling 413 GWh for 7.4 million EVs. The U.S. would have just seven plants for 205 GWh and 3.7 million EVs.

Currently producing about 73% of Li-ion batteries, China’s forecast to maintain that proportion with about 70% of global production in 2029.

For all that, Moores said European megafactories and Tesla’s U.S.-based Gigafactories set an example for supply chains in other industries.

“What the coronavirus has shown is that truly global supply chains in the 21st century don’t work. They’re too fragile, there’s too many question marks out there. Even pre-coronavirus that was the case…. The battery industry was well ahead of the curve on localizing the supply chain as much as possible…. That will continue, I think it’s a blueprint for other industries to follow. The battery supply chain is ahead of the curve on that.”

But, he cautioned, “the U.S. has to take on the same scale as China.”

Infographics: The United States and the new energy era’s lithium-ion supply chain

December 11th, 2019

by Nicholas LePan | posted with permission of Visual Capitalist | December 11, 2019

The world is rapidly shifting to renewable energy technologies. Battery minerals are set to become the new oil, with lithium-ion battery supply chains becoming the new pipelines.

China is currently leading this lithium-ion battery revolution—leaving our neighbour to the south dependent on its economic rival. However, the harsh lessons of the 1970s-to-’80s oil crises have increased pressure on the U.S. to develop its own domestic energy supply chain and gain access to key battery metals.

Introducing the new energy era

This infographic from Standard Lithium TSXV:SLL explores the current energy landscape and America’s position in the new energy era.

 

The new energy era’s lithium-ion supply chain

 

An energy dependence problem

Energy dependence is the degree of a nation’s reliance on imported energy, resulting from an insufficient domestic supply. Oil crises during the 1970s to ’80s revealed America’s reliance on foreign-produced oil, especially from the Middle East.

The U.S. economy ground to a halt when gas prices soared during the 1973 oil crisis—altering consumer behavior and energy policy for generations. In the aftermath of the crisis, the government imposed national speed limits to conserve oil, and also demanded cheaper, smaller and more fuel-efficient cars.

U.S. administrations set an objective to wean America off foreign oil through “energy independence”—the ability to meet the country’s fuel needs using domestic resources.

Lessons learned?

Spurred by technological breakthroughs such as hydraulic fracking, the U.S. now has the capacity to respond to high oil prices by ramping up domestic production.

By the end of 2019, total U.S. oil production could rise to 17.4 million barrels a day. At that level, American net imports of petroleum could fall in December 2019 to 320,000 barrels a day, the lowest since 1949.

In fact, the successful development of America’s shale fields is a key reason why the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has lost most of its influence over the supply and price of oil.

A renewable future: Turning the ship

The increasing scarcity of economic oil and gas fields, combined with the negative environmental impacts of oil and the declining costs of renewable power, are creating a new energy supply and demand dynamic.

Oil demand could drop by 16.5 million barrels per day. Oil producers could face significant losses, with $380 billion of above-ground investments becoming worthless if the oil industry and oil-rich nations are not prepared for a surge in green energy by 2030.

Energy companies are hedging their risk with increased investment in renewables. The world’s top 24 publicly listed oil companies spent on average 1.3% of their total budgets on low carbon technology in 2018, amounting to $260 billion. That is double the 0.68% the same group had invested on average through the period of 2010 and 2017.

The new geopolitics of energy: battery minerals

Low carbon technologies for the new energy era are also creating a demand for specific materials and new supply chains that can procure them.

Renewable and low carbon technology will be mineral-intensive, requiring many metals such as lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel. These are key raw materials, and demand will only grow.

 

Material 2018 2028 2018-2028 % growth
Graphite anode in batteries 170,000 tonnes 2.05M tonnes 1,106%
Lithium in batteries 150,000 tonnes 1.89M tonnes 1,160%
Nickel in batteries 82,000 tonnes 1.09M tonnes 1,229%
Cobalt in batteries 58,000 tonnes 320,000 tonnes 452%

(Source: Benchmark Minerals Intelligence)

 

The cost of these materials is the largest factor in battery technology and will determine whether battery supply chains succeed or fail.

China currently dominates the lithium-ion battery supply chain and could continue to do so. This leaves the U.S. dependent on China in this new era.

Could history repeat itself?

The battery metals race

There are five stages in a lithium-ion battery supply chain—and the U.S. holds a smaller percentage of the global supply chain than China at nearly every stage.

 

The new energy era’s lithium-ion supply chain

 

China’s dominance of the global battery supply chain creates a competitive advantage that the U.S. has no choice but to rely on.

However, this can still be prevented if the U.S. moves fast. From natural resources, human capital and technology, the U.S. can build its own domestic supply.

Building the U.S. battery supply chain

The U.S. relies heavily on imports of several key materials necessary for a lithium-ion battery supply chain.

 

U.S. net import dependence
Lithum 50%
Cobalt 72%
Graphite 100%

(Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management)

 

But the U.S. is making strides to secure its place in the new energy era. The American Minerals Security Act seeks to identify the resources necessary to secure America’s mineral independence.

The government has also released a list of 35 minerals it deems critical to the national interest.

Declaring U.S. battery independence

A supply chain starts with raw materials, and the U.S. has the resources necessary to build its own battery supply chain. This would help the country avoid supply disruptions like those seen during the oil crises in the 1970s.

Battery metals are becoming the new oil and supply chains the new pipelines. It is still early in this new energy era, and the victors are yet to be determined in the battery arms race.

Posted with permission of Visual Capitalist.

See European Union pledges €3.2 billion for lithium-ion R&D.

EV rare earths demand to increase 350% to 2025, outpacing supply: Adamas Intelligence

November 11th, 2019

by Greg Klein | November 11, 2019

Increasing reliance on electric vehicles will challenge the ability of suppliers to meet rare earths demand, resulting in “shortages if the market continues on a path of business as usual,” according to an independent research and advisory firm.

A new report from Adamas Intelligence forecasts a 350% increase in rare earths demand from EVs alone between 2018 and 2025. Estimates call for another 127% increase from 2025 to 2030. The REs in question consist of neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium, key ingredients for the permanent magnets most commonly used in the vehicles.

The report foresees annual EV sales, excluding mild and micro hybrids, to multiply from 4.3 million units last year to 12.5 million in 2025 and 32 million in 2030. Over 80% of those vehicles will use permanent magnet synchronous motors, which rely on RE-bearing magnets. Given their advantages of cost and efficiency over other types of motors, Adamas expects “overwhelming” use in next-generation EV designs.

Adamas forecasts EV demand for neodymium-praseodymium oxide will rise from about 3,000 tonnes last year to 13,000 tonnes in 2025 and 28,000 tonnes in 2030, making up around 20% of total global demand in 2030. With production anticipated to increase at a slower rate, the report predicts a shortfall of 7,500 tonnes by 2030, along with a 300-tonne deficit for dysprosium oxide, “if supply is not increased beyond what is currently anticipated.”

While hybrids and fully battery-dependent vehicle sales combined rose 23% between 2010 and 2018, the study found battery-only EVs such as the Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf increased at a compound average growth rate of 118% during that time. Battery-only vehicles showed 133% CAGR. Fully electric models will constitute about 63% of the 32 million EVs forecast for 2030, the report estimates.

Despite a general trend to cut subsidies, national, regional and municipal governments worldwide have set goals for EV use to offset climate change. But “ambitious targets alone will not drive EV penetration into the mass market,” the report maintains. “Falling costs and improved EV economics will.”

Besides rare earths, Adamas sees accelerated EV demand for lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, graphite and copper, as well as other metals and materials.

Read the Adamas Intelligence report: Electric Growth: EVs, Motors and Motor Materials.

A Capitol idea

May 7th, 2019

This U.S. bipartisan bill aims to reduce America’s critical minerals dependency

 

This won’t be the first time Washington has seen such a proposal. Announced last week, the American Mineral Security Act encourages the development of domestic resources and supply chains to produce minerals considered essential to the country’s well-being. But the chief backer, Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, acknowledges having introduced similar standalone legislation previously, as well as addressing the topic in a previous energy bill.

A U.S. bipartisan bill would reduce America’s critical minerals dependency

This time, however, the proposal takes place amid growing concern. In late 2017, following a U.S. Geological Survey report that provided the first comprehensive review of the subject since 1973, President Donald Trump called for a “federal strategy to ensure secure and reliable supplies of critical minerals.” In early 2018 the U.S. Department of the Interior formally classified 35 minerals as critical. A September 2018 report responded to the presidential order, urging programs to address supply chain challenges that leave the U.S. relying heavily on countries like Russia and especially China.

Even so, Murkowski and the other three senators think Washington needs a little push.

“I greatly appreciate the administration’s actions to address this issue but congress needs to complement them with legislation,” she said. “Our bill takes steps that are long overdue to reverse our damaging foreign dependence and position ourselves to compete in growth industries like electric vehicles and energy storage.”

The senators referred to USGS data from 2018 showing 48 minerals for which their country imported at least 50% of supply. Foreign dependency accounted for 100% of 18 of them, including rare earths, graphite and indium.  

Focusing on energy minerals, Simon Moores of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence lauded the bipartisan group for addressing “a global battery arms race that is intensifying.

“Lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel are the key enablers of the lithium-ion battery and, in turn, the lithium-ion battery is the key enabler of the energy storage revolution. Globally they are facing a wall of demand, especially from electric vehicles. Yet the U.S. has been a bystander in building a domestic supply chain capacity.

“Right now, the U.S. produces 1% of global lithium supply and only 7% of refined lithium chemical supply, while China produces 51%. For cobalt, the U.S. has zero mining capacity and zero chemicals capacity whilst China controls 80% of this [at] second stage.

These supply chains are the oil pipelines of tomorrow. The lithium-ion battery is to the 21st century what the oil barrel was to the 20th century.—Simon Moores
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence

“Graphite is the most extreme example with no flake graphite mining and anode production compared to China’s 51% and 100% of the world’s total, respectively. And it’s a similar story with nickel—under 1% mined in the U.S. and zero capacity for nickel sulfate.

“These supply chains are the oil pipelines of tomorrow,” Moores emphasized. “The lithium-ion battery is to the 21st century what the oil barrel was to the 20th century.”

Looking at another critical mineral, the White House has until mid-July to respond to a U.S. Department of Commerce report on the effects of uranium imports to American national security. According to the USGS, the fuel provides 20% of the country’s electricity but the U.S. relies on imports for over 95% of supply.

A recent book by Ned Mamula and Ann Bridges points to rare earths as the “poster child for U.S. critical mineral vulnerability.” In Groundbreaking! America’s New Quest for Mineral Independence, the authors say REs remain “essential for military and civilian use, for the production of high-performance permanent magnets, GPS guidance systems, satellite imaging and night vision equipment, cellphones, iPads, flat screens, MRIs and electric toothbrushes, sunglasses, and a myriad of other technology products. Since they offer that extra boost to so many new technologies, these rare earth metals rival energy in importance to our 21st century lifestyle.”

Among the proposed act’s provisions are:

  • an updated list of critical minerals every three years

  • nationwide resource assessments for every critical mineral

  • “practical, common-sense” reforms to reduce permitting delays

  • R&D into recycling, replacing and processing critical minerals

  • a study of the country’s minerals workforce by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation

The senators made their announcement at Benchmark Minerals Summit 2019, a private event for industry and U.S. government representatives. In a February presentation to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources chaired by Murkowski, Moores issued a “red alert on the lithium-ion battery supply chain and the raw materials of lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite.”

Read more about U.S. efforts to secure critical minerals here and here.

Infographic: Climate Smart Mining and minerals for climate action

March 14th, 2019

sponsored by the World Bank | posted with permission of Visual Capitalist | March 14, 2019

Climate Smart Mining Minerals for climate action

 

Countries are taking steps to decarbonize their economies by using wind, solar and battery technologies, with an end goal of reducing carbon-emitting fossil fuels from the energy mix.

But this global energy transition also has a trade-off: to cut emissions, more minerals are needed.

Therefore, in order for the transition to renewables to be meaningful and to achieve significant reductions in the Earth’s carbon footprint, mining will have to better mitigate its own environmental and social impacts.

Advocates for renewable technology are not walking blindly into a new energy paradigm without understanding these impacts. A policy and regulatory framework can help governments meet their targets, and mitigate and manage the impacts of the next wave of mineral demand to help the communities most affected by mining.

This infographic comes from the World Bank and it highlights this energy transition, how it will create demand for minerals and also the Climate Smart Mining building blocks.

Renewable power and mineral demand

In 2017, the World Bank published The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future, which concluded that to build a lower carbon future there will be a substantial increase in demand for several key minerals and metals to manufacture clean energy technologies.

Wind
Wind power technology has drastically improved its energy output. By 2025, a 300-metre-tall wind turbine could produce about 13 to 15 MW, enough to power a small town. With increased size and energy output comes increased material demand.

A single 3 MW turbine requires:

  • 4.7 tons of copper

  • 335 tons of steel

  • 1,200 tons of concrete

  • 2 tons of rare earth elements

  • 3 tons of aluminum

Solar
In 2017 global renewable capacity was 178 GW, of which 54.5% was solar photo-voltaic technology (PV). By 2023, it’s expected that this capacity will increase to one terawatt with PV accounting for 57.5% of the mix. PV cells require polymers, aluminum, silicon, glass, silver and tin.

Batteries
Everything from your home, your vehicle and your everyday devices will require battery technology to keep them powered and your life on the move.

Lithium, cobalt and nickel are at the centre of battery technology that will see the greatest explosion in demand in the coming energy transition.

Top five minerals for energy technologies

Add it all up, and these new sources of demand will translate into a need for more minerals:

 

  2017 production 2050 demand from energy technology Percentage change (%)
Lithium 43 KT 415 KT 965%
Cobalt 110 KT 644 KT 585%
Graphite 1200 KT 4590 KT 383%
Indium 0.72 KT 1.73 KT 241%
Vanadium 80 KT 138 KT 173%

 

Minimizing mining’s impact with Climate Smart Mining

The World Bank’s Climate Smart Mining (CSM) supports the sustainable extraction and processing of minerals and metals to secure supply for clean energy technologies, while also minimizing the environmental and climate footprints throughout the value chain.

The World Bank has established four building blocks for Climate Smart Mining:

  • Climate change mitigation

  • Climate change adaptation

  • Reducing material impacts

  • Creating market opportunities

Given the foresight into the pending energy revolution, a coordinated global effort early on could give nations a greater chance to mitigate the impacts of mining, avoid haphazard mineral development and contribute to the improvement of living standards in mineral-rich countries.

The World Bank works closely with the United Nations to ensure that Climate Smart Mining policies will support the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

A sustainable future

The potential is there for a low carbon economy, but it’s going to require a concerted global effort and sound policies to help guide responsible mineral development.

The mining industry can deliver the minerals for climate action.

Posted with permission of Visual Capitalist.

Visual Capitalist: The bull case for energy metals going into 2019

January 10th, 2019

by Jeff Desjardins | posted with permission of Visual Capitalist | January 10, 2019

 

The rapid emergence of the world’s renewable energy sector is helping set the stage for a commodity boom.

While oil has traditionally been the most interesting commodity to investors in the past, the green energy sector is reliant on the unique electrical and physical properties of many different metals to work optimally.

To build more renewable capacity and to store that energy efficiently, we will need to increase the available supply for these specific raw materials, or face higher costs for each material.

Metal bull cases

Ahead of Cambridge House’s annual Vancouver Resource Investment Conference on January 20 and 21, 2019, we thought it would be prudent to highlight the “bull case” for relevant metals as we start the year.

It’s important to recognize that the commodity market is often cyclical and dependent on a multitude of factors, and that these cases are not meant to be predictive in any sense.

In other words, the facts and arguments illustrated sum up what we think investors may see as the most compelling stories for these metals—but what actually happens in the market, especially in the short term, may be different.

Overarching trends

While we highlight 12 minerals ranging from copper to lithium, most of the raw materials in the infographic fit into four overarching, big-picture stories that will drive the future of green energy:

Solar and wind
The world hit 1 TW of wind and solar generation capacity in 2018. The second TW will be up and running by 2023, and will cost 46% less than the first.

Electric vehicles
Ownership of electric vehicles will increase 40 times in the next 13 years, reaching 125 million vehicles in 2030.

Energy storage
The global market for energy storage is rapidly growing, and will leap from $194 billion to $296 billion between 2017 and 2024.

Nuclear
150 nuclear reactors with a total gross capacity of about 160,000 MW are on order or planned, and about 300 more are proposed—mostly in Asia.

Which of these stories has the most potential as a catalyst for driving the entire sector?

Based on these narratives, and the individual bull cases above, which metal has the most individual potential?

Visit Visual Capitalist at Booth #1228 at #VRIC19.

Posted with permission of Visual Capitalist.

Click here for free VRIC registration up to January 11.

Read more about the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference.

Simon Moores of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence points out increasing demand for lithium-ion batteries from large-scale stationary storage

July 16th, 2018

…Read more

Visual Capitalist: Elon Musk’s vision for the future of Tesla

April 26th, 2018

by Jeff Desjardins | posted with permission of Visual Capitalist | April 26, 2018

Tesla is currently stuck in “production hell” with Model 3 delays, as Elon Musk describes it.

But Winston Churchill had a great quote about facing what seems like insurmountable adversity: “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” This is certainly a maxim that Musk and Tesla will need to live by in order to realize the company’s longstanding mission, which is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

This giant infographic comes to us from Global Energy Metals TSXV:GEMC and it is the final part of our three-part Rise of Tesla series, which is a definitive source for everything you ever wanted to know about the company.

Part 3 shows Musk’s future vision and what it holds for the company once it can get past current production issues.

See Part 1. See Part 2.

 

Visual Capitalist: Elon Musk’s vision for the future of Tesla=

 

To understand Tesla’s ambitions for the future, you need to know two things:

1. Tesla’s mission statement: “To accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”

Tesla can accomplish this by making electric vehicles, batteries and energy solutions—and by finding ways to seamlessly integrate them.

2. Tesla’s strategy: “The competitive strength of Tesla long-term is not going to be the car, it’s going to be the factory.”

Tesla aims to productize the factory so that vehicle assembly can be automated at a revolutionary pace. In other words, Tesla wants to perfect the making of the “machine that builds the machine.” It wants to use these factories to pump out EVs at a pace never before seen. It aims to change the world.

The future of Tesla

If Musk has his way and everything goes according to plan, this is how the future of Tesla will unfold. Note: Keep in mind that Tesla sometimes overpromises and that the following is an extrapolation of Tesla’s vision and announced plans as of spring 2018.

A sustainable energy powerhouse

Tesla’s goal is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy—but simply making a few electric cars is not going to be enough to put a dent into this. That’s why the future of Tesla will be defined by bigger and bolder moves:

The Tesla Semi: Tesla has unveiled the Tesla Semi, which can go 0 to 60 mph with 80,000 pounds (36 tonnes) in just 20 seconds. Fully electric and with a 200-kWh battery pack, Musk says, it would be “economic suicide” for trucking companies to continue driving diesel trucks.

Mass transit: Musk said in his Master Plan, Part Deux blog post that he wants to design “high passenger-density urban transport.” It’s anticipated that this will come in the form of an autonomous minibus, built off the Model X concept.

A new energy paradigm: Tesla is not just building cars—it’s democratizing green energy by creating a self-dependent ecosystem of products. This way, homeowners can ensure their appliances and cars are running off of green energy, and even sell it back to the grid if they like.

As Tesla works on this sustainable future, the company isn’t afraid to show off its battery tech in the interim. The company even built the world’s largest lithium-ion battery farm (100 MW) in South Australia, to win a bet, in fewer than 100 days.

Other new models

Musk says that Tesla plans to “address all major segments” of the auto market.

Model Y: This will be a crossover vehicle built on the Model 3 platform, expected to go into production in 2019. It will round out the “S3XY” product line of Tesla’s first four post-Roadster vehicles.

Pickup truck: This will be Tesla’s priority after the Model Y and Musk says he is “dying to build it.” Musk says it’ll be the same size as a Ford F-150 or bigger to account for a “game-changing” feature he wants to add, but has not yet revealed.

Ultra low-cost model: Tesla has also announced that it will need a model cheaper than the Model 3 in the near future. This would allow Tesla to compete against a much wider segment of the auto market, and the future of Tesla hinges on its success.

Multiple Gigafactories

Tesla already has two: Gigafactory I in Reno, Nevada (batteries) and Gigafactory II in Buffalo, New York (solar panels).

The Gigafactory I started battery cell production in 2017. It will eventually produce enough batteries to power 500,000 cars per year. Meanwhile, the second factory is operated by Tesla’s SolarCity subsidiary, producing photovoltaic modules for solar panels and solar shingles for Tesla’s solar roof product.

Tesla said in 2017 that there will be “probably four” more battery Gigafactories in locations that would “address a global market,” including one in Europe. This makes sense, since the need for lithium-ion batteries to power these EVs is exploding. An important component of Tesla’s future will also be sourcing the raw materials needed for these Gigafactories, such as cobalt, lithium, graphite and nickel.

The Chinese market

The good news: Tesla already owns about 81% of the market for imported plug-in EVs in China.

The bad news: That’s only about 2.5% of the total Chinese EV market, when accounting for domestically made EVs.

China is the largest auto market in the world—and make no mistake about it, Tesla wants to own a large chunk of it. In 2017, China accounted for 24.7 million passenger vehicle sales, amounting to 31% of the global auto market.

Automation and the sharing economy

Finally, Tesla wants its vehicles to be fully autonomous and to have shared fleets that drive around to transport people.

Autonomous: Tesla aims to develop a self-driving capability that is 10 times safer than manual via massive fleet learning.

Shared: Most cars are used only by their owners and only for 5% of each day. With self-driving cars, a car can reach its true potential utility by being shared between multiple users.

Conclusion

The future of Tesla is ambitious and the company’s strategy is even considered naïve by some. But if Musk and Tesla are able to perfect building the “machine that builds the machine,” all bets will be off.

That concludes our three-part Rise of Tesla series. Don’t forget to see Part 1 (Origin story) and Part 2 (Rapid Growth). Special thanks to Global Energy Metals for making this series possible.

Posted with permission of Visual Capitalist.

Can’t live without them

March 23rd, 2018

The U.S. Critical Materials Institute develops new technologies for crucial commodities

by Greg Klein

A rare earths supply chain outside China? It exists in the United States and Alex King has proof on his desk in the form of neodymium-iron-boron magnets, an all-American achievement from mine to finished product. But the Critical Materials Institute director says it’s up to manufacturers to take this pilot project to an industry-wide scale. Meanwhile the CMI looks back on its first five years of successful research while preparing future projects to help supply the stuff of modern life.

The U.S. Critical Materials Institute develops new technologies and strategies for crucial commodities

Alex King: “There’s a lot of steps in rebuilding that supply chain.
Our role as researchers is to demonstrate it can be done.
We’ve done that.” (Photo: Colorado School of Mines)

The CMI’s genesis came in the wake of crisis. China’s 2010 ban on rare earths exports to Japan abruptly destroyed non-Chinese supply chains. As other countries began developing their own deposits, China changed tactics to flood the market with relatively cheap output.

Since then the country has held the rest of the world dependent, producing upwards of 90% of global production for these metals considered essential to energy, defence and the overall economy.

That scenario prompted U.S. Congress to create the CMI in 2013, as one of four Department of Energy innovation hubs. Involving four national laboratories, seven universities, about a dozen corporations and roughly 350 researchers, the interdisciplinary group gets US$25 million a year and “a considerable amount of freedom” to pursue its mandate, King says.

The CMI channels all that into four areas. One is to develop technologies that help make new mines viable. The second, “in direct conflict with the first,” is to find alternative materials. Efficient use of commodities comprises the third focus, through improvements in manufacturing, recycling and re-use.

“Those three areas are supported by a fourth, which is a kind of cross-cutting research focus extending across a wide range of areas including quantum physics, chemistry, environmental impact studies and, last but certainly not least, economics—what’s the economic impact of the work we do, what’s its potential, where are the economically most impactful areas for our researchers to address,” King relates.

With 30 to 35 individual projects underway at any time, CMI successes include the Nd-Fe-B batteries. They began with ore from Mountain Pass, the California mine whose 2015 shutdown set back Western rare earths aspirations.

The U.S. Critical Materials Institute develops new technologies and strategies for crucial commodities

Nevertheless “that ore was separated into individual rare earth oxides in a pilot scale facility in Idaho National Lab,” explains King. “The separated rare earth oxides were reduced to master alloys at a company called Infinium in the Boston area. The master alloys were brought to the Ames Lab here at Iowa State University and fabricated into magnets. So all the skills are here in the U.S. We know how to do it. I have the magnets on my desk as proof.”

But, he asks, “can we do that on an industrial scale? That depends on companies picking up and taking ownership of some of these processes.”

In part, that would require the manufacturers who use the magnets to leave Asia. “Whether it’s an electric motor, a hard disk drive, the speakers in your phone or whatever, all that’s done in Asia,” King points out. “And that means it is most advantageous to make the magnets in Asia.”

America does have existing potential domestic demand, however. The U.S. remains a world leader in manufacturing loudspeakers and is a significant builder of industrial motors. Those two sectors might welcome a reliable rare earths supply chain.

“There’s a lot of steps in rebuilding that supply chain. Our role as researchers is to demonstrate it can be done. We’ve done that.”

Among other accomplishments over its first five years, the CMI found alternatives to both europium and terbium in efficient lighting, developed a number of improvements in the viability of rare earths mining and created much more efficient RE separation.

“We also developed a new use for cerium, which is an over-produced rare earth that is a burden on mining,” King says. “We have an aluminum-cerium alloy that is now in production and has actually entered the commercial marketplace and is being sold. Generating use for cerium should generate additional cash flow for some of the traditional forms of rare earths mining.”

Getting back to magnets, “we also invented a way of making them that is much more efficient, greatly reduces sensitive materials like neodymium and dysprosium, and makes electric devices like motors and generators much more efficient.”

All these materials have multiple uses. It’s not like they don’t have interest in the Pentagon and other places.—Alex King

Future projects will focus less on rare earths but more on lithium. The CMI will also tackle several others from the draft list of 35 critical minerals the U.S. released in February: cobalt, manganese, gallium, indium, tellurium, platinum group metals, vanadium and graphite. “These are the ones where we feel we can make the most impact.”

While the emphasis remains on energy minerals, “all these materials have multiple uses. It’s not like they don’t have interest in the Pentagon and other places.”

But the list is hardly permanent, while the challenges will continue. “We’ve learned a huge amount over the last five years about how the market responds when a material becomes critical,” he recalls. “And that knowledge is incredibly valuable because we anticipate there will be increasing incidences of materials going critical. Technology’s moving so fast and demand is shifting so fast that supply will have a hard time keeping up. That will cause short-term supply shortfalls or even excesses. What we need to do is capture the wisdom that has been won in the rare earths crisis and recovery, and be ready to apply that as other materials go critical in the future.”

Alex King speaks at Argus Specialty Metals Week, held in Henderson, Nevada, from April 16 to 18. For a 15% discount on registration, enter code RARE2018.