In March 2016 I had the opportunity to visit a leading North American research and development company, focused on materials and components relating to energy-storage devices. I was invited to visit the facility by Alabama Graphite Corp (AGC) (TSX.V:ALP, OTCQX:ABGPF), to see how AGC’s development of coated spherical purified graphite (CSPG) is progressing, and to get a better understanding of the battery prototyping and production processes.

For competitiveness reasons, the invitation was issued with the proviso that I not identify the company that I visited, or the personnel that I interviewed, under the terms of a strict non-disclosure agreement. The company (which I will call EngineeringCo for the purposes of this article) assists a number of players in the critical-materials space with the development of value-added processes, with particular expertise in Li-ion batteries (LIBs). EngineeringCo was at pains to make sure that the only work that I saw during the visit, pertained to processes and components relating to and produced from, AGC natural-flake graphite.

I was able to take a number of photographs during my visit, which are included below (click on the thumbnails to enlarge the images). Also included is a separator / electrode cross-section schematic, and other images produced by EngineeringCo and AGC that were verified during my visit.

Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to discuss a number of topics of wider interest to the use of natural graphite in LIBs with a senior scientist at EngineeringCo (whom I will call Dr. X), who is well known by many in the graphite industry and beyond, for his experience and expertise in the processing of graphite, anode production for LIBs and LIB prototyping and validation.

Regardless of the ultimate application, the early stages of natural-graphite processing are generally the same. The graphite ore is mined or excavated, and then crushed so that the contained graphite flakes can then be concentrated, via flotation. The crushed ore is typically placed into water with an additive such as pine oil or kerosene, which creates a thin film on the surface of the water. Graphite flakes are hydrophobic and lighter-weight, and being repelled by the water they remain at the surface, while the heavier rock matter simply falls to the bottom of the flotation cell. The result of these and associated processes is run-of-mine (ROM) concentrate, and historically has been the goal of most graphite juniors, looking to produce a saleable material as a result of their endeavors.

More recently, companies like AGC have realized that the way to maximize the value of their graphite ores is to apply secondary processes to this ROM concentrate, with the goal of producing so-called battery-grade graphite for LIBs. These secondary processes include purification, micronizing, spheroidizing and coating, to produce CSPG, a high-value graphite product that can be used for the anodes in LIBs. Each of these steps requires careful optimization, with the process parameters being tailored to the unique characteristics of each specific ROM concentrate.

I asked Dr. X why companies choose a particular order for completing the secondary processes of purification, micronizing, spheroidizing and coating ROM concentrate, for battery-grade materials. Not unsurprisingly, he commented that it boils down to economics. In the past, graphite mines would generally categorize their ROM concentrate into two broad categories; coarse flakes (+80 mesh / +180 µm) would be sold into higher-end applications (such as graphite crucibles, extruded shapes and steelmaking), whereas the finer material was only given secondary consideration, for use in pencils and other applications (such as powdered metallurgy, composite brake pads, forensic dispersions, zinc-carbon ‘lantern’ batteries, dry lm and liquid lubricants, and the like).

When first commercialized over 25 years ago, LIBs utilized anode-active materials comprised of mesophase carbon microbeads (MCMBs), produced via an expensive process by a single Japanese company, Osaka Gas Co. Osaka Gas was not able to reduce the cost of MCMB synthesis, in the face of LIBs becoming commodity devices, requiring commodity pricing on all of the materials and sub-components used to manufacture them. MCMBs soon lost their dominant market share to graphitized chopped carbon fibers (GCCFs), produced by Toshiba, BP Amoco and other companies.

The increasing demand for LIBs put further pressure on the anode-material producers and GCCFs were in turn superseded by two materials: graphitized, surface-coated synthetic graphite, and surface-coated natural purified flake graphite. Today, battery manufacturers increasingly favor the replacement of synthetic graphite with natural graphite in anodes for LIBs, for a number of reasons:

• The carbon-based precursor materials for the synthetic route have to be graphitized through a costly heat-treatment process. Since natural graphite is already graphitic in nature, it is an inherently lower-cost material to produce;
• LIB anodes require high-purity, spheroidal particles with sizes in the range of 10-25 µm. Synthetic graphite, once graphitized, is generally brittle and more resistant to processing, in contrast to natural graphite, which is more lubricious and amenable to such processing. This means that natural graphite is significantly easier to spheroidize than synthetic graphite (with some observers arguing that synthetic graphite cannot actually be spheroidized at all). Spheroidal particles are preferred as they contribute to maximizing the overall energy density value of the battery (more on this, later in this article);
• Most premium-quality natural crystalline flake graphite exhibits superior performance to synthetic graphite. For example, CSPG produced from AGC’s Coosa graphite deposit, with a particle size of D50 = 18.3 µm has a reversible capacity (the energy capacity that can be consistently and reversibly achieved upon cycling) of 367.21 mAh/g, just shy of the theoretical maximum of 372 mAh/g. In contrast, one of the industry’s best commercial synthetic graphite products with a particle size of D50 = 15.8 µm, has a noticeably lower reversible capacity of 347.2 mAh/g. More on these values, later in this article;

Typically the larger the flake size, the higher the purity of the untreated graphite, which resulted in the initial recent industry emphasis on the proportion of large-flake graphite in any given deposit (the more, the better, went the mantra). What this focus missed, however, is the fact that the process of converting large flakes into smaller particles of a suitable size for anode production, is expensive because any additional grinding is energy intensive, adding additional cost to processing. Indeed, the larger the flake size, the more energy is required for this size-reduction process.

If instead, the process began with smaller flake sizes, and the purity of these materials could be improved through low-cost purification techniques, finer flake material would become particularly attractive for producing battery-grade graphite, and in fact more cost effective than starting with large-flake material. Deposits would not require significant proportions of large-flake graphite to be suitable for battery-grade graphite production; having larger proportions of finer flake material could in fact be an economic advantage.

This latter approach is the one that AGC has taken with its ROM concentrate. Dr. X pointed out that the flake sizes in AGC’s Coosa graphite deposit are fairly evenly distributed. Instead of trying to convert all of this material into battery-grade graphite, a simple screening filter could separate the ROM concentrate into -100 mesh / -150 µm flake, for battery applications, with the remaining +100 mesh / +150 µm particles for traditional higher-end applications. Further screening to produce +80 mesh / +180 µm, +50 mesh / +300 µm and +32 mesh / +500 µm fractions could be applied, to further differentiate the coarse-flake material for specific end-use applications.

Battery-grade graphite requires high purity for effective operation. Traditional purification processes include baking the graphite with sodium hydroxide, and the acid-leaching approach, widely used in China, to dissolve the impurities out of the graphite. In the acid-leaching process, the ROM concentrate is immersed in a mixture of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids. The hydrochloric acid removes oxides present as soluble chlorides, but does not react with the silica impurities that remain. Hydrofluoric acid is needed to remove the silica, in the form of soluble fluorosilicic acid. This results in large amounts of acid washings; in China these are typically not neutralized or treated but are often simply flushed into local waterways, causing damage and pollution to local aquifers and wells.

While chlorides are not noxious, the fluorides produced, at the concentrations resulting from this process, are particularly toxic. While the cost of the acids used in the acid-leach process are relatively cheap (USD 300-350 / t of graphite purified), such costs do not take into account the cost of the treatment of the waste streams that would be required of any processing plant located in a Western jurisdiction, which according to AGC may be as high as USD 5-7k / t of graphite treated, using reverse osmosis. Clearly then, the acid-leach process is unlikely to be a cost-effective approach for any environmentally responsible graphite purification plant.

Another method is a variation of the Acheson process (originally used to produce silicon carbide and synthetic graphite), which involves the placement of large quantities of ROM concentrate and coke into a pit in the ground, and running high electrical current through it via two electrodes. The high electrical resistance of the mixture causes it to heat up quickly, producing a chemical reaction that results in relatively pure graphite. Operating temperatures are in the range of 2,800-3,000 °C. The presence of fine-flaked material in such a process is potentially dangerous because of the risk of combustion. Thus the graphite has to be pelletized prior to purification, with these pellets being re-crushed afterwards, before being further processed. However, the smaller the starting flake size, the more difficult and expensive it is to pelletize the material.

Other methods include the use of fluidized-bed technology, where the graphite is continuously fed into a reaction chamber and subject to a stream of inert gas at high temperature, which causes the impurities to volatilize (convert into gaseous mists) and to be removed from the graphite, which eventually burns off (and partially settles) in the off-gas chamber / neutralization process. The removed impurities are captured via scrubbers and turned into benign products such as gypsum.

The aforementioned thermal process is typically run at 2,400-2,600 °C – higher than the volatilization temperature of the impurities found within the graphite. Such high temperatures require significant energy consumption and are thus relatively expensive.

Using a process that eliminates the need to pelletize, can be run at lower temperatures, and which avoids the pollution associated with acid leaching, is therefore essential to the cost-effective purification of finer-flake graphite.

Although EngineeringCo has access to lower-cost purification processes that are suitable for finer-flake materials, AGC had already turned to another North American company (which we’ll call PurificationCo here – again, their identity is confidential) to work on this challenge for their material. I have previously visited the facilities of PurificationCo, and had the opportunity to discuss the purification process developed for AGC, with senior staff at PurificationCo, after my visit to EngineeringCo.

According to PurificationCo, the purification process for AGC material is essentially a halogenation process, where chlorine gas is used to convert the impurities to volatile chlorides. With an appropriate system design, the chlorine gas can be recycled, resulting in a relatively inexpensive process. The process is the standard process for purification of titanium dioxide to make paint pigments, with production in 2015 of about 3 Mt of titanium dioxide. The process runs at significantly lower temperatures than those of fluidized-bed processing – resulting in significant energy cost savings.

The surface area of finer graphite flakes is higher than for coarse-flake material, and much higher than graphite pellets, and this is advantageous for a process of this type because it makes it easier for the chlorine to diffuse into the graphite particles, and to react with the impurities present.

Dr. X commented that the graphite purity obtained during the purification step must be higher than the minimum purification specification for the battery-grade graphite at 99.95 wt% C. This was confirmed by PurificationCo.

This is because there are a number of post-purification processing steps required to produce such materials. Despite efforts such as air purification and other measures, each processing step has the potential to cause minor contamination in the material, at the parts-per-million (ppm) level. For this reason, the purification process produces a 99.98%+ purity graphite, higher than the final purity specification of 99.95%+ for the finished products.

I asked Dr. X how graphite purity is actually measured. He said that a carefully measured sample of a given graphite product is placed into a low-profile ceramic crucible, loaded in a small muffle furnace, where it reacts with oxygen. This reaction produces carbon dioxide which evolves as a gas. What remains is a tiny quantity of ash which contains the non-carbon content of the graphite. This ash is then weighed and analyzed for content, to determine the purity of the original graphite.

Interestingly Dr. X commented that this process can be used to identify the source of the graphite being tested, since each deposit has a characteristic distribution of impurities. Image analysis of the ash under magnification, combined with computerized statistical analysis, allows EngineeringCo to compare a given sample with a large database of previous samples. This is a useful tool for verifying the source of materials, for buyers and end users. The company also uses atomic-absorption spectroscopy to check the elemental content of the ash, for the presence of some 19 specific elements that are particularly problematic for battery operation, if found at elevated levels in the graphite. Full-blown chemical analyses can also be conducted using standard ICP analysis.

After purification, the next process step for the AGC material is to micronize it – to reduce the average particle size to some value within the 10-25 µm range that is optimal for anodes (the specific value will depend on customer requirements). This is achieved using jet milling, where the graphite flakes are drawn into streams of high-velocity gases that cause the flakes to collide with each other and to break apart, reducing their size to the target value. The EngineeringCo folks showed me how the process is controlled by altering the duration, the gas pressure and velocity in the system, and the mass of flake material processed at any one time. Small test batches are always done before processing bulk materials, since different graphite sources can exhibit different properties during the jet-milling process. Note, micronization may also be performed before spheroidization – and, in some cases, may be required, depending on the graphite material.

Before and after milling, the particle-size distribution of the graphite powders needs to be measured, so that the appropriate set of parameters to achieve the target size value can be determined, and to ensure that the jet-milling process has been effective. This is determined using a device that passes a laser through the powder, mixed with water with the addition of a detergent. The laser light will scatter as a result of its interaction with the particles, and the distribution of particle sizes can thus be determined, via a histogram plot. Cumulative volumes are also plotted against particle diameter, on the same chart.

The cumulative volume allows the operator to determine the ‘D values’ for the sample – essentially the range of particles sizes, and an average value. The particles are modeled as equivalent spheres in the system. The D10 value corresponds to the diameter of the equivalent sphere, at which 10% of the sample consists of smaller particles. D50 is the median diameter – the diameter at which half the sample consists of smaller particles. D90 is the point at which 90% of the sample consists of smaller particles. The D10 and D90 values represent a particular range of diameter values, with the D50 value representing the average particle size. All three values are useful in specifying the characteristics of a given powder.

Once milling is complete, the resulting powder is then classified into precise particle-size-based fractions of the overall material.

The next step in the process is spheroidization – converting the graphite particles into rounded, potato-like shapes. The closer the particles are to being spherical in shape, the greater the performance of the anode in the battery. Why is this?

It has long been proven by mathematicians that the most effective way to randomly pack as many particles into a given volume as possible, is if the particles within that volume are perfect spheres. If arranged carefully, then in any given volume the maximum theoretical space that can be taken up by the spheres, is 74% of the overall volume. For randomly packed spheres, this maximum drops to just below 64%. The further away a particle is from being spherical in shape, the less efficient is the random packing of those particles into a given volume. Spiky or needle-shaped particles, for example, when packed randomly, have an efficiency of packing somewhere in the region of 30% – significantly less than that for spheres.

So why do we care? Because the anode density – the amount of actual graphite that can be packed into a given volume – directly affects the energy density of the battery. This is the amount of energy that can be stored in the battery, per unit volume of graphite (measured in Wh/l). The denser the graphite anode, the greater the energy density on a full cell level.

Dr. X commented that this is one reason why synthetic graphite for graphite anodes is so expensive, because as produced, the particles tend to be long and thin. Even the best efforts to produce spheroidized graphite from synthetic graphite result in lower capacities per unit of battery volume, because they are ultimately less spheroidal. The conversion of these needle-like shapes into spheroidal particles is more energy intensive than for natural-flake graphite, and with lower yields.

Synthetic graphite can also see lower graphitic carbon content than natural graphite. The latter affects that critical parameter of any battery anode, its reversible capacity.

As previously mentioned, the theoretical maximum reversible capacity for graphite anodes is 372 mAh / g. EngineeringCo has measured values of 367.21 mAh / g for anodes produced from AGC graphite. This compares to values of 290-330 mAh / g for typical synthetic graphite, and 340-350 mAh / g for the best anodes produced from premium-quality synthetic graphite.

Needle-like particles are also undesirable because they have a tendency to break into small pieces during processing, and if still present, those pieces may diffuse in the electrolyte during operation, to the cathode, potentially causing a short circuit. Even if this can be avoided, these pieces may absorb electrolyte, impairing the capacity of the battery because of first-cycle losses (chemical reactions at the interface of the anode during the first charge/ discharge cycle).

EngineeringCo uses a highly proprietary spheroidizing process for the AGC materials, causing the particles to smooth each other through collisions that eventually result in the desired spheroidal shape. Sharp edges present in the original flakes are broken off and are redeposited onto the surface of the spheroids. The subsequent yield of the process, according to Dr. X, is 75%+, compared to the typical yields of processes undertaken in China at 20-30%. The cost benefit of such yield improvements are self-evident, if they can be scaled.

Furthermore, the remaining 25% of non-spheroidized graphite, with a typical particle D50 of 3-10 µm, can be used as conductivity-enhancement additives in the battery cathodes. Dr. X commented that junior graphite companies generally have little appreciation for the opportunities relating to cathodes, in addition to battery anodes. Premium-performance conductivity-enhancement materials are typically worth in the region of USD 15-20k / t – significantly higher than the USD 12-14k / t that spheroidal graphite produced from natural graphite can command. These materials could also be used in the production of alkaline and zinc-air batteries, conductive paints and coatings, to name a few markets.

Ultimately the performance of the graphite, once produced, is related as previously stated, to its density in the anode. Tap density is frequently used to describe this parameter – calculated by mechanically tapping a graduated cylinder containing graphite material, until little further volume change is observed. EngineeringCo uses autotap machines to determine tap density, by recording the height of material in a container, and its mass.

Dr. X argues that a more useful parameter is the bulk density of the material, because when used to produce anodes, the graphite particles are free flowing, and are not tapped. The bulk density is the ratio of the sample mass to the volume that it occupies (including gaps between the particles), without being tapped. It is measured using a Scott volumeter. This uses a receptacle of known volume and mass, into which graphite is poured through a funnel that sits on a baffle assembly. As the graphite pours through the baffles, it fills the receptacle until it overflows. The powder is leveled off using a flat edge and then the cup is re-weighed, to determine the mass of graphite and thus the bulk density, since the volume is known.

The bulk density needs to be as high as possible because the battery anode is produced using a painting process, and is not pressed or otherwise ‘tapped’ – thus requiring particles to be as close to spherical as possible, as previously explained, for space-packing reasons. More on that process, later in this article.

Once spheroidized, the graphite particles need to be classified by size and then coated. There are a couple of important reasons for this. The first is to improve the safety of battery operation. As mentioned previously, if there are any sharp edges left at the surface of the graphite particles prior to anode formation, these may break off and diffuse to the cathode during operation, increasing the chances of a short circuit in the system at the cathode, leading to thermal runaway. ‘Smearing’ the particle surface during spheroidizing and then adding a coating reduces the probability of these sharp pieces breaking off the graphite particles in the anode, during operation.

The second reason is to reduce problems at the surface-electrolyte interface (SEI) in the anode, that result in first-cycle losses. During the first cycle in the battery, a foam layer can build up at the SEI which can reduce the reversible capacity of the battery during subsequent charge / discharge cycles. Again, the presence of small pieces of graphite can increase the thickness of this SEI layer and coating the particles helps to reduce it, by decreasing the Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller (BET) parameter for the particles. This is a measure of the effective surface area of the particles; the higher the BET surface area value, the greater the probability of sharp surfaces being present on the particles.

EngineeringCo uses a proprietary method for applying a 10 nm carbon-based coating on each of the particles, which is subsequently cured to polymerize the coating at the surface. The coating provides continuous coverage of each particle to reduce the BET surface area, while at the same time allowing the Li⁺ ions in the electrolyte to pass through small pores or channels, to contact the surface of the graphite particles in the anode. Larger molecules (such as the small pieces of graphite previously mentioned) are prevented from getting through. The ability to protect the surface of the anode without impeding the flow of Li⁺ ions is crucial for effective battery operation, and the proprietary coating allows this to happen.

The coating process is the final step in the production of the CSPG material, and the graphite is then ready to be used in the production of anodes for LIB testing.

All battery prototypes at EngineeringCo are individually produced, in either button (CR2016 or CR2032) or cylindrical (AA, 18650 or 32650) form factors, depending on the particular goals of the project. Putting together the batteries is undertaken in an argon glove box, because of the reactivity of the Li-ion electrolyte in the air. Dr. X indicated that in commercial facilities, the construction of batteries is undertaken in dry rooms which have a special atmosphere called ‘dry air’, which can be breathed by the workers in them, but which prevents the oxidation of the Li-ion electrolyte and other compounds used in battery construction.

For the cylindrical batteries, the anode, separator, and cathode components are wound together in a spiral, before being placed inside a cylinder. The anode is produced from a long strip of copper foil, typically 10 µm thick, which is coated on both sides with a paint of CSPG particles, each layer being approximately 45 µm thick. The cathode is produced from a long strip of aluminum foil, typically 20 µm thick, which is coated on both sides with a paint of one of several metal-oxide compounds, such as lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganate, or lithium nickel manganese cobalt, depending on the battery configuration to be tested. These cathode layers are approximately 90 µn;m thick.

Mixed in with this cathode metal-oxide powder is approximately 8 wt% of the conductivity-enhancement additives previously mentioned, that is typically equal parts carbon black and graphite. Such additives are always included in the cathode formulations. Typically, synthetic graphite is used, though as Dr. X commented previously, there is an opportunity to use the natural graphite that remains after spheroidizing, in this additive. The additive is required to improve the conductivity of the cathode during operation, as well as to control the viscosity of the paint when it is being applied to the foil. The graphite here therefore has a different function that the graphite being used in the anode. The aluminum foil used in the commercial production of cathodes may also be coated with carbon.

In between the anode and cathode strips is a 20-25 µm thick separator strip, typically produced from an ultra-high-molecular-weight polypropylene or polyethylene film, which has a controlled level of porosity. This gives some ‘space’ for the electrolyte between the two electrodes. The overall thickness of the anode component is approximately 100 µm, whereas the cathode strip is typically 190-200 µm thick. The difference in thickness is a result of the different reversible capacities of the materials used in the anodes, with the best cathode materials having values that are less than half that for natural-graphite anodes. Therefore, the cathode thickness is approximately double that of the anode, to balance the electrochemistry of the system, during operation. The diagram included in the images below shows a schematic of the anode / cathode / separator arrangement inside the battery.

Once the spiral has been wound and placed in the cylinder, the electrolyte is added, and the cylinder is sealed via either crimping or laser welding. Button-shaped battery prototypes use disks instead of spirals inside the container, though the configuration is effectively the same as for the spiral systems. The batteries are then ready to undergo proprietary formation, followed by testing, which involves repeated charging and discharging of the batteries, to determine the first-cycle losses, reversible capacity, and any changes in characteristics over time.

By the time of my visit, EngineeringCo had previously processed over 10 kg of AGC graphite material into CSPG material, and produced at least 50 batteries from it. Multiple prototypes and tests are required to establish representative performance metrics for the batteries, and the graphite contained within them.

The visit to EngineeringCo was very enlightening and it was a great opportunity to see the operations used to produce CSPG materials from AGC’s graphite, and the process of testing and evaluating such materials in actual battery prototypes. My thanks go to EngineeringCo, Dr. X and his colleagues for hosting me, PurificationCo and to Alabama Graphite Corp. for the invitation to see these processes in action.

Disclosure: at the time of writing, Gareth Hatch is neither a shareholder of, nor a consultant to, Alabama Graphite Corp. (“AGC”). Neither he nor Technology Metals Research, LLC received compensation from AGC or from anyone else, in return for the writing of this article.

It’s no secret that there is a surplus of cerium (Ce) supply within the rare-earth-element (REE) market. More recently I’ve been hearing folks grumbling that we will soon be awash with yttrium (Y) too, with more than one junior-mining executive referring to Y as “the Ce of the heavy REE world”…

While I do not agree with this sentiment when it comes to future Y supply, I am always interested to learn about potential new applications for this element, given the greater potential for availability in coming years. So when Ryan Castilloux, author of the recent Adamas Intelligence report “Rare Earth Market Outlook: Supply, Demand and Pricing from 2014-2020” told me about an emerging application that could dramatically increase demand for Y, I was intrigued. When he started talking about another application that could also significantly increase demand for Ce as well, I naturally started to pay close attention.

As part of his recent 12-month study of the rare-earth sector, Ryan uncovered these and numerous other potential new uses for REEs that could significantly impact demand before 2020. Not all of them have the same chances of penetrating the market, and the actual impact on demand will vary, but being aware of these new uses is vital to understanding the medium- and long-term prospects for the sector.

Following our recent discussion on his new report, I got together with Ryan again recently and persuaded him to discuss some of these emerging end uses in more detail. We put together a 40-minute video of the discussion, which I think you’ll find to be very interesting.

You can access the free video by clicking here or by clicking the image above. Get in touch with us if you have any questions on the discussion.

You can also get more details on Ryan’s 573-page report by visiting http://www.REEreport.com. – if you order an electronic copy of the report by the end of December 5, 2014, TMR will send you a free printed hard copy, as well as a copy of our forthcoming report on recent global rare-earth import & export statistics, covering dozens of individual rare-earth products and product groups.

You hardly need me to point out that the rare-earth junior mining sector is in a challenging place right now. The current state of rare-earth prices and their impact on the market cap of pretty much every company in the sector, has everyone concerned.

Are things going to get better? Are future rare-earth prices going to reach the numbers predicted in recent scoping and pre-feasibility studies? What will be the effects of the ongoing crackdown on illegal mining in China? What will the demand profile for individual rare earths really be, in the not-too-distant future?

These questions and more like them, were the basis of a 12-month-long ‘deep-dive’ study of the rare-earth sector by Adamas Intelligence. Adamas recently concluded that study and has published its findings in a 573-page report, titled “Rare Earth Market Outlook: Supply, Demand and Pricing from 2014-2020“.

I recently got together with Ryan Castilloux, founder of Adamas and the lead author on the report (which also looks at the period 2008-2013), to discuss some of its major findings.

We put together a 30-minute video of the discussion, which gets into the structure and content of the report, as well as featuring key data and charts to describe top-level data.


The good news? The market and prices are set to bounce back, particularly in the face of growing demand for individual rare earths, for specific applications.

Ryan has done a masterful job with this report, which is just about the most comprehensive review of the rare-earth sector that I’ve ever seen.

You can access the free video by clicking here or by clicking the image above. Get in touch with us if you have any questions on the discussion, or the report itself; and look out for details of a second video that we’re working on, discussing some exciting emerging end-use applications for rare earths, which could have a further positive impact on rare-earth demand before 2020.

On February 26, 2014, Tesla Motors Inc. (NDQ:TSLA) announced details of its long-awaited “gigafactory”, an ambitious plan to build a facility to manufacture lithium-ion batteries in large-enough quantities to meet the needs of the 500,000 electric vehicles (EVs) that the company plans to produce in 2020. Tesla proposes to build this facility somewhere in the southwest United States, in reasonable proximity to its California-based vehicle assembly plant.

Tesla’s plans call for the creation of 35 GWh/year of production capacity for its third-generation Model E vehicle, implying an average 70 kWh of storage capacity per vehicle. The plan calls for an additional 15 GWh/year of production capacity, presumably to meet the needs of additional ventures with which Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is involved.

In addition to the significant quantities of lithium, cobalt and other metals that the batteries from this proposed facility will require, even greater quantities of graphite will be needed to produce the anodes that are used in these batteries.

It is obviously early days for the gigafactory initiative, and a number of important details have yet to emerge. There is certainly no guarantee that Tesla will actually move forward with the project, or that it might not morph into some other form. Nonetheless, it is important that the supply chain gets itself ready to participate.

Bloomberg picked up on the use of graphite in lithium-ion batteries in a March 14, 2014 article. Titled “Teslas in California Help Bring Dirty Rain to China“, Bloomberg linked the future Tesla facility to the significant pollution generated by China’s natural-graphite industry, which has “fouled air and water, damaged crops and raised health concerns“. Of particular concern is the use of acids by the Chinese industry to purify mined graphite so that it can be used in battery anodes.

Tesla’s battery supplier is Panasonic Corporation (TYO:6752), providing battery packs for the Tesla Model S vehicle that contain more than 7,100 individual 18650-model cells. It is unclear if Panasonic uses synthetic or natural graphite in these batteries, or how such materials are processed. Mr. Musk did use his Twitter account on the same day that the Bloomberg article was published, to describe the accusations as “[b]eyond ridiculous“.

Nonetheless, synthetic graphite is twice the cost of battery-grade natural-flake graphite, and is typically derived from petroleum coke, which relies on crude oil as its source. Tesla has a stated goal of reducing the unit cost of battery production by a minimum of 30% between now and the initial ramp-up of the Model E in 2017. Natural flake graphite stands to play a significant role in reducing the unit costs of battery production and in reducing the environmental footprint associated with production, if acid-based purification steps can be avoided.

The present flake-graphite market is dominated by China; aside from the issues of pollution, there is increasing evidence that the country’s flake-graphite resources are becoming depleted. Fortunately, there are a number of promising flake-graphite projects under development outside of China.

Producing battery-grade flake graphite
As with any natural resource, the quantity and grade of any given graphite deposit is important, but the type and distribution of the flake size, their purity and their amenability to processing dictate the quality of any given project.

The graphite ore is mined from the deposit and is subject to standard beneficiation processes, such as crushing, milling and flotation. The higher the initial head grade, the cheaper this process will generally be, all other things being equal. The resulting graphite concentrate, known as run-of-mine, or ROM concentrate, is typically sold directly to end-users in a number of sectors. Some junior mining companies are planning to upgrade a portion of that ROM concentrate internally for specific applications, such as the high-purity graphite used in the production of battery anodes.

Battery-grade graphite requires very high purity levels, typically >99.9% carbon-as-graphite (Cg). This material also needs to be spheroidized using careful processes that convert the flat graphite flakes into potato-like shapes, which pack much more efficiently into a given space. The high purity levels and the enhanced “tapping” density (to >0.9 kg/m³) are important for producing the high electrical conductivity that is required during anode operation.

Spheroidizing the graphite flakes also reduces their size, a process known as micronization. Standard battery-grade materials require an average diameter of approximately 10-30 μm, so in theory, feedstock materials with flake sizes greater than 30 μm (+400 mesh) could be used. However, starting purity levels tend to decrease with flake size, so flake material with an average diameter of 150 μm (+150 mesh) or greater is typically used. This is, of course, a double-edged sword, since the larger the flakes used, the more energy will be required to reduce the average size of the flakes to the desired 10-30 μm. Smaller particles are preferred, as this makes it easier for the lithium ions in the electrolyte to diffuse between graphite particles.

It should be noted that it is the tendency for purity levels to increase with flake size that is the real reason for the common ‘mantra’ that for battery-grade materials, the bigger the flake size, the better. In fact, the ideal precursor material would have small flake size if it had sufficient purity levels for the subsequent processing to be cost-effective.

One other important factor in the production of battery-grade materials is that of wastage. The standard spheroidizing and micronizing processes used in China waste up to 60-70% of the mass of total graphite flakes present during processing. Therefore, for every one tonne of spheroidal graphite produced in China, approximately three tonnes of feedstock materials might be required (though the waste materials can be used for other purposes).

The graphite may be purified before or after spheroidizing and micronizing, depending on the manufacturer. As mentioned earlier, the low-cost approach typically used in China is to leach the impurities from the graphite with acid, with the associated environmental concerns that that brings. Alternatively (and far more acceptable in Western jurisdictions), a thermal process can be applied. This typically involves the use of halogen gases to cause chemical reactions at high temperatures with the impurities, which covert the resulting compounds into gases too and eliminate them from the bulk graphite material. The higher the starting purity levels of the graphite after initial concentration at the mine site, the lower the cost will be for purification, and this can make a substantial difference when comparing concentrate feedstocks with different starting purity levels. TMR estimates that the cost difference in purifying a 95% Cg concentrate to >99.9% Cg, versus taking a 98% Cg concentrate to >99.9% Cg could be as much as $2-3,000/t of concentrate, using thermal processes.

The final step for preparing spheroidal graphite for anode production is the application of a coating to the particles to reduce their specific surface area. This is important, as reducing the specific surface area will increase the long-term capacity of the battery cell. Intercalation of the electrolyte solvent into the graphite and its reaction with it causes expansion of the graphite, with the potential for delamination and a lowering of the life expectancy.

During the first charge of the battery cell, an initial, irreversible chemical reaction occurs between the electrolyte and the graphite in the anode, resulting in the formation of a so-called surface electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer. Once formed, this layer reduces further decomposition of the electrolyte and actually protects the graphite anode from exfoliating.

With too large a specific surface area, the formation of the SEI layer can reduce the graphite’s ability to subsequently hold and to release the lithium ions in the electrolyte, thus reducing lifetime capacity for the battery. Coating the graphite prior to anode production reduces this effect and helps to maintain the maximum capacity possible for the battery. The coating can also reduce the chances of a runaway chemical reaction in the battery.

Such coatings are typically carbon- (not graphite-) based; uncoated spheroidal graphite typically sells for $3-4,000/metric tonne (t); coated spheroidal graphite sells for $9-10,000/t. The battery manufacturers typically apply these coatings, though some traders will buy uncoated materials and apply coatings before selling the finished product to the battery manufacturers.

How much battery-grade graphite will Tesla need?
Let’s return now to Tesla and its proposed gigafactory. We know that the 500,000 EVs that Tesla has planned for 2020 will require a total of 35 GWh of energy storage. We now need to determine how much graphite will be contained in those batteries.

The Department of Energy estimates that graphite constitutes approximately 16% by weight of a typical lithium-ion battery. The Panasonic spec sheet for its 18650 batteries indicates that each cell weighs 45 g, which means that the 7,104 cells in the 85 kWh battery pack for the 2013 Tesla Model S weigh approximately 320 kg. We can therefore estimate that these batteries use approximately 0.62 kg of graphite/kWh storage capacity – over 54 kg of graphite per 85 kWh vehicle. Note that the battery pack for a Tesla Model S is approximately four times the capacity of a “standard” battery EV.

This translates into approximately 21,600 t of graphite required for the 500,000 batteries (each with 70 kWh capacity) needed in 2020. However, we need to account for the relatively low (30%) yield of battery-grade graphite, using current processing methods. This means that some 72,050 t of graphite feedstock would actually be required for these batteries at those yields.

Using today’s prices for synthetic (~$20,000/t) and coated spheroidal natural graphite (~$10,000/t), all other things being equal, a switch from all-synthetic to all-natural-graphite anodes for those 500,000 EVs/year would save $216M in material costs, which translates to over $6/kWh, or over $430 per vehicle. Not a bad start.

On top of the batteries for its EVs, Tesla will need a further 9,250 t of graphite for the additional 15 GWh/year of non-EV capacity at the gigafactory, which in turn, would require 30,900 t of graphite feedstocks for the production of battery-grade materials, at current yield levels.

This is a total of just under 30,900 t of graphite in the batteries, requiring 102,900 t of feedstocks using current processing methods and yields. This is over 125% of the global natural flake graphite market, currently at 80-85,000 t/year!

Who can supply this battery-grade graphite?
Clearly, there is a potential significant imbalance between current levels of supply and the projected future demand for graphite, if the Tesla gigafactory comes on-stream.

TMR tracks graphite projects under development via the TMR Advanced Graphite Projects Index. The minimum requirement for a project’s inclusion on the Index is for it to have an NI 43-101- or JORC Code-compliant mineral resource estimate. At present, there are 23 such mineral resources on the Index associated with 20 graphite projects being developed by 16 different companies in 8 countries. Those resources are:

Projects on the TMR Advanced Graphite Projects Index (March 2014)

Project	Location	Owner	Ticker Symbol(s)	Resource
Albany	CAN	Zenyatta Ventures Ltd.	TSX.V:ZEN	NI 43-101
Balama East	MOZ	Syrah Resources Ltd.	ASX:SYR	JORC
Balama West	MOZ	Syrah Resources Ltd.	ASX:SYR	JORC
Bissett Creek	CAN	Northern Graphite Corporation	TSX.V:NGC, OTCBB:NGPHF	NI 43-101
Campoona	AUS	Archer Exploration Ltd.	ASX:AXE	JORC
Epanko	TZA	Kibaran Resources Limited	ASX:KNL	JORC
Geuman	KOR	Lamboo Resources Ltd.	ASX:LMB	JORC
Graphite Creek	USA	Graphite One Resources, Inc.	TSX.V:GPH, OTCQX:GPHOF	NI 43-101
Kearney	CAN	Ontario Graphite Co.	N/A	NI 43-101
Kookaburra Gully	AUS	Lincoln Minerals Limited	ASX:LML	JORC
Koppio	AUS	Lincoln Minerals Limited	ASX:LML	JORC
Kringel	SWE	Flinders Resources Ltd.	TSX.V:FDR	NI 43-101
Lac Guéret	CAN	Mason Graphite Corp	TSX.V:LLG	NI 43-101
Lac Knife	CAN	Focus Graphite Inc.	TSX.V:FMS, OTXQX:FCSMF, F:FKC	NI 43-101
McIntosh	AUS	Lamboo Resources Ltd.	ASX.LMB	JORC
Mousseau West	CAN	Graniz Mondal Inc.	TSX.V:GRA.H	NI 43-101
Molo	MDG	Energizer Resources Inc.	TSX:EGZ, OTCBB:ENZR	NI 43-101
Nunasvaara	SWE	Talga Resources Limited	ASX:TLG	JORC
Raitajärvi	SWE	Talga Resources Limited	ASX:TLG	JORC
Samcheok	KOR	Lamboo Resources Ltd.	ASX:LMB	JORC
Taehwa	KOR	Lamboo Resources Ltd.	ASX:LMB	JORC
Uley Main Road	AUS	Valence Industries Limited	ASX:VXL	JORC

Any number of these projects potentially has what it takes to become successful graphite mines, especially given the pressure that demand from lithium-ion batteries and other applications might put on the overall supply chain. However, to be in a position to be able to produce battery-grade graphite by 2017, when Tesla says that it will commence production ramp up of the Model E, only projects that are far enough along are likely to have the opportunity to capitalize on the demand from the gigafactory. One can argue as to how to define “far enough along,” but my suggested requirements would include:

• The project should have as a minimum, Demonstrated mineral resources (i.e. Measured + Indicated);
• The project should have a completed Feasibility Study *FS), or have one underway;
• A purification process for getting to battery-grade (>99.9% Cg) should have been defined and successfully tested (preferably without using the wet acid method); and
• A spheroidization and micronization process should have been defined and tested.

Additional considerations relate specifically to potential costs of production, and include:

• Initial grade of in-situ graphite (relates to beneficiation costs);
• The resulting purity levels of the resulting run-of-mine (ROM) concentrates after beneficiation (relates to subsequent purification costs);
• The proportion of smaller flake materials with higher purity levels after beneficiation (related to subsequent spheroidization and micronization costs and yield levels);
• Whether or not a coating process has been developed and tested for the spheroidal graphite; and
• Proximity of the project to the southwest US, proposed home of the Tesla gigafactory.

I acknowledge that there can be no ‘definitive’ list of criteria for assessing projects for this exercise, but nevertheless, the above are what I’ve chosen to use. I re-iterate that I am looking here only at the potential ability of graphite projects to service the needs of the Tesla gigafactory within the announced time frame for its development. There are plenty of other future opportunities for companies and projects that might not quite be ready for the gigafactory.

Applying the initial set of criteria to the projects on the TMR Index results in the following three companies (in alphabetical order) and their projects:

• Focus Graphite Inc. with the Lac Knife project in Quebec, Canada;
• Northern Graphite Corp. with the Bissett Creek project in Ontario, Canada; and
• Syrah Resources Ltd. with the Balama project in Mozambique.

It should be noted that additional companies may be developing high-purity, spheroidized and micronized battery-grade graphite, but to my knowledge, these are the only three that have discussed such developments and their achievements in the public domain, and which meet the other primary criteria.

Focus Graphite Inc.
Focus announced the completion of a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) in October 2012 on its Lac Knife project in Quebec, Canada. In November 2013, the company updated the economics for the PEA, which put the capex requirement for going into production at $126M (including a $24M contingency). It also announced commencement of a definitive FS for Lac Knife, which is slated for completion by late spring or early summer this year.

Lac Knife has total Demonstrated mineral resources of 9.6 Mt @ an average 14.8% Cg. Focus plans to produce 44,300 t/year of graphite from the future mine, with a mine life of 20 years. Metallurgical work to date indicates that the ROM concentrate will have a purity level of >96.6% Cg and will cost a total of $458/t to produce.

The flake graphite in the Lac Knife ROM concentrate is distributed as follows:

The >98% Cg purity levels of the Lac Knife flake above 75 μm (constituting almost 80% of the content) is particularly high. The company recently indicated that this is a result of most of the impurities being found at the surface of the flakes, instead of being “ingrained” in the layers.

In November 2013, Focus announced that it was working on the production of spheroidal graphite from Lac Knife concentrates and the development of purification processes for producing battery-grade graphite. During this month’s PDAC Convention in Toronto, Focus showed samples of 99.95% Cg battery-grade, spheroidal graphite. Company management has subsequently indicated that coatings for this battery-grade material are currently being tested, the results of which should be announced in the near future.

In an industry first, Focus announced a significant off-take agreement in December 2013 with a Chinese industrial conglomerate for up to 40,000 t/year of its concentrates. A clarification earlier this month indicated that this agreement calls for a minimum purchase of 20,000 t/year by this Chinese group.

Northern Graphite Corp.
Northern announced the completion of a definitive FS in July 2012 on its Bissett Creek project in Ontario, Canada. In August 2013, the company received final approval for the project and was granted a mining lease, allowing it to begin construction subject to financing. In September 2013, the company updated the economics for the FS, which put the capex requirement for producing 20,800 t/year, with a mine life of 28 years, at $101.6M (including a $9.3M contingency). Operating costs were estimated at $795/t ROM concentrate.

In October 2013, Northern announced the completion of an “Expansion Case” PEA for the Bissett Creek project, which would see an increase in the production rate to 33,183 t, an initial capex of 146.8M and reduced operating costs of $695/t.

Bissett Creek has Probable mineral reserves of 28.3 Mt @ 2.1% Cg. Total Demonstrated mineral resources are an estimated 69.8 Mt @ an average 1.7% Cg. Metallurgical work to date indicates that the ROM concentrate will have a purity level of >96% Cg.

The flake graphite in the Bissett Creek ROM concentrate is distributed as follows:

In October 2012, Northern announced that it had successfully produced spheroidal graphite from Bissett Creek concentrates, with up to 70% yields when starting with so-called large (180-300 μm or -50 / +80 mesh) flake. In September 2013, the company announced the development of a proprietary method for the purification of concentrates and spheroidized graphite to 99.95% Cg. The company claims that the cost of this purification process will be less than $1,000/t. Company management indicates that this is a “low-temperature thermal process” that uses no acids, in which a mixture of gases, tailored to the impurities and mineralogy of the Bissett Creek deposit, is used.

In November 2013, Northern announced that it had partnered with Coulometrics to develop coatings for their spheroidal graphite, and earlier this month, the company announced the completion and successful testing of this work.

Syrah Resources Ltd.
Syrah announced the completion of a Scoping Study (SS) for its Balama West deposit in June 2013, one of a number of endeavors associated with its Balama project. However, because the study was based on an Inferred mineral resource only, the company was required to clarify that the SS did not demonstrate economic viability. I have been unable to find many more details or numbers in an announcement on the SS itself. Balama West was subsequently upgraded, with reported total Demonstrated mineral resources of 13.6Mt @ 19.8% Cg.

A statement in December 2013 indicated that the company was in the process of undertaking an FS to be completed by Q1 2014.

In January 2014, Syrah announced that it had purified ROM concentrate to >99.9% Cg using a “chemical wash” containing acids. Earlier this month, the company announced that it had produced spheroidal graphite with an average diameter of 4.7 μm, from a 100 μm feedstock. It is unclear as to why the graphite was micronized to below the standard 10-30 μm range typically used for battery anodes.

The flake graphite in Balama East ROM concentrate is distributed as follows [per the same announcement made earlier this month]:

It should be noted that the published flake size ranges are for Balama East (which does not have Demonstrated mineral resources), as opposed to the Balama West deposit.

In March 2014, Syrah announced the completion of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a subsidiary of Chinalco Group of China for an off-take of 80-100,000 t of graphite over an unspecified time period. The MOU required the two parties to negotiate a binding off-take agreement within three months of execution.

Discussion
From their public announcements, it is clear that these three companies are well on their way to achieving the technical milestones required for the production of battery-grade graphite.

In terms of other parameters, however, it may be a little early to determine if Syrah Resources will be able to provide such materials in time for the launch of the proposed Tesla gigafactory. The lack of a detailed, published SS summary or other quantitative analysis makes it difficult to evaluate the applicability of the Balama project to the gigafactory at this time. Completing a binding off-take agreement with the Chinalco subsidiary could go some way to assuaging such uncertainty; however, the larger issue probably relates to the location of the deposit in Mozambique – a long way from southwest United States. This distance puts Balama at a disadvantage in terms of transportation costs when compared to the other two projects, and potential access to infrastructure.

In terms of technical progress, the results announced by Northern Graphite to date indicate that it has a product that is ready to go for the battery market, with similar definitive results expected from Focus Graphite in the very near future. Based on the Bissett Creek Expansion Case PEA and the Lac Knife PEA (and subsequent updates), Focus appears to have significantly lower operating costs to produce its ROM concentrate, and the resulting concentrate has higher Cg purity levels across the various flake-size ranges.

The projects of both of these companies are located in Canada, which presents relatively inexpensive transportation costs for getting materials to the southwest United States.

It is always hard to compare ‘apples to apples’ when it comes to graphite project flake size, as each company has its own mesh size ranges that it uses to report. However, it appears that the Lac Knife ROM concentrate has a significantly higher proportion of flake, at higher purity levels after beneficiation than that for Bissett Creek. Northern states that the cost to get to high-purity battery grade with its proprietary process is less than $1,000/t; how much less will determine the overall costs required to get from the lower purity levels in the ROM concentrate to 99.9% Cg. Starting at levels above 98% Cg, as Lac Knife does, is a distinct advantage.

The completion of a definitive FS for Northern’s project means that the costs of production of ROM concentrate that result from the study have a higher degree of certainty at this point than those detailed in the Lac Knife PEA (and subsequent updates) for Focus Graphite. Relying on the Expansion Case PEA lowers the production-cost estimates for Bissett Creek, but decreases the accuracy of those numbers compared to the original FS.

It remains to be seen if there will be any increase in anticipated product costs in the forthcoming Lac Knife FS. The costs would have to increase by more than 50%, however, to reach those estimated in the Bissett Creek Expansion Case PEA. The Lac Knife cost advantage is likely a result of the significantly higher grade to be found at Lac Knife (14.8% Cg for Demonstrated resources vs. 1.7% Cg at Bissett Creek), and the proposed larger annual production rate, which naturally gives economies of scale. One might question why the estimated cost differential is not actually higher, given the distinct baseline differences, but it likely indicates that the cost of physical comminution (crushing and grinding) of the graphite ore is a relatively small fraction of the overall mining and processing costs.

Finally, there can be no mine without the financing to construct and to operate the mine. While Northern is no doubt negotiating with third-parties on future off-take agreements and other arrangements, the fact that Focus was the first company in the sector to complete such an agreement, and for such a substantial proportion of its planned output, is significant.

Based on the above criteria, I believe that both Northern and Focus have the potential to take advantage of the Tesla gigafactory, if it comes to fruition. Given the volumes of material required, it is entirely possible that both could service the supply chain requirements. I believe, however, that Focus may well stand to gain greater benefit from the opportunity that the gigafactory presents. Its lower ROM concentrate operating costs, likely lower battery-grade purification costs and the fact that it has already secured a significant off-take agreement (making it that much easier to finance the eventual construction of the mine) are key factors.

I wish both companies well, and I make one last observation. Even if the Tesla gigafactory does not come to pass, there will undoubtedly be opportunities for these and other graphite companies to service the needs of the wider EV market in the years to come. Doing so does not need to come at the expense of the environment either, as appears to be the case in the Chinese graphite sector.

Vehicles ‘fueled’ by electricity, especially electricity generated via renewable means, need to be built using as sustainable and environmentally-friendly a supply chain as possible. In the case of batteries for EVs and the graphite required to make them, natural-flake sources are clearly the way to go.

Disclosure: at the time of writing, Gareth Hatch is neither a shareholder of, nor a consultant to any of the companies mentioned in this article.

Earlier today I got word that the US Department of Energy (DOE) has released an update to its Critical Materials Strategy, which was first published as a report in December 2011 2010. This document has helped to shape a fair amount of the debate on rare earths in particular, and critical & strategic materials in general, in the past 12 months.

You can download a copy of the report from here.

I’m still digesting the contents of the report; I can tell you that the DOE still considers the five rare earths dysprosium, neodymium, terbium, europium and yttrium to be critical in the short and medium term; indium is judged to now be near-critical in the near term, compared to being categorized as critical in the 2010 report.

New sections include one that covers the use of rare earths in fluid cracking catalysts, and how the petrochemical refining industry reacted to escalating prices of materials in 2011.

More to follow once we’ve had a chance to read through the report more thoroughly.

Update (01/17/12): the URLs for the report have been updated, since the original links no longer work.

I guess that there’s no need now to worry about the future supply of the rare-earth metals. Earlier today the Wall Street Journal reported, in an article entitled “Rare Earths Grow Less Rare“, that Goldman Sachs says that although supplies will remain tight in 2011 and 2012 and prices will remain high, we can be assured (by Goldman Sachs analysts) that the rare earth supply shortage situation will end in 2013 as new supplies come on stream from outside of China.

I sincerely wonder if this is even good nonsense.

With the exception of the fluid cracking catalyst manufacturing industry, which uses chemical compounds of the rare earths produced early in the rare-earth refining process, the overwhelming majority of end users of the rare earths use and require high-purity metals and alloys of the rare earths for their products.

The only three companies today producing significant quantities outside of China, of high-purity metals or alloys, or both, are:

1. Molycorp, via the recently acquired operations in Estonia (from Silmet) and Arizona (from Santoku America);
2. Great Western Mineral Group, via its wholly owned UK subsidiary, Less Common Metals, Ltd.; and
3. Japan’s Santoku, based in Kobe, Japan.

The feed stock for all of these operations, other than the Estonian one, comes from China. The high-purity-metals and -alloys capacity of all three combined, is less than 5% of the world’s total demand.

A number of junior-mining ventures have announced that they will be producing “rare earths” in 2011-15. The mining analysts do not seem to know or recognize that the production of rare earths is not a well-defined phrase. Mines produce ore concentrates. Most so-called “metal” mines then chemically extract the metal values, as chemical compounds, from the mechanically produced ore concentrates. Different metal miners then traditionally do their own thing, so to speak, with the chemical solutions containing the extracted metals.

Copper miners, for example, typically refine their ore concentrates to the metallic state. The quality (grade) of the copper metal produced is determined by the extent and capability of the processing undertaken by the miner. Even those miners of copper who produce high-purity copper “cathodes” by electro-refining are not normally the producers of the final use products, such as wire rod, sheet, and plate. These are produced, for example in the case of electrical conducting wire, by a specialized industry (for example, a ‘wire’ industry), which itself sells only fabricated copper forms to manufacturers who make such devices as electric motors and generators and wiring harnesses for motor vehicles. I can’t think of a vertically integrated manufacturer,for example, of electric motors, i.e. one that mines copper, refines and purifies it, fabricates industrial forms, and builds electric motors. If a reader knows of one please let me know.

The reason that there are no vertically integrated manufacturers of electric motors is the complexity, the engineering and management skills, and the capital costs that would be required. Traditionally end users of fabricated forms of metals want multiple suppliers to keep the costs down and also want the security of assured supply to be at a maximum.

Analogously, lead miners may smelt the ores they mine and concentrate and produce ingots but they do not make battery alloys, battery plates, or batteries.

Iron miners do not generally produce steel, and even the ones who do that, such as China’s immense Bao Steel, do not produce automobiles, dishwashers, or household tools.

The first rare-earth products that will be produced outside of China will be mechanically concentrated ores, the lowest value sellable product in the supply chain. It will then be necessary, in all cases, to chemically extract the mixed rare earths from the ore concentrates, and by chemical processing isolate the mixed rare earths from any other metals that may be present in the ore. The result will be isolated (but still mixed together) rare earths, either in chemical solution or as chemical solids, typically carbonates, These forms at this early stage of refining are also a selling point in the value chain.

The next step, historically first done commercially in the USA by Molycorp, is to treat the mixed rare earths in chemical form in a solvent exchange “separation plant.” This is an expensive facility to build, as it can easily involve hundreds of repetitive steps taking up to a month to finish a single batch of material, and although batches can be run almost continuously the size of the plant must reflect the optimum large batch size for producing enough volume to make a profit, by selling the resulting commercially pure separated chemical compounds.

Molycorp has said that it plans to ultimately produce up to 50,000 tpa of rare earths, which means, if this means rare-earth metals, its separation plant must be delivering 140 tpd of product and must be processing 4,175 t at any one time. If this is to be done in one separation plant, it will be the largest one in the world. I don’t think that Molycorp will be unable to do this; I only question the amount of time that it will take to construct, prove out, and operate a plant of this size. By the way, if Molycorp is speaking of the production of metals, then the throughput of chemicals will be some 250 tpd with a load of 7,500 t just of product in the system. That’s 15 million pounds of material being processed at any one time.

In any case, whatever the output of the Molycorp separation plant, it will need to be of very high quality (purity) in order to minimize the cost and time required for the next step, the ultra-purification of the rare earths by the method of ion-exchange. The separated, commercially pure rare-earth compounds that are the output of the separation plant are sellable at a higher price than that to be realized either from the ore concentrate or from the sale of the mixed chemically extracted rare earth compounds that were fed into the separation plant.The ultra-purified forms from the ion exchange process are of much higher value yet.

Note that at any step in the purification process, all of the rare earths have to be separated from each other in order to purify them. This means that economically, the very small amounts of the higher atomic-numbered “heavy” rare earths in any deposit, cannot be produced economically, unless as many of the other rare earths present with the “heavies”can also be sold, not just recovered.

This is the dilemma of the deposits of the rare earths that show relatively high values for the heavy rare earths. They cannot possibly be profitably produced just by producing and selling only the heavy rare earths, because their processing will be too expensive to compete for markets for their simultaneously produced light rare earths when up against lower-cost light-rare-earth-producing behemoths such as Molycorp, Lynas, or Bao.

A straightforward solution would be for an end user to buy the critical heavy rare earths, and all of its needs for the light rare earths, from the heavy-rare-earth producer. This might necessitate paying more than the market price for the light rare earths, but it would secure the supply of the critical heavy rare earths, for example, for under the hood applications of rare-earth permanent magnets by an automaker.

In any case, before we make the most important rare-earth product, magnets, we must first be able to make pure metals and pure alloys. The processes for these require tight controls of temperature and pressure and expensive equipment operated by skilled workers.

Rare-earth metals can be produced by reducing a chemical form such as a chloride with high-purity magnesium, calcium, or lithium. They can also be prepared by electrochemical reduction of molten ionic salts of the rare earths. The analyst community writes about these processes as if they are easy to do because others, such as the Chinese, have done them and are doing them, so how hard can it be? I have actually heard it said that if the Chinese can do it then anyone can do it. This is racist sentiment, and is simply not true.

The production of high-purity metals is as much an art as it is science and engineering. It requires diligent attention to operational details and mis-steps that can contaminate, and thus ruin the end product. Continuity of engineering, a practice denigrated by American capitalists, is key to any such project. One learns how to purify metals by doing it, not by reading manuals.

However, that having been said, let’s say that it is now several years from now and we have non-Chinese production of high-purity rare-earth metals. These are very sellable at significant margins over production cost, and, in my opinion, represent the best first selling point in the supply chain for a vertically integrated (from the mine onwards) rare-earth producer. It will not be easy for a miner to become a producer of high-purity rare-earth metals. This challenge will separate the men from the boys immediately.

To make rare-earth permanent magnets, which are the most profitable selling point that any rare-earth vertically integrated producer could hope to reach, requires the skills to make high-purity fabricated forms of neodymium-iron-boron and samarium-cobalt alloys. The knowledge of how to add various other enabling elements such as dysprosium will also be required. Such knowledge today requires access to proprietary information about complex physical and chemical processes that have been developed through man years of research and development and trial and error. These skills CANNOT be learned from a manual or by reading patents.

I am reluctant to believe that junior miners with only, at best, limited knowledge of the chemistry and metallurgy of the rare earths, will even be able to produce separated commercially pure chemical compounds. Yet I am told by analysts that all one has to do is find a rare-earth deposit and the end-use product, the rare-earth permanent magnet, can not only be produced but can be produced easily by the junior miner. Oh, and all of these skills, I am further informed, will be learned and mastered in just a couple of years.

What I think is that of the more than 220 listed rare-earth junior miners outside of China that my colleague Gareth is tracking as of April 2011, there will now be a cull. If rare-earth pricing requires that one must produce high-purity metals to provide a minimum return on the needed investment to develop a mine, then perhaps a dozen of these ventures will survive even until 2013. If it is necessary to produce alloys from which rare-earth permanent magnets can be formed, in order for a rare-earth miner to be profitable, then only at most half a dozen will survive and then only if they can produce the alloys in-house.

There is a caveat. A miner producing rare earths as a byproduct of a profitable operation, such as iron-ore mining or gold mining can, of course, be a profitable rare-earth-ore-concentrate seller, because his overheads are covered by the primary production. I know of one such venture, not yet listed, currently in operation, and I am looking at another two later this summer. I call these boutique metals operations, and, of course, they do not need to produce rare earths to be profitable.

Note that even the above caveat has a caveat. A rare-earth refiner who needs feedstock, such as we are hearing is the case with some of the Chinese rare-earth separation plants, needs a steady high-volume flow to “load”his plant. He cannot be changing the feed chemistry in his process arbitrarily at any time. The minimum requirement will be to load the plant for a process cycle. This means that the refiner needs to only source from fairly large operations, and this minimum size is going to be an issue of long-term capital outlays with a low probability of a competitive return on the investment. For those who will not do their own separation and further refining,  it is a horse race to see which if any of the ore concentrators/chemical extractors can be first to a very limited market.

I do not think that the world demand for high-purity rare-earth metals and alloys, for use outside of China, will be met by non-Chinese production by 2013, because until there is a high rate of production of commercially pure separated rare-earth chemical compounds, there will simply not be enough feedstock to gamble on continuous large-scale production of these high-tech materials, by those who have never before done such high volume processing of such complex materials.

The problem is thus the potential of an export reduction or total cutoff of rare earths contained in finished goods, which is not the case at the moment. This potential Chinese action is a critical issue for the Japanese rare-earth permanent-magnet and battery-alloy manufacturing industry. It is not an issue in the USA or Europe, where neither product type is produced, or has been produced, except in very limited volumes,in more than a decade. It will only be an issue in the USA and Europe, if China cuts off the export of rare earths contained in finished goods such as batteries, lasers, and rare-earth permanent magnets.

I think that Goldman Sach’s analysts are wrong, because they do not understand manufacturing, chemical, or mining engineering, and they do not understand the makeup of the “rare-earths” market; most of all, because they underestimate the power and growing technical and financial skills of China, Inc.

The survivors of the coming rare-earth junior-mining cull will be the earliest to production of commercially useful forms of the rare earths, the high-purity chemicals, metals, and alloys. There will be no large-scale sustained production of any of these forms outside of China, the metals and alloys in particular, for several years yet.

As for the production of high volumes of rare-earth permanent magnets with tightly held specifications, by those not now producing them, I think it will be more than 5 years before we see a new competitor to China and Japan in this category, if ever…

Disclosure: At the time of writing, Jack Lifton is long on Great Western Minerals Group (TSX.V:GWG).

A couple of weeks ago the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced a Request for Information (RFI) on rare-earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. This follows on from a similar solicitation made last year, that culminated in the publication of the DOE’s Critical Materials Strategy in December 2010.

The DOE says that this second RFI will be used to update the Critical Materials Strategy, and will also cover areas not considered in the original document, such as fluid-cracking catalyst materials for the petroleum refining industry.

The DOE is soliciting information in eight categories:

1. Critical Material Content
2. Supply Chain and Market Projections
3. Financing and Purchasing Transactions
4. Research, Education and Training
5. Energy Technology Transitions and Emerging Technologies
6. Recycling Opportunities
7. Mine and Processing Plant Permitting
8. Additional Information

The deadline for RFI submissions is May 24, 2011 and submissions from the public are welcomed. You can get more information from the DOE Web site.

By Mike Ramsey – Wall Street journal – Published: January 14, 2011

Toyota Motor Corp. is striving to develop a new type of electric motor to escape a simmering trade conflict involving China’s grip on a rare mineral.

The Japanese auto maker believes it is near a breakthrough in developing electric motors for hybrid cars that eliminates the use of rare earth metals, whose prices have risen sharply in the past year as China restricted supply. The minerals are found in the magnets used in the motors.

All electric motors rely on magnets to make them work. The new motor Toyota is working on is based on the very common and inexpensive induction motor, found in such devices as kitchen mixers. Induction motors use electromagnets—magnets that only have their magnetic attraction when power is applied to them.

Most motors used in electric and hybrid cars today use a different type of motor that relies on permanent magnets. These magnets always have a magnetic field—akin to the magnets used to attach things to refrigerator doors.

But the permanent magnets found in electric-car motors, unlike those that hold up the school lunch menu, are made from neodymium, a rare-earth mineral that is almost entirely mined and refined in China.

As car companies race to improve electric and hybrid vehicles, their reliance on metals like neodymium and lithium—used in batteries found in electric and hybrid cars—is raising a host of new geopolitical issues over access to the minerals. The supply of many of these minerals is controlled by China.

Toyota has taken several steps to reduce its dependence on China for the materials, including investing in a lithium venture in Argentina and launching a joint venture in Vietnam to prospect for rare metals like neodymium.

The auto industry purchases 40% of the world’s supply of neodymium and Toyota buys more than any other company, said Jack Lifton, a rare earth materials expert and founder of Technology Metals Research in Carpentersville, Ill. There is about a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of neodymium in every Prius, he said. Toyota declined to comment on this figure.

“It would be a big change in demand for neodymium” if Toyota switched to an induction motor, said Mr. Lifton.

General Motors Co., which launched its Volt electric car last month, also is looking into alternative types of motors. “We have ongoing development in those areas and the induction motors do work,” said Pete Savagian, who leads GM’s hybrid powertrain engineering division.

Continental AG of Germany, one of the world’s largest auto parts makers, said it already has developed a rare-earth-free motor that will be used in an undisclosed electric car due out in Europe this year. This motor uses a variation of an electric motor often found in power plants.

Part of the rationale for developing this motor is to avoid rare earth metals, but it mostly is a move to lower costs, said Mike Crane, who runs Continental’s hybrid and electric vehicle programs.

“Even in the best scenario of supply, these [rare earth-based] magnets are very expensive,” Mr. Crane said.

China produces about 95% of the world’s supply of neodymium and last summer the country began restricting exports. In December, China announced a 67% increase in export tariffs on the metal and has declared new limits on exports this year.

Neodymium prices have quadrupled in the past year, according to Lynas Corp., an Australian company developing a giant mine and refinery for the material.

Rare earth minerals are a grouping of 17 chemically similar elements that are usually found together in ore and are refined and split apart. They are used in magnets and semiconductors and a host of other technologies. The U.S. and Australia have deposits of them but lack the expertise in extracting and refining the minerals.

For Toyota, getting around this barrier is crucial. The auto maker at this week’s Detroit car show announced the expansion of its hybrid-electric lineup by adding two new Prius variants and plans to spread the technology to all of its models in the next decade.

“The technology that would allow us not to use the magnets and yet to make a smaller size, high-performance motor will come soon,” said Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota’s global chief engineer.

“We currently have such a motor, but controlling the motor is rather difficult,” he said.

Mr. Uchiyamada wouldn’t say when the motor would be introduced.

Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the new motor could come in the “near term.” He added: “It looks like we could reduce cost, weight and mass and avoid the geopolitical issues with the rare earth metals.”

Elias Strangas, an electrical engineering professor at Michigan State University, said induction motors that serve as the basis of Toyota’s work “are cheap to make and as rugged as you can get, but they are not terribly efficient, and they are big.” Improving them “is kind of a holy grail in motors.”

Prof. Strangas said he had heard rumors of Toyota working on an advanced induction motor, but hasn’t seen a published study on the work. “I would like to see the numbers [on the motor’s performance] to say they are convincing,” he said.

The permanent magnet motor took off only in the past decade as car makers tried to find more efficient and powerful motors for electric vehicles and hybrids.

“But then we discovered they are a bit expensive, and the rare-earth places where they are mined are not too many,” Prof. Strangas said. “We are now trying to revisit very old technology and remove the problems” in induction motors.

At the same time, Toyota affiliate Toyota Tsusho Corp., which imports metals, said in October it would begin working with Vietnamese companies to extract the rare earth metals from deposits there.

A year ago, the same company struck a deal with an Argentinean company to develop a lithium mine to secure a direct source for the key element in advanced electric batteries.

The vast majority of the world’s mined deposits of lithium are in China, Chile, Argentina and Bolivia.

There is pressure on the entire automotive industry to develop better supplies of these materials because of a slew of new and planned all-electric cars, including Nissan Motor Co.’s new Leaf.

Electric cars require much larger motors, with more rare earth metals, than hybrids such as the Prius.

Today I want to look at China’s dominance of critical raw materials for clean-tech. Most people think that they left graphite behind when they graduated from pencils to pens early on in their school days, but the truth is that this slippery substance remains a crucial part of our daily lives. Consider the laptop computer, which has by and large replaced pens for most of us over the past decade — did you know that there is actually 10 times more graphite than lithium inside a lithium-ion battery?

Graphite has long been a key ingredient in steel, castings, lubricants, vehicle brakes, golf clubs, tennis rackets and — no surprise — pencils. But this polymer of carbon — a chemically identical sibling of both diamonds and coal — will become increasingly important in coming years due to its chemical, electrical and thermal properties. Its ability to remain stable in ordinary corrosive environments, conduct electricity and resist heat allow it to serve as a key component in applications like the storage batteries and nuclear-electricity generation stations that will power us into the future.

Coal powered the Industrial Revolution; its chemical twin, graphite, will be of great value in constructing the components of the clean-energy economy, making graphite a true diamond in the rough!

While one may assume that it is as common as the dirt that it somewhat resembles, the supply of graphite is far from infinite. Natural graphite comes in several forms: Flake, amorphous and lump. Of the one million tons of graphite that are processed each year, just 40% is of the most desirable flake type. Only flake and synthetic graphite (made through an expensive process from petroleum coke) can be used in lithium-ion batteries. Graphite mining and processing are limited to a relatively small handful of countries, with China currently producing 70% of the total global supply.

Demand for lithium-ion batteries will increase rapidly as battery-power (electricity) supplements, and will even replace gasoline- and diesel-fueled internal-combustion engines in vehicles as ‘green energy’ expands. While hybrid automobiles such as the Toyota Prius have used nickel-metal-hydride batteries for more than a decade, newer hybrid models like the Chevy Volt, as well as battery-only electric-drive vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf, rely upon the more-efficient lithium-ion batteries that will almost certainly be employed in all hybrid or fully electric vehicles in just a few short years. Large-flake graphite will be very much in demand to produce the hundreds of millions of lithium-ion batteries required for these automobiles.

Governmental bodies are taking notice of just how crucial secure supplies of graphite are. Graphite prices have been increasing in recent months, and investors’ interest in this industry is almost certain to climb as word spreads about the impending boom in demand and the companies that will be making moves to meet it.

A Slippery Supply

Global graphite production has held steady at approximately one million tons per year over the past decade. The weak demand in the first half of the 2000s, combined with relatively low prices, led to little investment and development of graphite mining and processing capabilities over this time span. Many graphite-producing countries saw a steady drop in annual production between 2001 and 2008, including the Czech Republic, Russia, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Canada and Mexico. Taking up the slack over this period were the Ukraine, Brazil, India and North Korea. China saw some peaks and valleys in production during this time, but currently produces nearly four-fifths of the world’s total supply of graphite, keeping 60% of this output for its own manufacturing requirements.

Japan, the U.S., Europe, South Korea and Taiwan — each of which has an economically significant and well-developed steel industry — import significant quantities of graphite from China. While China is the dominant player in the graphite game, 70% of its production is of the amorphous and lower-value small-flake graphite that is used in industrial applications rather than in batteries.

At this point in time, the fragmented nature and seasonality of its graphite production base raise some doubts that China will be able to increase its output; in fact, China itself currently imports a significant amount of North Korea’s graphite production. Producers in other regions of the world will need to step up their efforts to meet demand, which will require significant investment.

Increasing Applications Driving Demand

Graphite has long been a key component for the aviation, automotive, steel and plastic industries, as well as in the manufacture of bearings and lubricants. High-purity large-flake graphite is essential for the production of the lithium-ion batteries that are crucial to the consumer-electronics industry. Demand for this form of graphite will rise rapidly as production of larger batteries for vehicular propulsion comes online.

Currently, the iron and steel industries are the largest consumers of graphite. But demand for graphite has been rising for other applications — researchers in the field of material science continue to find new uses for this durable, heat-resistant, electricity-conducting substance. Graphite will be used in the construction of next-generation nuclear reactors, which are expected to reach temperatures as high as 1,000 °C in their cores — triple the temperature of today’s reactors.

Graphite is one of the few substances that can resist such heat. It has already replaced asbestos as a health-risk improvement in automotive brake linings and pads. As the standard of living rises in developing nations like Brazil, Russia, India and China, many more vehicles of all types will be added to the world’s roadways, increasing demand. Few people realize that 84% of the world’s total population lives in emerging-market countries.

Of course, it is expected that a rapidly growing number of automobiles will utilize extensive lithium-ion battery systems to assist with or singlehandedly provide propulsion, which is where the single-greatest increase in graphite demand is anticipated. At present, 2% of all new vehicles sold are gas-electric hybrids, plug-in hybrids or battery-only full-electric drive — most of which still use nickel-metal hydride batteries. It is projected that by 2020, these types of automobiles will represent 5-18% of all sales and almost exclusively be powered by lithium-ion batteries, which are both lighter and more powerful than nickel-metal hydride ones. With 70 million vehicles forecast to be sold in 2020, vast amounts of graphite will be required to manufacture the lithium-ion batteries that will power many of them.

Emerging fuel cell technologies also rely heavily on graphite. One of the more promising types under development, the proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell, requires 100 pounds of graphite per vehicle. Fuel cells will also be used for stationary power generation, as utility providers seek to overcome the inherent inefficiencies around electricity transmission to remote locations.

Perhaps the single greatest testimony to graphite’s importance is the concern that governmental bodies have shown about its important role in security. A 2010 European Commission study regarding the criticality of 41 different materials to the European economy included graphite among the 14 materials high in both economic importance and supply risk. A recent WikiLeaks posting revealed that a list known as the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the State Department included graphite mines in China among those overseas sites that could damage American interests if terrorists were to disable them. The U.S. military will also increasingly rely on graphite for battery and fuel cell applications, as the armed forces lessen their dependence on petroleum.

Intriguing Prospects

Top Stock Pick

China Carbon Graphite Group, Inc. (CHGI.OB), through its affiliate Xingyong Carbon Co. Ltd., manufactures graphite electrodes, fine-grain graphite, high-purity graphite and other carbon-derived products at its Inner Mongolia facility. The company believes that it is the largest wholesale supplier of fine-grain graphite and high-purity graphite in China. The company reported dramatically higher sales and earnings for the quarter ending September 30, 2010.

Additionally, China Carbon Graphite has started building new forming and baking plants in order to meet the growing demand for high-purity (and higher gross margin) products in the global market. Construction of the new forming plant, which will produce large-size ultra-high-graphite electrodes as well as high-purity and fine-grain graphite, is slated to be completed by June 2011. The new baking plant will have 36 furnaces and include 30,000 tons of annual capacity, making it the largest baking plant in China’s graphite industry.

The company noted in its recently-filed 10-Q that steel plants in China have been upgrading their electric-arc furnace facilities, which has boosted demand for large-size ultra-high graphite electrodes, a unique and specialized product. China’s steel industry, far and away the world’s largest, is today rapidly evolving into an industry, like that of the U.S., where electric-arc furnaces requiring graphite electrodes in huge quantities will ultimately be the dominant type of steel furnace used. This is inevitable, as the Chinese steel industry begins to utilize not only imported scrap steel and iron but, soon, domestically produced scrap as well. Shortages have developed and are expected to continue. Earnings could rise materially once these new plants are brought online.

The company’s long-term strategy is to diversify and expand its product offering by manufacturing graphite that would be used as a reflector or moderator in nuclear reactors in China — a product that would have significantly higher profit margins than its current offerings. At present, there are 11 nuclear power plants in China, with 15 more plants currently under construction — and only one other manufacturer of nuclear graphite pure enough for use in these plants. The company works with Hunan University and Qinghua University to research and develop nuclear-grade graphite.

China Carbon Graphite has approximately 550 full-time employees and a market capitalization of $24 million, and the shares trade at just over a dollar. This price could easily triple once the company begins to sell nuclear-grade graphite.

While some investors are wary of investing in Chinese companies due to the risks and volatility in China’s economy, CHGI represents a compelling speculation in the rapidly expanding global graphite industry. It is reassuring to know that internationally-recognized accounting firm BDO is the company’s auditor of record.

Lower Risk Pick

GrafTech International Limited (GTI), based in Parma, Ohio, is another strong graphite stock pick. Founded in 1886, GrafTech is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and providers of high-quality synthetic and natural graphite and carbon-based products. It has four major product categories — graphite electrodes, refractory products, advanced graphite materials and natural graphite — that it manufactures in 11 facilities on four continents, with customers in about 65 countries.

This low-cost global producer has a reputation for product quality, value and service excellence. It is one of the world’s largest manufacturers and providers of advanced graphite and carbon materials for the transportation, solar, and oil and gas industries. Approximately 70% of the graphite electrodes that it sells are consumed in the EAF steel melting process, the steelmaking technology used by “mini-mills.” According to the company’s most recent annual report, it operates “one of the world’s most technologically sophisticated advanced natural graphite production lines.”

The company’s share price has been hovering near $20 recently, and the current market capitalization is $2.4 billion. The stock is very heavily held by institutions such as The Vanguard Group, William Blair & Co. and Calamos Advisors. GrafTech appears to be very well positioned to fully capitalize on the favorable outlook for the graphite industry and the recovering global economy. Indeed, several analysts are projecting robust long-term sales and earnings growth for GrafTech.

Quality Speculation

Northern Graphite Corporation (not yet trading) is a mineral exploration and development company based in Ontario, Canada, that holds a 100% interest in mining claims for the Bissett Creek Project. The Bissett Creek Project consists of approximately 1,343 hectares near Mattawa, Ontario, that contain large crystal graphite flakes in a graphitic gneiss deposit.

The company is about to complete a multimillion-dollar public offering of common stock, and plans to use the proceeds to conduct metallurgical testing, prepare a pre-feasibility project report, and continue drilling and bulk sampling onsite. This project is unique in that almost 90% of the anticipated production is expected to be large-flake, very high-purity graphite that should command a premium price on the market.

Moreover, the company’s prospectus indicates that the mine’s assumed life should exceed 40 years, making Bissett Creek the only significant North American high-purity graphite producer. The deposit is near surface and only 10% of the property has been drilled to date. The project is ideally situated near the Trans-Canada Highway, with rail and power lines close by. Major graphite users in the steel and automotive sectors are in close proximity. These shares could quickly climb from the $0.50 IPO offering price once it begins trading in January 2011.

The Drive Is On

Graphite is one of the quintessential wonder materials of today that will only become more important moving forward. While the supply has proven adequate over the past decade, demand will increase significantly across all sectors of the industry in the years ahead. Already, prices are on the rise, with the best quality large-flake graphite rising in price from a low of $1,350/t to more than $2,000/t during the fourth quarter of 2010 alone. New supply sources will be needed to meet this uptick in demand — existing mining, processing companies and startups alike will require investment. The prudent investor will not want to miss out on this overlooked opportunity. The demand for metals and minerals is now fed by the insatiable economies of southeast Asia and Brazil. There is a lag between increasing supply and demand that leads to long-term price growth for producers of such natural resources.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any of the stocks mentioned above.

The 6th International Rare Earths Conference was held earlier this month at the Shangri La Hotel in Kowloon, Hong Kong. Organized by Roskill and Metal Events, the conference was billed as “THE international event for the global rare earths industry”.

We persuaded Dr. Jon Hykawy of Byron Capital Markets, to share his thoughts and observations on the conference. The following is his report. Thank you Jon!
—
Report on The 6th International Rare Earths Conference, Hong Kong
By Jon Hykawy

The 6th iteration of this conference, widely regarded as the most important meeting of the rare-earths industry, was the first one I have had the pleasure of attending. In some ways, it was everything I had expected it to be, but it was also surprising for the lack of attendance of many of the major figures in the Chinese rare-earths community. Just as the previous Chinese rare-earth conference that I attended, held in Beijing, had very few Westerners present, the lack of Chinese participation at this show did little to convince me that the rare-earths world is maintaining the sort of dialog required to see it through some potentially turbulent times ahead.

The first session of the conference kicked off at 09:00 on November 10th, and was headlined by both Judith Chegwidden of Roskill and Dudley Kingsnorth of IMCOA. Dudley and Judith traded duty at the podium to outline, firstly, what has happened over the last 18 months, particularly the unofficial embargo of rare-earth products destined for Japan by China. It was made clear at the conference that, as of November 11th, that quasi-embargo had not yet been lifted. Figures given showed that, at least since 2005, total Chinese export quotas on rare earths have dropped every year, but 2010 has been the first year where estimated RoW demand is higher than the quotas by a considerable margin.

Dudley made the point that there may well be bottlenecks in supply. He presented a slide that suggested that while cerium would be in surplus in 2015, neodymium supply would be tight, but dysprosium, terbium and europium would likely see demand in excess of supply. This reconfirmed the work that Byron Capital Markets had done on the same issue in March of this year.

Lynas CEO Nick Curtis spoke next. One thing struck me most directly about this presentation; Nick suggested that we in the industry should begin to comport ourselves more responsibly, and stop pointing out and crowing about $50/kg prices for lanthanum and cerium. At the bottom of the Lynas home page, the current Mt. Weld composition price (about US$62/kg, as I write this, but obviously grossly influenced by the artificially high levels of La and Ce pricing) is highlighted. This is not exactly what I would consider an attempt to contain expectations regarding future rare-earth pricing. Nick did point out that Lynas now has six contracts and two letters of intent in place, and should be at an annual production rate of 11,000 tonnes by this same time next year.

Mark Smith from Molycorp then made a presentation that continued to accentuate the positive. While Mark mentioned the US House bill on rare earths, he did not mention its likely failure in the Senate during this lame duck session of Congress, and thus its imminent death. However, Mark did highlight that Molycorp is “on time and on budget” to complete the work on its “mine to magnets” strategy, and should complete this work in 2012. He also committed to late 2012 production of Sm, Eu, Gd, Dy and Tb, and noted that Molycorp would soon announce new technology to produce up to 4x the previously understood level of heavy rare earths.

Gary Ragan of Albemarle gave the audience an introduction to FCC catalysts. For those who did not know, FCC (fluid catalytic cracking) catalysts allow refineries to produce high-quality product at a much higher rate than would otherwise be possible, by utilizing more of each barrel of oil or even utilizing poorer feedstock.  The market is 600,000 tonnes of FCC catalyst per year, with Grace, BASF and Albemarle being the Big 3 suppliers.  Of this catalyst material, roughly 2% by weight is rare earth, mostly lanthanum (La). Gary pointed out that there has been work done for years on rare-earth substitution, but the new, very high prices for La FOB China are now providing the strongest impetus ever to eliminate or strongly curtail rare-earth use in FCC catalysts.

BASF’s Patrick Chang chose to speak specifically about FCC and mobile-emissions catalysts.  La in FCC catalysts provides thermal stability and selectivity.  REEs in mobile-emissions catalysts also increase thermal stability, thus assisting in dramatically improving emissions reductions.  Gary presented two interesting scenarios, one assuming lithium-ion batteries replacing NiMH batteries in hybrids, the other a world in which NiMH continues to dominate. We believe the first scenario is a near certainty, but both results are interesting. If the first scenario holds, then La and Ce are both in plentiful supply through 2020, with magnet materials perhaps being in tight supply.  But if NiMH batteries continue to dominate, then Ce supply is plentiful, but La, Nd and Pr are short in the longer term. A cautionary note to the industry was issued, which was that if REE supplies continue to be unstable, then substitution work will accelerate, and this substitution will, in turn, likely result in decreased demand, some REE projects being delayed and other green industries finding it more difficult to rely on new sources of REEs.  Since Chinese industry depends on products made from REEs by Western countries, this situation does not benefit China, either.

Dr. Dmitri Psaras from Neo Material Technologies spoke on the difference between commodity and differentiated products in the RE industry. He made the point that even seemingly simple products such as ceria or cerium carbonate can be differentiated by physical factors such as particle size and porosity. His point was largely that RE products are rarely commodities, but are developed in conjunction with customer needs.

Professor Zhao Zhengqi was unable to attend the conference, but his paper on magnetic refrigeration was given by Wen Yang. She pointed out that cooling accounts for 15% of human energy use, and with only three ways to cool something (gas expansion, thermoelectric, and other phase changes including magnetic) there is a defined potential energy saving of 30% or more available by switching from the use of refrigerants to magnetic cooling due to the higher Carnot efficiency available to the magnetic technology. Typically, we think of magnetic cooling as using NdFeB magnets with some Gd-based compound as the active material, but Wen pointed out that switched electromagnets could provide the varying magnetic field, and there are completely non-RE containing materials that could be used.  However, like in many industries, the use of REEs provides the best solution.

A number of junior REE companies presented in a session that lasted nearly 150 minutes.  Anton Manych from SARECo gave a talk on the 51:49 JV project in Kazakhstan being conducted by Kazatamprom and Sumitomo.  It is a two-phase project, looking to process very-high-grade monazite for LREO and tailings for HREO.  Both phases can be brought to production quickly, which is key to alleviating any shortages due to Chinese quotas. James Kenney from Frontier spoke on their work in Africa, showing a very interesting slide contrasting capex and opex for kimberlite projects in Canada with those in Africa, and showing costs down by 70-80% for projects of similar size. Stans Energy CEO Robert MacKay gave a talk on the REE deposits within the former Soviet Union. Jim Engdahl of GWG and Trevor Blench of Rareco spoke regarding Great Western Minerals and Steenkampskraal, and pointed out that the metallurgy at Steenkampskraal is well understood and that separation had previously been done in England. Damian Krebs from Greenland Minerals & Energy spoke regarding their large but low grade U/REE project in Greenland. And Avannaa Resources, a private company also with properties in Greenland, discussed their project, a 1% in situ grade with 12% HREE.

Day Two of the conference was led off by David O’Brock, the new CEO of AS Silmet in Estonia. David noted that Silmet separates RE carbonates that were mined in the Kola Peninsula and then concentrated farther east. The plant only has 2,400 tpa capacity, but has been running at only 40% of this level due to feedstock shortages. What has kept the company alive in the past few years is the processing of niobium and tantalum.

Chen Zhanheng from the Secretariat of the Chinese Society of Rare Earths spoke regarding the environment, domestic markets and resources. According to Chen, Chinese resources account for only about 32% of the world total, but the very important ionic clays are only about 300 basis points of this value. Chinese domestic consumption of rare earths is up to about 57%. With environmental and market concerns both pressing the government to consolidate the industry, Chen suggested that establishing new companies outside of China and a wider rare earth industry would be a very good thing to do.

Yasushi Watanabe from the AIST in Japan discussed Japan’s attempts to find alternative sources of REEs. He showed a very interesting slide with China’s consumption of REEs being 60% of global output, but Japan next at 20% (interestingly, with their dominance of the global LCD industry, Japan consumes 80% of global indium production, a startling statistic). Watanabe also noted that while the quantity of REE exported to Japan from China fell 47% from 2008 to 2009, so did their share of exports. While he believes that LREO can be supplied from new projects, “timely” (as he put it) HREO projects are highly desirable.

Professor Zhuang Weidong from Grirem presented on the Chinese luminescent materials market. While production of TV phosphors (for CRT, plasma and FED) have declined since 2003, phosphors for lighting have increased strongly to 6,000 tonnes in 2009. By far, most of this phosphor goes into compact and linear fluorescent lighting. China produced some 4.8 billion fluorescent lamps in 2008, about 31% of the global total. We should all be aware that the necessary dopants for lamps are Eu and Tb, those used for LEDs are Eu and occasionally Ce, and PDPs use Eu. Long-persistence phosphors, for signage and other applications, use Eu and Dy as dopants. Given Dudley’s talk earlier, we can all hope this application doesn’t take off and increase demand for Dy!

Unfortunately, I missed a presentation by Oliver Touret from Rhodia, and have been unable to obtain a copy of his slides [we’ll see what we can do to get this info – GPH].

Greg Kroll from Magnequench delivered the final talk of the conference, and perhaps one of the most interesting. In highlighting the use of bonded NdFeB magnets in new areas such as appliances and, increasingly, in cars doing such things as lifting windows or moving seats, Greg pointed out that it is possible to substitute La and Ce for Nd in these magnets. While all of flux, coercivity and Curie temperature are poorer for La2Fe14B or Ce2Fe14B, say, than Nd2Fe14B, the point is made that for many applications, the relative improvement in performance and physical characteristics over ferrite is still sufficient to warrant use, and the lower price of materials can only help.