17 ms·

$1.5B lithium deposit discovered in Maine; excavating it poses a legal challenge

• neals 5y ago
  So how common is lithium on earth anyway? Is it like the new oil? Can we make it in the lab? Will we wage war over it? Will we deplete it? Can we find it on the moon or Mars? *) Lithium on Mars? https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1208.6311D/abstract#:~:text=Assuming%20a%20rate%20of%20cosmic,are%2030%20million%20metric%20tons https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1208.6311D/abstra...).
  • AHabe 5y ago
    Considering everything and their dog now runs on some sort of lithium ion battery, it very much is the new oil. I don't see why wars wouldn't be fought over it, certainly has been the case for oil.
    • starbugs 5y ago
      It is not an energy source though. So the comparison to oil is at least a bit flawed if you ask me.
      • tiborsaas 5y ago
        It's an intermediary source and it doesn't care where that energy came from. The oil analogy is not that far fetched if you consider that both are tied to a geographic location where they needs to be extracted.
        • starbugs 5y ago
          That's likely true if you look at network effects, but maybe not so true if you look at energy return on energy invested (ERoEI). In my opinion, the latter is a big part of oil's status as a "universal" energy source/carrier.
      • fendy3002 5y ago
        As a factorio player, energy storages are as important as energy source itself. Especially for renewables since the energy sources are practically unlimited (and the efficiencies are increasing) but very fluctuate. And if you see from other perspective, oil are both energy storage and energy source, which is "almost" equivalent with solar cells and batteries.
        • starbugs 5y ago
          As I said in my other reply, I think the difference is really ERoEI. And that's very likely an important difference. Because you wouldn't get an economical system if you're not able to get a competitive ERoEI from the whole system (including storage). I suspect to take oil's status you'd therefore have to have something that allows you to also cheaply get the energy, not only store it. Lithium as an input to storage is really just a small part of the whole picture. Like a barrel is for oil.
    • panick21_ 5y ago
      War over lithium would be totally insane. Every continent has basically unlimited amount of lithium. Its not an energy source and the ratio of how expensive it is to mine and how expensive you can sell it is nowhere close to oil. Fighting wars over lithium deposit would be insanely dumb and that will never happen. Lithium is not a consumable, once you have it you keep it. We need it now to grow the fleet but once the fleet is replaced recycling will be the most economical way to get it.
  • VortexDream 5y ago
    It's fairly common. Known reserves amount to around 80 million tons. Yearly production is around 100k tons. I think I saw a projection for a yearly consumption of around 1.7m tons in 2030. I'd say the biggest issue is simply going to be environmental impact. This is a big reserve that can't be mined because of environmental regulation. That's a lot of money to just pass on, and I don't think that's going to hold.
    • merrywhether 5y ago
      Is it really that much money? It’s not like that’s pure profit; mining requires large up-front capital investment to even start. Break that down to 20 years (round number for illustration purposes only, seemingly on the quick side based on quick searching), and you’re down to $75mm/year which begins to sound like a lot less money when you start adding the recurring costs of operation to the initial capital cost. Add in the state mandates for damage escrow and you’re probably looking at a business that makes the owners wealthy, but otherwise produces only a handful of jobs and minimal tax revenue while permanently destroying some of the natural beauty of a state heavy on tourism that relies on that beauty. Put another way: if it was a lot of money they’d find a way to do it underground.
  • sss111 5y ago
    It is the 33rd most abundant element on earth. However, as it is highly reactive it is never found in its pure form in nature, and right now, we extract it from mineral rich brine from lakes. This process uses a lot of water, approximately 500,000 gallons of water goes into extracting 1 ton of lithium, enough to make 190,000 smartphones. I think we’ll wage war over water before we wage one over Lithium.
    • tata71 5y ago
      Bush and Gates families already stacking waterrights and farmlands.
    • adwn 5y ago
      What happens to the water after production? Can it be recycled?
      • panick21_ 5y ago
        In the process described above its evaporated. Other processes that are in development pump it back into the underground brine (just a little less salty). What is relevant here is that this is salty brine water, not drinking water. And the water usage is very different for what we are talking about here. This is not a brine mine, but a spodumene rock mine. That uses far less water.
  • Faaak 5y ago
    The sea is the largest resource of lithium. It's just cheaper to dig it for now.
  • Jwarder 5y ago
    my understanding is that it is super common, but not very concentrated in the earth. As a result it makes mining more difficult. You don't just find a ore vein in a cave, you have to dig up and process tons of stone in a wider area.
  • torpfactory 5y ago
    There really isn’t that much lithium in today’s “Lithium ion” batteries. A few percent by weight. Much more Nickel, Cobalt, Aluminum, Carbon, Copper, and Iron than Lithium. Lithium metal anodes would push that number up but that flavor hasn’t really solved it’s lifespan problems yet.
    • alistairSH 5y ago
      Stating there isn't much lithium in a single cell isn't really meaningful; there are a lot of individual batteries, and the number keeps growing, so we still require a lot of lithium to be mined. Relatively less than other minerals, but still a significant amount and still destructive to the local area where lithium is mined.
  • windowsrookie 5y ago
    One difference is that it can be recovered from worn out lithium batteries. So at some point we could theoretically have enough lithium from recycled batteries that we no longer need to mine a significant amount of it.
  • avianlyric 5y ago
    Lithium is only created in stellar events (Big Bang, super novas). There’s no natural way for it form on Earth. As a result all lithium deposits we’re created during the formation of the planet as it coalesced out of interstellar dust. Consequently the distribution of Lithium around the planet is pretty even. There’s no “hot spots” of high concentration, and every country has a supply proportional to its land mass. That, plus the relative abundance of Lithium, means it’s unlikely that fighting a war for Lithium will ever make sense. Much easier and cheaper to just dig in your own backyard, than fight for someone’s backyard that has the same dirt in it.
    • saba2008 5y ago
      >there’s no natural way for it form on Earth. 'Naturally forming' elements on Earth are limited to uranium fission products. Lithium (also aluminium, magnesium, sodium) distribution is due to it being light and chemically active, thus ending up in crust, while heavier metals (iron, nickel) end up in mantle and core. It takes specific geological circumstances to bring mantle material into crust, so there are 'hot spots'. Lithium is already there, so it is spread somewhat evenly.
• supperburg 5y ago
  People forget that a battery has only a dusting of lithium. A very small amount. People hear the name and they think it’s a chunk of metallic lithium.
  • ct0 5y ago
    Does that mean we will need less of them? As technology advances, we need more lithium.
    • supperburg 5y ago
      Yes. That’s a lot of dustings.
  • lm28469 5y ago
    It's more like 5 to 10kg, multiplied by 1.5B cars on earth it adds up quickly.
• giantg2 5y ago
  It's not really surprising. The use of lithium batteries to replace fossil fuels is really just shifting where and what environmental impact is produced. It's not as clean as they claim to be. It's like coal plants with scrubbers saying they are clean. They are only relatively clean, just like lithium is only relatively clean. At least the lithium deposit near the Salton Sea is already in an area that's an ecological disaster. It makes sense that Maine would want to protect their natural resources.
  • goohle 5y ago
    Lithium hard rock mining produces about 15 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of Lithium, but Lithium geothermal mining generates energy instead: https://cornishlithium.com/projects/lithium-in-geothermal-waters/geocubed/ https://cornishlithium.com/projects/lithium-in-geothermal-wa...
  • sabertoothed 5y ago
    Unlike coal, lithium does not get burned or used up. At least in principle, it can be recycled.
    • hammock 5y ago
      >it can be recycled Yet here we are talking about a lithium mine, which is not clean.
      • gameswithgo 5y ago
        Can you go into detail as to how specifically it is not clean, and how it compares to the resource extraction of other things like steel, aluminum, oil, etc.
      • wil421 5y ago
        So you’re saying we should continue to burn fossil fuels in our cars because lithium mining is dirty?
        • 5y ago
• HenryKissinger 5y ago
  Leave it. Let's not strip the planet of every natural resource. The environment has suffered enough damage.
  • sss111 5y ago
    Wouldn’t it be better for the planet if we move away from fossil fuels, and Lithium could help us in that process.
    • alistairSH 5y ago
      That depends. How much of the earth's surface needs to be mined to obtain enough lithium and other minerals to supply the world with batteries? And what will we use to charge he batteries?
  • panick21_ 5y ago
    Should we stop all farming and mining? Should we never mine anything new? And btw we are not 'strip' planet, we are simply moving things from one place on the planet to another. Does the earth have some sort of inherent will that lithium should stay where it is? If only we could kill all humans then finally the planet could heal.
  • someguydave 5y ago
    That choice is akin to saying: allow China to use the cheapest methods to extract ores in Africa.
  • ryan93 5y ago
    Has the IQ of hacker news fallen over time? Half the people in this thread think we can have 8 billion humans and make zero demands on the environment.
• redmaverick 5y ago
  Will the people of Maine get any pay off from this when the Govt. makes their money?
  • alistairSH 5y ago
    Doubtful. The government probably won't even get much. The lion's share of benefit will go to some mining corporation's stockholders and executives.
• burnt_toast 5y ago
  As a resident I'm curious to how this will play out. I have no strong opinions either way but I feel like it's going to be a long legal battle. The current ongoing thing here is that the power company wants to build a power corridor to transport electricity from Canada to Mass. The power company has gone through questionable means to do this and the locals are rightfully unhappy about it. It's hard to not hear about it right now.
• smarx007 5y ago
  The key bit: “Yet lithium is a metal, and state regulations passed in 2017 prohibit mining for metals in open pits of more than three acres, which would be the only way to cost-effectively extract lithium at Plumbago North. “I don’t know of any underground and manganese or lithium mines in the world,” said Dr. John Slack, a geologist who co-authored a separate upcoming paper on critical minerals in Maine. “Because those metals have a relatively low cost, in terms of their concentration per ton or per ounce, you need to excavate large volumes of rock cheaply in order to economically and profitably produce the metal you’re interested in.”” Basically, Maine demands that whatever mining is done, is done underground, like coal. But open carrier mining is cheaper. If all this lithium is so important, someone will find a way to mine it properly underground, I guess.
  • JacobDotVI 5y ago
    I find this more relevant: "But [the lithium] reserves also would not present the same type of potential environmental issues as ... other base metal sulfide deposits in Maine, such as Bald Mountain. That’s because the Plumbago North deposit does not occur in, or contain, sulfide-rich rocks, said Slack and Simmons. Mining for lithium there would instead be similar to quarrying for granite or gravel." Are rock queries outlawed? I don't believe so. Thus, is this a lithium rock query or a lithium mineral mine?
    • Loughla 5y ago
      3 acres, I'm assuming, is the issue. That's not really that big. It's actually really quite small. The only open pit mine I'm familiar with is measured in the literal thousands of acres. Hell, the local gravel pit that supplies the VERY rural area I live in is over 70 acres.
      • JacobDotVI 5y ago
        I think this is part of that distinction. Likely a gravel pit would _not_ be considered "mineral mining" and so would be permitted at a size greater than 3 acres.
  • 5y ago
• theshadowknows 5y ago
  Is it me being jaded or is a billion or two dollars not really that much money anymore? I mean sure, if someone were to give me a billion dollars I'd be excited (pending dealing with taxes etc). But I mean..theres what a couple thousand people with personal fortunes that could buy the entire deposit several times over, and even more companies that could do it...maybe it'd be a great windfall to the local economy? But if Maine is anything like North Carolina then the majority of the money will get earmarked for future infrastructure projects and then get slowly siphoned off by the politicians over a few years so it won't really matter.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    Billion dollar is lot even for a value of a company. On other hand with deposits it's nothing. Reasonably considering the needed investment for exploitation from equipment, planning, permissions, workers etc. I really feel that currently it is nowhere near enough to justify exploitation. Big mines are not cheap to build or operate. I doubt 1,5B of material is enough to justify initial investment.
  • someguydave 5y ago
    nothing really matters
  • ehnto 5y ago
    We're exposed to billionaires and things priced in the billions all the time through news and media, but we forget that it's still an exceptional amount of money for a very, very limited few. Like how Instagram shows you all the exceptionally lucky people on holidays and with expensive cars and incredible beauty, so you get to feel like it's ubiquitous and you're just missing out. But the truth is that almost everyone just goes to work everyday, looking normal, driving normal cars, even the influencers.
    • mywittyname 5y ago
      A billion dollars is a lot of money. A billion dollars worth of minerals is not a lot of minerals. It would be worth extracting if it were something readily shipped and processed like gold or crude. But from what I understand of lithium processing, just the equipment along might ring up in the hundreds of millions, and you still have to pay to get it extracted, processed, etc.
• panick21_ 5y ago
  There is endless amounts of lithium deposit everywhere. A lithium deposit is essentially worthless. What matters in lithium industry, is chemical processing. Nobody cares about a lithium mining company. What matters is lithium processing. Lithium is not like a base metal, its more like a specialty chemical. The output from every mine is unique, there is not overall standard. Each output from each mine has to be qualified with each major battery manufacturer. Nevada has 100s of billion of dollars worth of lithium by itself probably. This will almost certainty not be mined. Making money from this kind of rock is difficult in the first place and doing it in a place with little mining industry makes that even worse. Edit: If you want insight into lithium industry, I recommend 'Global Lithium Podcast' by a guy that has been in that business for many decades and has worked for all the many of the major producers.
  • bkovacev 5y ago
    We have lithium and Jadarite[0] reserves in Serbia. Is potentially just trading the ore and/or moving the processing out of Serbia viable? However, with Rio Tinto investing, we're not looking solid environmentally. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadarite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadarite
  • capableweb 5y ago
    But, seemingly, this one is "The richest known hard rock lithium deposit" so it's got to be worth something, at least it's newsworthy I guess. Anyway, the article is not about the operation of mining lithium, how to earn money on lithium or even chemical processing, it's about regulation about mining in Maine, the deposit itself just being the driver of the story. It also goes into describing the supply chain around lithium and some other goodies.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • washadjeffmad 5y ago
      It doesn't cost much to get a few inches of buzzword copy that makes people ask "why won't they just lift the regulations so we can have the free money?" without really writing anything that leaves readers better and truthfully informed about a topic. We've got good responses by disinterested parties who know a lot about lithium and mining here, and it's the single sided argument funded by unknown sources that is generating the sticky "but what if"s.
• OliverJones 5y ago
  Figuring out how to mine this safely seems like a decent project for the Department of Energy's ARPA-E project. It's worth an evaluation at any rate. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ https://arpa-e.energy.gov/ Surely there are some National Lab boffins with expertise in environmental protection.
• netcan 5y ago
  Something about the economics of lithium, and other recently important minerals confuses me. How is a $1.5bn deposit, a major, significant source? That's would be about 10 days worth of oil. The whole global lithium market is just $3bn-$4bn pa. The rare earth market is about $2.5bn annually. Seems super low, relative to headlines/concerns/etc. How are these materials simultaneously of such importance, and also so economically minor. What am I missing here?
  • Strom 5y ago
    > How are these materials simultaneously of such importance, and also so economically minor. What am I missing here? My guess is the amount of skill required to get these materials. Miners can be paid pennies and they'll still do the work. Something similar to how garbage takeaway is of very high importance, but economically pretty minor.
    • netcan 5y ago
      Waste management is a multi-trillion dollar industry.
      • Strom 5y ago
        Come on now. That's changing the goal posts. Natural resource extraction is also a multi-trillion dollar industry.
        • netcan 5y ago
          I'm not seeing the analogy. The lithium market is surprisingly small for the same reasons that plastics are...? I concede the point that small individual parts of the overall waste economy are prominent problems... but where's the way back to lithium. Lithium is cheap enough that Elon could buy all of it with just his bitcoin. He's a guy with a use for lithium. Why not solve all possible scarcity concerns with the jingle of a purse. More realistishly... Unless there's something I'm missing, I can't see how a lithium price spike could affect the price of an electric car noticeably. That doesn't scream scarcity.
• bluecalm 5y ago
  I am clueless about it but isn't $1.5B deposit a really small one in grand scheme of things (that is how much is going to be needed in coming years)?
• Gravityloss 5y ago
  Why is everyone so keen on lithium when, to me, it's almost a footnote in battery components by weight? Cobalt and nickel are the heaviest. Cobalt is the priciest constituent...
• AreYouSirius 5y ago
  MUSK makes tweet and he generates 2 billion, who gives a ... about 1,5 billion USD of something you have to work for ?
• gwbas1c 5y ago
  > “The call to restrict open pit mining — that’s the open sore in the face of the Earth argument,” said Dr. Martin Yates, laboratory manager and instructor at the School of Earth and Climate Sciences at the University of Maine. “Once you’ve opened a hole like that, it’s not really going to grow back.” Maine is full of holes in the ground where granite was extracted. I can totally understand why some of the population wants to strictly regulate mining. I went camping in Maine a few years ago, and the campground had visible artifacts from mining. The people running the campground told us that "everyone" goes swimming in deep flooded granite pits. The campground itself had a flooded granite pit near the bathroom. It had a paddle boat that I used, but swimming was prohibited because of "insurance" and supposed abandoned mining equipment in the bottom of the pit. There was also an abandoned pump visible at the top of the pit. When we walked around, there was surface granite clearly stripped away as well.
  • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > I can totally understand why some of the population wants to strictly regulate mining. Regulating resource extraction out of existence is popular in southeast Maine where the economy runs off of tourism and retirement savings from people in Massachusetts for a variety of reasons that biol down to ideology and no skin in the game.
• fernowens 5y ago
  It's definitely not worth the challenge. There's a lot of legal precautions at risk. The money at stake will not be enough for the hassle.
• datameta 5y ago
  > By 2030, the International Energy Agency estimates that supply from existing mines and projects under construction will produce only half the amount of lithium and cobalt necessary to meet international needs. The mining has to be does somewhere at some point... barring a breakthrough in alternative battery chemistry in the next half decade. Not saying it needs to be in this mine, but the countries that do currently supply the world with lithium are securing a greater economic foothold. Of course I'd wish for every nation to be all honky-dory with each other but there are regimes whose optimization function is absolute domestic power and international domination. Please refrain from pointing out the tired old truth that the US was or is such a country.
• echopurity 5y ago
  HN is ideology free apart from the constant corporate disinfo, etc.
• toss1 5y ago
  >>The company extracted roughly 800,000 tons of copper and zinc before flooding the area, turning it into Goose Pond. >>The former mine is now a Superfund site, and a 2013 study by researchers at Dartmouth College found widespread evidence of toxic metals in nearby sediment, water and fish. Cleanup costs, borne by taxpayers, are estimated between $23 million and $45 million. Yup, that company successfully extracted the value and externalized the costs onto the taxpayers - they got the benefit and we hold the bag of crap. Which is precisely why the laws were passed in the first place, because this was not an exception, but standard procedure. If they want to relent and allow standard mining, then they need to require an up-front bond of the appropriate amount to fund the cleanup, on the scale of $100 million. Anything short of that is utterly foolish (it's not like we're ignorant of standard mining practices). <sarc>I'm sure the financial genius MBAs can figure it out (along with how to still screw the general public plebes). </sarc>
• vvoaterr 5y ago
  Why won't they just lift the regulations, so we can have the free money? --Maine
• xor99 5y ago
  Lithium batteries seem to blow up a lot or a lot more than they should. People say that this doesn't matter for the best made batteries, which is fair in those cases, but judging safety relative to an ideal is not wise. Its also absolutely terrible for the local environment to mine it. That should be well known by now (e.g. effects in Bolivia / Chile). I'm more interested to see where Catl and Faradion or others go with sodium ion technology. Zinc and potassium are also good candidates too. For now, the lithium show continues though unfortunately.
  • xor99 5y ago
    Think about how much easier it would be to extract sodium. If half the effort went into making those batteries better the lithium scramble could have a chance of ending. Zinc bromine is another good option which would be relatively ok in terms of availability.
  • jillesvangurp 5y ago
    Compared to ICE cars, EV car fires are not that common. There are a couple of hundred people that die in ICE vehicle related fires and around 170000 cars that catch fire every year in the US. Check here for a breakdown of ways that can happen: https://www.consumernotice.org/personal-injury/vehicle-safety/highway-vehicle-fires/ https://www.consumernotice.org/personal-injury/vehicle-safet... Here's a beautiful quote for you: "There are more than 19 vehicle fires every hour in the United States. They account for 1 in every 8 calls that fire departments respond to." That puts the handful of burning EVs that catch the news once in a while a bit in perspective. It does happen but not that often. Even if you consider there are about 20x more ICE vehicles sold in the US, it's still quite a lot in comparison. Anyway, lithium battery fires are comparatively slow so mostly people just get out of the vehicle. Basically, you stop the car, get out and call the firemen. Petrol tanks going boom is less common than Hollywood movies make it seem but still, they occasionally do blow up with people still inside the car. Not a good place to be when a few gallons of fuel is combusting. Hence a couple hundred casualties every year.
    • xor99 5y ago
      Point taken on EVs! My only experience is using them for robot builds and it may be the quality of the battery thats at issue. In comparison to fossil fuels lithium is obviously way better but I think long term I would prefer to use sodium based batteries due to their abundance, ease of manufacture, and potential lower extraction-related pollution. Explosion related concerns are not the best counter argument.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• mdasen 5y ago
  I think that logically, it doesn't make sense for Maine to change its laws to allow this to move forward. It's worth $1.5B and there are about 1.5M people in Maine. That's $1,000 per resident. Given that there are costs to extract the metal from the ground, let's say that 20% of that $1.5B could be profit (which I'm guessing is a very high estimate). That means $200 per Maine resident. Given that Maine doesn't own the land/mineral rights, let's say they can put a 30% tax on those profits. $60 per resident. Realistically, $1.5B worth of lithium is a tiny amount of value for a US state. If I were Maine, I'd say no at $1.5B. You're probably going to get less than $60 per Maine resident - and that's a one-off $60, not even an annual $60. The article keeps talking about how we need lithium. Ultimately, we don't seem to need it that much given how cheap it is. If I were Maine, I'd say "not now". If Lithium prices go up 100-1,000x in the future, then reevaluate. $6,000-$60,000 per Maine resident might be a useful amount of money. $60 isn't. At current prices, any environmental damage is likely to cost more than the taxes on the profits would cover. $90M in taxes (30% of a 20% profit margin) won't clean up a lot. I'm not saying that it's a global optimum for Maine to leave this lithium in the earth. I'm just noting that there isn't a lot of incentive for Maine to extract it. The article talks about other countries with less strict labor and environmental rules. That is true, but why should Maine risk its environment for such little money? Why should Maine risk environmental damage for $60 per person? $90M in tax revenue is nothing compared to the cost to clean up environmental disasters. It's costing over $6M to clean up a single park in my town, never mind the type of environmental damage that might be caused by mining 11M tons of lithium. It seems like it would be foolish for Maine to alter the laws to allow the mining to take place at current prices.
  • SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    I don't disagree with your analysis, but it's important to remember that most states think of the 80% of that $1.5B that isn't profit as going to their citizens in the form of local spending.
    • volkl48 5y ago
      For a bit of context: This happens to be in the same vicinity as the most popular ski resort in the state, and a number of other popular outdoor attractions. It's not quite your average rural economy that's desperate for any sort of new business/jobs/investment. ------ A mine has to be weighed against the risk it represents to their existing economy - both in actual impacts of environmental disasters, and reputational if there's any negative stories coming out about it. Tourists don't want to go have their destination wedding in the town that's in the news regularly because of X or Y pollution, even if they can't see it and it's not a risk to them on their visit.
• op00to 5y ago
  It’s only worth 1.5B if you can extract it as an open pit mine, which is terrifically terrible for the environment. Waving that number around is nonsense because it ignores the societal and environmental costs of open pit mining.
• exabrial 5y ago
  This is sort of disheartening... Maine would allow the mining if it were properly handled, but because it's cheaper to do in third world countries, companies will do it there. Electric has a very dirty side :/
• loufe 5y ago
  A couple comments already mentioned it but $1.5B is not a huge number for the mining industry. Many mines in the US/Can bring in that amount in revenue on a yearly basis.
• whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  As a newenglander I laughed at this headline. This is SO FAR from being a $1.5B deposit it's not event funny. That area is pretty. The idea that we would choose maine (vs the many other places in US with deposits) would be crazy for this industry I think? https://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/images/methode/2018/06/29/71015f9a-7aa7-11e8-8ce4-b59b2fedb43f_972x_194830.JPG https://cdn3.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/images/methode/2... for a photo of what the processing might look like.
• bob229 5y ago
  Who cares. Humanity is already doomed. Good riddance to us all