7 ms·

Because I see so much "conflict metals" discussion when lithium is discussed, I would like to contribute that less than 3% of global lithium production takes pl

by elif 4y ago

Because I see so much "conflict metals" discussion when lithium is discussed, I would like to contribute that less than 3% of global lithium production takes place on small artisanal mines, in which place human rights abuse may occur. Over 85% of lithium is produced by just 2 international corporations with large scale mines complying with multiple international regulation requirements.

whitemary 4y ago
>Human rights abuse That's a convenient way to dismiss ruthless exploitation of 3rd world populations, nations, and the natural environment. And if you don't consider the police violence against the indigenous populations of Bolivia following their democratic elections then what are your qualifications exactly? "Lithium mining" is not the problem, of course, but the political interventions of Lithium interests has robbed millions of people of freedom.
- kranke155 4y ago
  All large scale economic activity in developing countries like this is often accompanied with human rights and democracy violations. This is a false choice really. It’s not lithium that’s causing this but the broken political system. I’m half Brazilian and just the other day I heard a mining dam break that led to a mass cancer in surrounding populations. This was Vale one of the largest companies in Brazil. It doesn’t matter what’s being used, virtually everything that comes from developing countries causes gigantic crimes that are unimaginable to first world. You’re selecting one specific product but it’s not logical to do so. They all cause this. And what’s the other option? Not buying products from developing countries?
throwawaaarrgh 4y ago
Because we all know international corporations never violate human rights?
- refurb 4y ago
  That's kind of a ridiculous argument. Sure, international corporations violate human rights, but unless you provide proof these lithium corporations are, then we can just assume they aren't.
  - anamexis 4y ago
    Why would that be a reasonable assumption?
    - defrost 4y ago
      Largest companies digging in the dirt creating the vast bulk of the world's lithium concentrates (prior to refining in Chima | Malaysia) are in Chile and Australia and all are listed on the Canadian Toronto TSX exchange. Minerals and Resources rules for exchange listing are pretty tight with respect filing third party independant reports that assess mineral volumes and estimates, economic feasibility, environmental impact, and human rights etc. While it's possible that some things are covered up in these relatively modern capital projects (eg: like conditions mining copper in PNG in days of yore leaving substantial impacts today) it's unlikely due to modern communications and the known fact that everything gets out and doesn't remain hidden - more so today than back when PNG was literally and figuratively obscured by clouds. Austrlia is keeping clean, and you can knock yourself out looking into https://lithiumchile.ca/ https://lithiumchile.ca/ and report anything you find to the TSX.
      - sdm 4y ago
        > all are listed on the Canadian Toronto TSX exchange Given the history of Canadian mining companies, I wouldn't trust any Canadian mining company listed on the TSX to give to shits about human rights.
        defrost 4y ago
        Not unless significant blocks of their shareholders do . . . Giving a shit about the environment, child exploitation, etc. by larger investment funds has increased in recent decades , there's been a rise in "ethical investment". Ergo TSX companies care more when third party reports about bad practices are filed at the exchange.
paganel 4y ago
> with multiple international regulation requirements. How is that meant to be re-assuring? As far as I know Chevron hasn't yet paid the money it is due to pay to the Ecuador state for past environmental damages inflicted on the ecosystem there, I'm positive they were branding their work to their stakeholders back-home as respecting "international regulation requirements".
landemva 4y ago
> mines complying with multiple international regulation requirements Really? Please cite which regs apply in North Korea. I am an actual miner. We have State and national regulators who visit and have authority to stop work. I have neither seen nor heard of international regulators.
- oblio 4y ago
  Why North Korea?
  - landemva 4y ago
    Escapee stories of unsafe coal mining. Or try Iran or Ukraine or USA.
influxmoment 4y ago
Wow the replies to this are nuts. All sorts of mental contortions to make lithium sound controversial when it's way down the list of controversial industries
misssocrates 4y ago
Are people confusing lithium with cobalt? Where 70% of it comes from the Congo.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Yes. And I guess some people insist on the confusion on purpose. It doesn't matter how many times people point it out, the confusion keeps happening.
  - retinaros 4y ago
    just like people against nuclear. we can see that live in germany
    - nl 4y ago
      This is nothing like nuclear. I know the facts about nuclear and are vehemently opposed to it for environmental risk reasons.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.
blurbleblurble 4y ago
Lithium could be considered a conflict metal on a larger scale though, in that it has likely been a large factor in geopolitical decision making over the last decades: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/as-us-exits-afghanistan-china-eyes-1-trillion-in-minerals https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/as-us-exits-afghani...
akira2501 4y ago
> Over 85% of lithium is produced by just 2 international corporations If I search google for this string, your post is the only one that comes up. How did you arrive at this figure? In the history of industry, when has it ever been a positive indication that only two players control the majority of the supply? Do these companies directly own the mines or are there partnerships and subsidiaries involved? What countries are they operating in? How long is the supply chain from the mine to the product? How are water rights being managed? Is there correct oversight? Are any governments trading long term environmental damage for short term profits? What happens when the mines are depleted?
- le-mark 4y ago
  Google has noticeably deteriorated in recent weeks. Does anyone have insight into that? Like more or too much gpt? The first link here is an article from 2021: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Over+85%25+of+lithium+is+produced+by+just+2+international+corporations&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Over+85%25+of+lithium+is+produced+...
  - m3drano 4y ago
    I see plenty of results from Google about this string, from multiple sources and multiple types (video, news and classic links). Unclear about that deterioration.
    - georgeecollins 4y ago
      Right, but Google doesn't show everyone the same results. The earlier poster clearly didn't get a very good search result. If google search is bad for some people or in some cases, it should be a concern for everyone because you would never know when you are getting that poor result.
      - natnat 4y ago
        It basically does show everyone the same results. There's some session-based reranking and ads are heavily personalized, but there's basically no personalization in regular search.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
You should support your claim of 85% with a valid link.
cashsterling 4y ago
International regulations are often very lax and not well enforced in a lot of mining operations in the developing world. We only know what people tell us or show us (unless you are fortunate to be able to boots on the ground investigation yourself). Companies and profitting parties in the lithium supply chain want us to believe that mining is ecologically sound and not abusing people. The first hand accounts and investigations of numerous investigators tell a different story in many areas of world. If you read up on what lithium mining actually entails (in many areas it is not really mining per se)... you'll realize it is an ecological disaster. Big mining operations are big ecological disasters and small operations are small disasters. The same can be said for oil sands and other resource gathering endeavors, so I'm not trying to paint lithium mining as particularly bad. But it is not good. The EV and battery industries are very interested in white-washing the lithium supply chain... but it is very, very dirty. I'm not an ecologist but from what I've read it appears to me that is much worse than fracking in many operations around the world. If the Salton Sea, California, lithium mining operation really gets underway... we'll get a chance to see what "best practice" lithium recovery looks like, which will probably have much lower ecological damage per unit lithium. The Salton Sea area is already pretty messed up, anyhow.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  "from what I've read it appears to me that is much worse than fracking in many operations around the world." is that taking co2 into account? also doesn't fracking cause earth quakes?

by elif 4y ago

whitemary 4y ago

>Human rights abuse That's a convenient way to dismiss ruthless exploitation of 3rd world populations, nations, and the natural environment. And if you don't consider the police violence against the indigenous populations of Bolivia following their democratic elections then what are your qualifications exactly? "Lithium mining" is not the problem, of course, but the political interventions of Lithium interests has robbed millions of people of freedom.

kranke155 4y ago
All large scale economic activity in developing countries like this is often accompanied with human rights and democracy violations. This is a false choice really. It’s not lithium that’s causing this but the broken political system. I’m half Brazilian and just the other day I heard a mining dam break that led to a mass cancer in surrounding populations. This was Vale one of the largest companies in Brazil. It doesn’t matter what’s being used, virtually everything that comes from developing countries causes gigantic crimes that are unimaginable to first world. You’re selecting one specific product but it’s not logical to do so. They all cause this. And what’s the other option? Not buying products from developing countries?

throwawaaarrgh 4y ago

Because we all know international corporations never violate human rights?

refurb 4y ago
That's kind of a ridiculous argument. Sure, international corporations violate human rights, but unless you provide proof these lithium corporations are, then we can just assume they aren't.
- anamexis 4y ago
  Why would that be a reasonable assumption?
  - defrost 4y ago
    Largest companies digging in the dirt creating the vast bulk of the world's lithium concentrates (prior to refining in Chima | Malaysia) are in Chile and Australia and all are listed on the Canadian Toronto TSX exchange. Minerals and Resources rules for exchange listing are pretty tight with respect filing third party independant reports that assess mineral volumes and estimates, economic feasibility, environmental impact, and human rights etc. While it's possible that some things are covered up in these relatively modern capital projects (eg: like conditions mining copper in PNG in days of yore leaving substantial impacts today) it's unlikely due to modern communications and the known fact that everything gets out and doesn't remain hidden - more so today than back when PNG was literally and figuratively obscured by clouds. Austrlia is keeping clean, and you can knock yourself out looking into https://lithiumchile.ca/ https://lithiumchile.ca/ and report anything you find to the TSX.
    - sdm 4y ago
      > all are listed on the Canadian Toronto TSX exchange Given the history of Canadian mining companies, I wouldn't trust any Canadian mining company listed on the TSX to give to shits about human rights.
      - defrost 4y ago
        Not unless significant blocks of their shareholders do . . . Giving a shit about the environment, child exploitation, etc. by larger investment funds has increased in recent decades , there's been a rise in "ethical investment". Ergo TSX companies care more when third party reports about bad practices are filed at the exchange.

paganel 4y ago

> with multiple international regulation requirements. How is that meant to be re-assuring? As far as I know Chevron hasn't yet paid the money it is due to pay to the Ecuador state for past environmental damages inflicted on the ecosystem there, I'm positive they were branding their work to their stakeholders back-home as respecting "international regulation requirements".

landemva 4y ago

> mines complying with multiple international regulation requirements Really? Please cite which regs apply in North Korea. I am an actual miner. We have State and national regulators who visit and have authority to stop work. I have neither seen nor heard of international regulators.

oblio 4y ago
Why North Korea?
- landemva 4y ago
  Escapee stories of unsafe coal mining. Or try Iran or Ukraine or USA.

influxmoment 4y ago

Wow the replies to this are nuts. All sorts of mental contortions to make lithium sound controversial when it's way down the list of controversial industries

misssocrates 4y ago

Are people confusing lithium with cobalt? Where 70% of it comes from the Congo.

marcosdumay 4y ago
Yes. And I guess some people insist on the confusion on purpose. It doesn't matter how many times people point it out, the confusion keeps happening.
- retinaros 4y ago
  just like people against nuclear. we can see that live in germany
  - nl 4y ago
    This is nothing like nuclear. I know the facts about nuclear and are vehemently opposed to it for environmental risk reasons.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      If nuclear power were profitable, no amount of vehement opposition due to environmental risk could stop it. There'd be nuclear power plants everywhere. Fortunately for your vehement opposition, considering all costs. nuclear power has always been the single most expensive way to generate electricity, has never been profitable, and never will be, even if it wasn't regulated. Investors can't be found unless a government subsidizes construction and pays for decommissioning and waste storage and security. The only reason so many nuclear power plants were even constructed in the US in the first place is that someone somewhere, or perhaps a team or committee, vastly overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. Anyway, it really sucks, but opposition and environmental concern can't really stop the destruction of ecosystems or environmental catastrophe if whatever is causing it is profitable. Nuclear is done and didn't need help killing itself, but keep that in mind if you have any other pet environmental concerns, i.e. that to win and protect the environment, one must figure out a way to obliterate the potential for profit in risking or destroying it. Otherwise, you're just shaking a tiny fist at the sky for all the good it'll do.

blurbleblurble 4y ago

Lithium could be considered a conflict metal on a larger scale though, in that it has likely been a large factor in geopolitical decision making over the last decades: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/as-us-exits-afghanistan-china-eyes-1-trillion-in-minerals https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/24/as-us-exits-afghani...

akira2501 4y ago

> Over 85% of lithium is produced by just 2 international corporations If I search google for this string, your post is the only one that comes up. How did you arrive at this figure? In the history of industry, when has it ever been a positive indication that only two players control the majority of the supply? Do these companies directly own the mines or are there partnerships and subsidiaries involved? What countries are they operating in? How long is the supply chain from the mine to the product? How are water rights being managed? Is there correct oversight? Are any governments trading long term environmental damage for short term profits? What happens when the mines are depleted?

le-mark 4y ago
Google has noticeably deteriorated in recent weeks. Does anyone have insight into that? Like more or too much gpt? The first link here is an article from 2021: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Over+85%25+of+lithium+is+produced+by+just+2+international+corporations&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Over+85%25+of+lithium+is+produced+...
- m3drano 4y ago
  I see plenty of results from Google about this string, from multiple sources and multiple types (video, news and classic links). Unclear about that deterioration.
  - georgeecollins 4y ago
    Right, but Google doesn't show everyone the same results. The earlier poster clearly didn't get a very good search result. If google search is bad for some people or in some cases, it should be a concern for everyone because you would never know when you are getting that poor result.
    - natnat 4y ago
      It basically does show everyone the same results. There's some session-based reranking and ads are heavily personalized, but there's basically no personalization in regular search.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

You should support your claim of 85% with a valid link.

cashsterling 4y ago

International regulations are often very lax and not well enforced in a lot of mining operations in the developing world. We only know what people tell us or show us (unless you are fortunate to be able to boots on the ground investigation yourself). Companies and profitting parties in the lithium supply chain want us to believe that mining is ecologically sound and not abusing people. The first hand accounts and investigations of numerous investigators tell a different story in many areas of world. If you read up on what lithium mining actually entails (in many areas it is not really mining per se)... you'll realize it is an ecological disaster. Big mining operations are big ecological disasters and small operations are small disasters. The same can be said for oil sands and other resource gathering endeavors, so I'm not trying to paint lithium mining as particularly bad. But it is not good. The EV and battery industries are very interested in white-washing the lithium supply chain... but it is very, very dirty. I'm not an ecologist but from what I've read it appears to me that is much worse than fracking in many operations around the world. If the Salton Sea, California, lithium mining operation really gets underway... we'll get a chance to see what "best practice" lithium recovery looks like, which will probably have much lower ecological damage per unit lithium. The Salton Sea area is already pretty messed up, anyhow.

sharemywin 4y ago
"from what I've read it appears to me that is much worse than fracking in many operations around the world." is that taking co2 into account? also doesn't fracking cause earth quakes?