Connect with us

Base Metals

Sustainable steel-making might be a way off but this is what the transition could look like

Interest in green steel is growing. It was high on the agenda at COP26 and Australia has already flagged low … Read More
The post Sustainable steel-making…

Published

on

This article was originally published by Stockhead

Interest in green steel is growing. It was high on the agenda at COP26 and Australia has already flagged low emissions steel as a key step in our net zero by 2050 plan.

The US and EU have agreed to address and lower the carbon intensity of the steel and aluminium industries.

Last month, South Korean steel-making giant POSCO said it was considering Australia as a ‘regional strategic base’ for its green steel and hydrogen projects, and has already signed a hydrogen partnership deal with Origin Energy (ASX:ORG).

And this week green steel tech pioneer Professor Veena Sahajwalla was named NSW Australian of the yearfor her invention of Polymer Injection Technology, or ‘Green Steel’.

Magnetite Mines (ASX:MGT) non-executive director Mark Eames says the increased interest in green steel has grown because the industry generates around 8% of global carbon emissions.

“In the last 12 months, people have started looking at ways to produce low emission steel and the reality is there isn’t an obvious steel-making technology, which is commercial, and in use anywhere in the world today, that can make zero emission steel,” he said.

“So, we’re really at the start of what’s going to be quite a long journey.”
 

Hydrogen for more sustainable steel-making

Hydrogen is definitely looking like the popular option.

Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO) joined forces with BlueScope Steel (ASX:BSL) to investigate the production of low-emissions iron feed using hydrogen last month.

Fortsecue’s (ASX:FMG) Future Industries is working to create Australia’s first green steel project and also last month GFG Alliance announced plans with Santos (ASX:STO) around a new green hydrogen production facility, electric arc furnace (EAF) and direct reduced iron (DRI) plant to transform its Whyalla steelworks in South Australia.

“Basically, they’re taking an existing blast furnace, which is coke-based, and then they’re injecting some hydrogen in the bottom and that reduces some of the fuel from other carbon-based fuels, so it does help reduce the emissions but only a little bit,” Eames said.

“There’s going to be a number of technologies like that around optimisation, that are going to gradually reduce emissions by 10, or 20, or 30%.

“Optimisation is the first step, and then we’re going to have to find ways of making steel without generating emissions.

“It could be that you have a fully hydrogen-based steel making process, and probably the top contender for that is using hydrogen in a direct reduced iron plant instead of gas.”

 

But hydrogen is expensive

But Eames says hydrogen is quite expensive and that as a result steel is going to become a lot more expensive. CRU research manager Paul Butterworth agrees.

“CCS is expensive, is not universally applicable and could only capture a proportion of emissions from a traditional integrated plant if costs are to be contained,” Butterworth said.

“But hydrogen is expensive. Even at $2/kg, which is an aspiration (and difficult to achieve in my view).

“Hydrogen price is ~$17/GJ (lower heating value), whereas metallurgical coal today is ~$5/GJ. So, the main reductant in the process would be at least 3x higher cost and probably more.”
 

More high-grade iron ore needed

So, what kind of iron ore will be needed as the world looks to produce sustainable steel?

Eames says there’s a growing consensus in the industry that higher grade ores are needed to make lower emission steel, which is exactly what it aims to produce from its Razorback project in South Australia.

“People are realising that regardless of whether we use carbon in the form of coal or gas to reduce the iron – or whether we use hydrogen – essentially to reduce emissions, the iron ore used needs to move to higher grades,” he said.

“And the problem with that is the industry has been moving to lower grades.

“The average grade of ore out of places like Australia and Brazil has been declining over the past 20 years, largely because the higher-grade deposits are being exhausted.”

Butterworth said that generally higher-grade ores require less energy to process, but some of the process routes being proposed – such as the use of a smelter where the quality of DRI being melted is less of an issue – means that lower grade ores should be applicable.

“However, the higher the grade the better, so beneficiation is likely to expand and this would be favourable for iron ore resources that are more amenable to beneficiation,” he said.
 

Blast furnace optimisation could be part of the transition

Eames says there’s a 15–20-year period where radical progress needs to be made.

And he’s not alone in this prediction. Last month Fastmarkets index manager Peter Hannah told Stockhead’s Josh Chiat that the steel industry actually produces more carbon dioxide than it produces steel at the moment.

“So, to bring that down and actually meet the decarbonisation targets, first of all, you’re going to need a period of optimisation of the existing blast furnace technology, where the blast furnace is going to need to consume more higher grade product,” Hannah said.

“And then eventually, in maybe a few decades, you will see a big shift towards direct reduction, which absolutely requires material of very high grade.”

 

Low emission steel is going to cost more

While blast furnace optimisation does not provide a net zero solution, Butterworth said it will be part of the transition.

“The technologies currently being proposed for decarbonisation of steel are known, and we could probably start to build low emission steel mills tomorrow if we really wanted to,” he said.

“The problem is the cost. Low emission steel will cost more, and so steel prices need to be higher to encourage the investment.

“We estimate that a carbon price of ~$230/tCO2 is needed to lift the cost of traditional technology sufficiently to make investment on low emission technology viable.

“This implies lifting costs by ~$450/t steel.”
 

So what does the future hold for steelmaking?

Looking ahead to next year, Butterworth said he suspects we will see further announcements by steel mills regarding exploratory investments in green steel developments (electrolysers, DRI plants etc), as well as announcements of further collaborations between mills and or miners.

“Our current view is that the carbon price in Europe is not expected to rise significantly next year, but a little further out it should start lifting as the market for EUA tightens,” he said.

“When this happens, this should start to stimulate further moves in Europe.”

But he said that the transition would take decades given the investment required and the need to build out low carbon electricity to produce hydrogen.

“Traditional steel-making will need to exist side by side with low carbon,” he said.

“The world cannot have a fully low carbon steel sector today, or even in the next decade; it is just not possible from an investment, infrastructure perspective.

“My calculation suggests that the European integrated sector (~95 Mt production), which represents ~$50 billion in plant, property and equipment assets, would need to invest ~$100 billion in new hydrogen-based equipment, but a further $230 billion would be needed to be invested in renewable energy and further investment would be needed in integration, grid strengthening etc.

“It is a massive ask and will not happen soon, and certainly not without either a higher carbon price, much higher fossil fuel costs or subsidy.”
 

Razorback could cater for demand

Eames said that the Razorback project will be among the world’s highest-grade producers, producing around 3Mtpa of a 68% concentrate grade  – and is expected to garner a substantial premium over the benchmark 62% fines price.

“Some observers say that that means that the whole iron ore industry is going to have to shift from lower grade ore bodies, where essentially you dig and ship the material without much processing, to higher grade products which are going to require heavily processed iron ores,” he said.

“And that’s exactly what Magnetite Mines is seeking to do. We’re seeking take a low grade in situ ore body and use magnetic separation technology to create a very high-grade product.”

Eames said there’s going to be a big shortage of high-grade ores and surplus of low-grade ores if we’re going to produce sustainable, low-emissions steel, which he expects over time would increase demand – and the price.

“We completed a pre-feasibility study in early July, that demonstrated that the project was attractive at long run iron ore prices and gave us the confidence to move into the definitive feasibility study phase which is well underway now,” he said.

The price for Razorback ore is expected to be at substantial premium over the benchmark 62% fines price.

 

Renewable power adds to ESG credentials

The company plans to tap into South Australia’s renewable energy grid, which is currently 60% powered by wind and solar – a figure only likely to grow by the time Razorback is expected to produce iron ore in 2024.

And just this week MGT submitted a formal application to ElectraNet for a proposed 132 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to be built from Robertstown to the project site.

“We’ve got some particular advantages at Magnetite Mines, because not only are we aiming to produce a high-grade product, but we’re planning to use electricity from the Southeast Australian grid and from the South Australian part of that grid,” Eames said.

“We think the combination of a high-grade product, combined with a higher renewables component in our energy supply is going to give us attractive ESG credentials.

The post Sustainable steel-making might be a way off but this is what the transition could look like appeared first on Stockhead.



Author: Emma Davies

Energy & Critical Metals

Arizona Sonoran Drills 80.9m of 1.43% Copper at Cactus Project – Shares Up 10.27%

Arizona Sonoran Copper Company Inc. [ASCU-TSX] reported assays from two drill holes (1,133.5 metres/3,718.9 feet)…

Arizona Sonoran Copper Company Inc. [ASCU-TSX] reported assays from two drill holes (1,133.5 metres/3,718.9 feet) in the Cactus East deposit as part of a 9,144-metre (30,000 ft) prefeasibility study (PFS) infill-to-indicated drilling program at the 100%-owned Cactus Mine project, 40 miles (64 km) southeast of the Phoenix, Arizona. Drilling targeted the oxide material along the periphery of the Cactus East preliminary economic assessment (PEA) underground mine plan, defining mineralization toward the East fault and gathering an understanding of the geometry of the fault.

Hole ECE-021, extended mineralization 61 metres (200 ft) east of the current mineral resource shell and is one the best oxide intercepts ever drilled at the Cactus project. The drill intercept of leachable material is considerably thicker and higher grade than predicted in the area at 99.1 metres (325 ft) at 1.28% copper TSol (total soluble) versus 48.8 metres (160 ft) at 0.54% copper TSol. Mineralization is open 122 metres (400 ft) north, toward the northwest-trending East fault. Follow-up drilling will be conducted to confirm the continuity of the high-grade zone to the north and east adjacent to the East fault.

The drilling demonstrates continuous leachable mineralization including extensions outward from the mineral resource pit shell by at least 61 metres (200 ft). Drill hole ECE-021 returned 1.4% copper TSol over 80.9 metres (266 ft) of oxide mineralization, including 2.21% copper TSol over 27.2 metres (89 ft). Hole ECE-020 returned 0.50% copper TSol over 100.9 metres (331 ft) of oxide mineralization.

George Ogilvie, president and CEO, commented: “The infill drilling to indicated mineral resource classification is a key program as we move towards the prefeasibility study, expected in mid-2022, and will underpin all future engineering work at Cactus. The initial high-grade oxide results are providing improved data points for the upcoming PFS, while also confirming that grades improve towards the East fault.”

A total of 265 holes for 72,255 metres (237,057 ft) have now been drilled into the Cactus West and East deposit. Since 2019, the company has drilled 127 of those holes for 30,468 m (99,959 ft). Forty-nine holes for 26,730 metres (87,698 ft) have been drilled into Cactus East.

The Cactus East underground oxide and enriched mineral resource contains 146 million pounds of copper at 0.95% TSol in the Indicated category and 315 million pounds of copper at 0.88% TSol in the Inferred category; any new drilling data will be used to support the PFS expected mid-2022.

Author: Staff Writer

Continue Reading

Energy & Critical Metals

High Voltage: Non-DRC cobalt projects in demand as prices hit 3-year highs

Our High Voltage column wraps all the news driving ASX stocks with exposure to lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, rare earths, … Read More
The post High…

Our High Voltage column wraps all the news driving ASX stocks with exposure to lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, rare earths, and vanadium.

 

In November, cobalt metal prices in Europe rose by 10.4% to punch through the $US30/lb mark for the first time since late 2018.

This late year rally is underpinned by strong demand side fundamentals, limited metal production in China, logistical bottlenecks, and a bullish outlook for battery sector demand heading into 2022, says Benchmark Mineral Intelligence.

Benchmark expects prices to rise steadily into the New Year, “with some market contacts indicating that they expect prices to break the $35/lb level before year-end”.

“Indeed, Benchmark sources have indicated that cobalt metal demand from the battery industry in Europe and Japan is set to increase substantially in 2022,” it says.


 

Cobalt customers diversifying away from the DRC

The landlocked Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a global giant when it comes to cobalt production. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the DRC produced 95,000 tonnes of cobalt in 2020, accounting for 68% of global output.

It’s where China – the world’s biggest consumer by far — gets ~90% of its supply.

But some high-profile supply agreements have shown that European consumers are committed to diversifying away from problematic Chinese and DRC supply chains, Benchmark says.

“To an extent, supply chain players have shown willingness to accept higher costs in order to ensure ESG targets are met, making products more appealing to global automakers,” it says.

That includes prospective Norwegian cell producer, FREYR, which signed a supply contract with Glencore for 1,500 tonnes of cobalt metal in the form of ‘cut cathode’, sourced from Glencore’s Nikkelverk refinery in Norway.

Nikkelverk uses concentrate from Canada and recycled material as feed.

“Generally, cobalt metal in the form of cut cathode has not been utilised by the battery industry for conversion into cobalt sulphate, due to extended dissolution times and therefore higher conversion costs than more conventional cobalt metal briquettes, broken cathode and hydroxide,” Benchmark says.

 

Where’s is the non-DRC cobalt coming from?

Cobalt supply is expected to be dominated by the DRC for the foreseeable future.

That underscores the importance of cobalt projects in ‘de risked’ tier 1 jurisdictions – like those owned by Jervois Mining (ASX:JRV), Australian Mines (ASX:AUZ)Sunrise Energy Metals (ASX:SRL) Queensland Pacific Metals (ASX:QPM)Cobalt Blue (ASX:COB), red hot IPO Kuniko (ASX:KNI) and Metals X’s (ASX:MLX) nickel-cobalt spin-out Nico Resources, which is gearing up to list in December or January.

NOW READ: Cobalt stocks guide: Here’s everything you need to know

 

Battery Metals Winners and Losers

Here’s how a basket of ASX stocks with exposure to lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, rare earths, and vanadium are performing>>>

Battery metals stocks missing from our list? Email [email protected]

CODE COMPANY 1 WEEK RETURN % 1 MONTH RETURN % 6 MONTH RETURN % 1 YEAR RETURN % SHARE PRICE MARKET CAP
ADD Adavale Resources -10 -31 -62 -25 0.038 $ 12,987,708.88
AML Aeon Metals -8 -23 -57 -68 0.0395 $ 33,618,703.60
ALY Alchemy Resource -8 -8 -30 -41 0.011 $ 10,475,793.79
ARN Aldoro Resources -11 -18 25 153 0.405 $ 36,010,003.55
ARN Aldoro Resources -11 -18 25 153 0.405 $ 36,010,003.55
AKE Allkem Limited -10 -13 23 115 8.54 $ 5,431,717,992.72
AJM Altura Mining 0 0 0 0 0.063161 $ 214,798,472.24
ARR American Rare Earths 3 -3 101 65 0.165 $ 57,661,907.16
ATM Aneka Tambang -5 -5 5 5 1.05 $ 1,368,831.45
ASN Anson Resources -19 -28 67 209 0.105 $ 102,139,928.00
ARU Arafura Resource -8 -18 16 76 0.185 $ 271,323,033.10
AXE Archer Materials -3 -29 61 117 1.16 $ 264,896,911.49
ARL Ardea Resources 8 12 16 22 0.52 $ 69,415,109.50
ADV Ardiden 0 -15 10 -45 0.011 $ 24,763,356.59
AGY Argosy Minerals 0 -20 168 277 0.26 $ 291,300,489.87
AZL Arizona Lithium -9 -30 203 727 0.091 $ 153,533,049.83
AAJ Aruma Resources -13 -22 6 -36 0.067 $ 8,187,497.70
AOU Auroch Minerals -15 -29 -42 -29 0.11 $ 38,871,786.47
AQD Ausquest Limited -6 0 -26 -6 0.017 $ 14,834,686.01
A8G Australasian Metals -11 -38 170 0.445 $ 17,626,722.30
AUZ Australian Mines -2 -18 14 31 0.0205 $ 86,071,182.28
AVL Australian Vanadium -4 23 35 80 0.027 $ 88,598,045.86
AR3 Austrare -11 23 0.92 $ 69,405,891.67
AVZ AVZ Minerals 3 21 300 588 0.64 $ 1,818,267,564.20
AZS Azure Minerals 0 -4 18 -59 0.335 $ 96,328,073.51
BMM Balkanminingandmin -16 -45 0.375 $ 11,462,500.00
BHP BHP Group 4 11 -18 -4 40.03 $ 116,800,452,688.46
BKT Black Rock Mining 10 -6 29 150 0.22 $ 160,116,424.41
BEM Blackearth Minerals -4 -4 0 150 0.115 $ 22,826,503.04
BSX Blackstone -6 -9 49 45 0.535 $ 199,514,439.33
BOA Boadicea Resources 5 8 -20 -14 0.2 $ 15,928,478.48
BRB Breaker Res NL -12 -28 61 66 0.29 $ 92,864,664.77
BUX Buxton Resources -1 -18 -34 22 0.079 $ 11,020,489.99
CAE Cannindah Resources -16 -64 203 538 0.185 $ 89,032,517.47
CWX Carawine Resources -3 -5 -21 -34 0.185 $ 25,861,303.37
CLA Celsius Resource -15 -15 -49 -50 0.022 $ 23,187,517.78
CTM Centaurus Metals 0 2 56 81 1.03 $ 343,729,052.00
CHN Chalice Mining -2 36 1 143 9.24 $ 3,219,609,409.18
CHR Charger Metals -1 -23 0.41 $ 12,972,569.18
COB Cobalt Blue -12 -18 -4 176 0.345 $ 106,088,145.69
CNJ Conico 0 -5 16 3 0.036 $ 37,007,950.34
CZN Corazon -6 -11 -13 -45 0.033 $ 9,834,831.06
CXO Core Lithium 1 -17 104 546 0.53 $ 792,701,302.80
DEV Devex Resources -9 97 36 131 0.6 $ 164,946,583.73
EGR Ecograf Limited -21 3 6 254 0.655 $ 292,716,748.35
ESS Essential Metals -8 -27 77 101 0.175 $ 38,646,395.84
ESR Estrella Res -19 -24 -61 -79 0.025 $ 29,426,093.50
EUR European Lithium -4 -41 72 134 0.11 $ 113,449,884.24
EMH European Metals -4 -7 -4 77 1.335 $ 171,721,393.80
FFX Firefinch 17 18 107 379 0.755 $ 744,489,789.30
FGR First Graphene 5 11 -11 -9 0.21 $ 115,525,407.06
FRS Forrestaniaresources -17 -43 0.27 $ 7,854,000.00
GLN Galan Lithium -6 -16 97 310 1.415 $ 407,127,267.81
GAL Galileo Mining -13 -7 -25 -13 0.21 $ 36,207,979.08
GL1 Globallith -5 -6 109 0.565 $ 59,267,194.57
GME GME Resources -12 -23 -11 2 0.053 $ 33,857,473.43
GED Golden Deeps 8 8 0 -7 0.013 $ 10,086,068.72
G88 Golden Mile Resources 2 0 -15 4 0.052 $ 8,892,953.06
GBR Great Boulder Resources 0 -13 35 182 0.135 $ 46,440,655.17
GSR Greenstone Resources -10 4 18 -13 0.026 $ 21,791,124.60
GW1 Greenwing Resources -9 -15 37 105 0.41 $ 45,743,644.65
HNR Hannans 0 -18 435 524 0.037 $ 91,219,501.66
HAS Hastings Tech Met -8 -8 38 62 0.235 $ 399,844,863.44
HXG Hexagon Energy -1 -25 -14 23 0.079 $ 33,005,023.20
HYM Hyperion Metals 0 -10 -13 239 0.865 $ 115,775,447.53
IGO IGO -3 9 29 97 9.91 $ 7,610,541,520.65
ILU Iluka Resources 3 -2 10 52 8.66 $ 3,724,180,609.60
IPT Impact Minerals -7 -7 -13 -38 0.013 $ 26,309,333.95
INF Infinity Lithium 0 -22 161 13 0.175 $ 62,113,418.40
INR Ioneer -4 -23 79 110 0.61 $ 1,179,065,329.43
IXR Ionic Rare Earths -7 5 46 116 0.041 $ 139,088,380.07
JRV Jervois Global -2 -2 -3 54 0.52 $ 789,259,048.24
JRL Jindalee Resources -12 -20 -26 160 2.13 $ 116,323,526.90
LKE Lake Resources -5 -25 204 925 0.82 $ 932,447,770.11
LEG Legend Mining -2 -17 -63 -50 0.05 $ 137,756,786.05
LPD Lepidico -8 -6 196 381 0.0385 $ 230,156,181.06
LML Lincoln Minerals 0 0 0 0 0.008 $ 4,599,869.49
LTR Liontown Resources -21 -24 165 519 1.455 $ 3,178,310,228.03
LEL Lithenergy -15 -31 76 0.74 $ 33,075,000.00
LIT Lithium Australia NL -6 -17 -6 88 0.1125 $ 112,757,141.53
LPI Lithium Pwr Int -3 -12 128 65 0.445 $ 149,971,034.64
LOT Lotus Resources -2 -6 45 243 0.305 $ 276,596,517.36
LYC Lynas Rare Earths 5 22 64 122 8.91 $ 8,302,186,296.80
MNS Magnis Energy Tech -12 -24 60 158 0.465 $ 425,642,809.24
MAN Mandrake Res -12 -21 -82 -57 0.045 $ 22,582,351.79
MLS Metals Australia 0 25 25 25 0.0025 $ 10,477,114.72
MLX Metals X 24 34 83 421 0.495 $ 449,096,703.17
MCR Mincor Resources -2 -10 17 17 1.2 $ 576,373,358.40
MRC Mineral Commodities -13 -29 -59 -74 0.1 $ 51,894,091.50
MIN Mineral Resources -1 18 -7 29 44.69 $ 8,307,520,781.89
MMC Mitremining -5 -5 0.2 $ 5,552,445.50
MOH Moho Resources -8 2 -20 -44 0.059 $ 7,420,748.72
MRD Mount Ridley Mines 14 14 14 167 0.008 $ 42,311,506.41
NMT Neometals -3 -5 102 369 1.025 $ 570,311,451.84
NWC New World Resources -8 -17 -35 21 0.068 $ 109,499,115.02
NIC Nickel Mines -4 31 24 34 1.33 $ 3,508,465,526.15
NKL Nickelx -5 -19 -30 0.105 $ 5,811,750.00
NTU Northern Min -15 0 61 51 0.053 $ 247,605,406.27
NVADB Nova Minerals 1 -7 -13 -28 1.26 $ 214,804,507.20
OZL OZ Minerals 3 10 4 41 26.4 $ 8,851,866,433.69
PAM Pan Asia Metals -11 -16 190 223 0.42 $ 30,936,630.48
PAN Panoramic Resources -5 0 27 50 0.21 $ 430,691,940.84
PEKDA Peak Resources 21 18 -38 13 0.8 $ 142,132,523.39
PNN PepinNini Minerals -11 -33 57 150 0.425 $ 20,016,966.45
PLL Piedmont Lithium -1 -12 -14 120 0.78 $ 419,473,336.00
PLS Pilbara Min -6 0 78 231 2.36 $ 6,991,222,392.20
PGM Platina Resources -20 -18 -35 9 0.051 $ 23,456,646.47
POS Poseidon Nickel 0 2 13 29 0.088 $ 266,564,478.76
PSC Prospect Resources -3 37 294 348 0.65 $ 261,399,356.35
PRL Province Resources -8 -5 -8 996 0.1425 $ 158,152,373.54
PUR Pursuit Minerals -18 -21 -67 35 0.027 $ 23,425,347.90
PVW PVW Resources 8 3 210 210 0.465 $ 30,479,625.00
QEM QEM 0 -3 0 128 0.18 $ 19,849,083.28
QPM Queensland Pacific -10 -16 28 363 0.185 $ 223,676,166.62
QXR Qx Resources -4 -24 38 47 0.022 $ 12,888,884.10
RFR Rafaella Resources -10 -26 -37 -23 0.06 $ 12,016,772.33
REE RareX -1 4 22 -18 0.099 $ 44,707,727.20
RMX Red Mount Min -15 -15 -23 -23 0.0085 $ 13,180,124.72
RLC Reedy Lagoon -25 -33 67 114 0.03 $ 16,200,784.98
RNU Renascor Resources 0 -15 34 900 0.11 $ 198,305,746.80
RBX Resource Base -2 5 488 488 0.2 $ 7,989,517.00
RXL Rox Resources 0 0 -24 -54 0.365 $ 59,102,855.25
S2R S2 Resources -19 3 10 -32 0.17 $ 60,583,725.35
SBR Sabre Resources 0 -17 0 -50 0.005 $ 8,446,568.25
SYA Sayona Mining -15 -23 95 1382 0.115 $ 775,621,717.75
SRI Sipa Resources -2 -11 -14 -29 0.049 $ 9,841,190.54
SGQ St George Mining 5 -6 -26 -49 0.061 $ 35,940,647.16
STK Strickland Metals -3 -22 113 34 0.068 $ 80,099,692.35
SLZ Sultan Resources 0 -11 -41 -32 0.16 $ 11,125,502.24
SRL Sunrise 0 -9 -15 -31 1.755 $ 166,607,076.15
SYR Syrah Resources -6 -12 3 9 1.105 $ 546,114,521.69
TLG Talga Group -24 -28 -12 -26 1.365 $ 418,968,713.63
TMT Technology Metals -6 -16 3 -14 0.31 $ 63,135,030.90
TNG TNG Limited -17 -44 -4 -25 0.067 $ 99,966,111.98
TKL Traka Resources -14 -20 -33 -48 0.012 $ 8,709,510.52
TON Triton Minerals -3 -3 18 -22 0.039 $ 45,378,722.68
VR8 Vanadium Resources -9 -18 19 152 0.063 $ 29,332,967.19
VMC Venus Metals 0 -3 -16 -20 0.175 $ 27,194,162.94
VIA Viagold Rare Earths 0 0 2339 10426 2 $ 166,624,808.00
VML Vital Metals Limited -7 -4 -10 44 0.052 $ 212,439,637.28
VRC Volt Resources -4 -4 -18 135 0.027 $ 69,583,206.03
VUL Vulcan Energy -6 -21 20 360 9.79 $ 1,137,856,640.55
WKT Walkabout Resources 0 -3 3 15 0.19 $ 74,989,655.48
KNI Kuniko 8 -34 42 42 1.21 $ 49,980,000.00

 

The post High Voltage: Non-DRC cobalt projects in demand as prices hit 3-year highs appeared first on Stockhead.









Author: Reuben Adams

Continue Reading

Base Metals

Copper’s Essential Role in Protecting Public Health

Copper can kill up to 99.9% of bacteria on surfaces within two hours of exposure and slow the spread of diseases.
The post Copper’s Essential Role in…

The following content is sponsored by Teck

Copper’s Essential Role in Protecting Public Health

Copper’s Essential Role in Protecting Public Health

Every day, high-touch surfaces present health risks to people in public spaces, and especially the most vulnerable in healthcare. In fact, of every 100 hospitalized patients at any given time, seven will get at least one healthcare-acquired or “hospital infection”.

With naturally antimicrobial properties, copper can kill up to 99.9% of bacteria on surfaces within two hours of exposure and slow the spread of diseases.

In this infographic from our sponsor Teck, we explore copper’s bacteria-fighting abilities and its crucial role in public health.

How Copper Kills Bacteria

Due to its powerful antimicrobial properties, copper kills bacteria in sequential steps:

  • First, copper ions on the surface are recognized by the bacteria as an essential nutrient and enter cell.
  • Then, a lethal dose of copper ions interferes with normal cell functions.
  • Finally, the copper binds to the enzymes, impeding the cell from breathing, eating, digesting, or creating energy.

This rapid killing mechanism prevents cells from replicating on copper surfaces and significantly reduces the amount of bacteria living on the surface.

Antimicrobial copper is effective against bacteria that causes common diseases like staph infections and E. coli that causes foodborne illness. The metal continuously kills bacteria and never wears out.

Besides bacteria, researchers are currently studying copper’s impacts on the virus that causes COVID-19. A previous study suggested that SARS-CoV-2 was completely destroyed within four hours on copper surfaces, as compared to 24 hours on cardboard, and up to three days on plastic and stainless steel. Pre-pandemic studies also demonstrated copper’s ability to kill other coronaviruses.

The Applications of Antimicrobial Copper

Institutions around the world have already deployed antimicrobial copper solutions relating to hospitals, fitness centers, mass transit systems, schools, professional sports teams, office buildings, restaurants, and more.

To date, antimicrobial copper has been installed in more than 300 healthcare facilities around the world. Taking the reduced costs of shorter patient stay and treatment into consideration, the payback time for installing copper fittings is only two months, according to an independent study by the University of York’s Health Economics Consortium.

In Canada, Teck has worked with its partners to install antimicrobial copper coatings on high-touch surfaces in hospitals, educational buildings and transit.

The Stanley Cup champions Los Angeles Kings have installed antimicrobial copper surfaces in their strength and training facility in California. Furthermore, over 50 water bottle filling stations made from antimicrobial copper can also be found throughout the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta.

Copper’s Role in Public Health

While many hospitals and other institutions are already using copper fittings, others are still not aware of its impactful properties.

As awareness increases, copper can become a simple but effective material to help control the spread of infections.

The post Copper’s Essential Role in Protecting Public Health appeared first on Visual Capitalist.


Continue Reading

Trending