1

Tesla’s Lithium Refinery in Texas Ushers in a New Era for Critical Minerals Refining in the US

As announced on May 8, 2023, Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) has recently broken ground on their new lithium refinery in the greater Corpus Christi area of Texas, USA. The new, more than US$1 billion Tesla refinery will produce battery-grade lithium hydroxide (“LiOH”) with targeted commissioning by the end of 2023. Given Elon Musk’s track record, it may be more likely to shift into 2024.

The significance is that the new Tesla LiOH refinery will kickstart a new chapter for U.S. critical minerals refining in North America.

Tesla’s Texas refinery will kick start a new chapter for U.S. critical raw materials refining in North America, starting with lithium

Currently, there are zero LiOH refineries in North America. Most are in China and there are two new refineries in Western Australia.

A Tesla LiOH refinery will have huge follow on benefits for Tesla and the North American supply chain, including:

  1. North American or South American lithium spodumene mines would be able to send their spodumene for processing to the Tesla LiOH refinery in the USA. This is a huge plus for all of these lithium projects as otherwise their material would have been sent to China for processing. This, therefore, supports a new lithium supply chain that can be independent of China.
  2. Tesla can secure LiOH without outside help. Tesla currently has a spodumene off-take supply agreement with Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL | ASX: PLL) from their joint venture with Sayona Mining Limited (ASX: SYA | OTCQB: SYAXF) at the North American (“NAL”) Lithium Mine in Quebec, Canada which has only very recently begun spodumene production. It would seem a rather obvious next step that Tesla would look to secure more lithium spodumene off-take as they grow their LiOH production. Tesla does have an off-take agreement with Liontown Resources Limited (ASX: LTR) from their Australian Kathleen Valley Project. But Tesla will need much more spodumene if it wants to produce ever greater amounts of lithium. We know Tesla plans to ramp up to 20 million electric cars produced per year by 2030 and yesterday Elon Musk revealed Tesla could potentially grow their energy storage business to 500GWh per year. Elon Musk stated at the Tesla 2023 Shareholders Meeting (52 min mark of the video): “The Tesla Megapack is now more competitive than a natural gas peaker plant……growing faster than our vehicle sales….I think long term……stationary battery pack activity will be in excess of 500 GWh a year…the demand is quasi infinite. Tesla plans to use lithium iron phosphate batteries, so the key element for Musk to source would be lithium.
  3. Other companies will follow Tesla’s lead, not only in lithium but in several other battery materials, notably nickel, cobalt, and graphite.

Tesla Texas refinery to do more than just lithium

A small, yet important, part of the announcement stated: “In the future, we expect this facility to also process other intermediate lithium feedstocks, including recycled batteries and manufacturing scrap.

This suggests Telsa also plans to get into the lithium-ion battery recycling business. That part may also tie in nicely with yesterday’s announcement of JB Straubel being appointed to join the Tesla Board. JB Straubel is a co-founder of Tesla, but more recently he also founded and is the CEO of Redwood Materials, Inc., a company focused on recycling lithium-ion battery materials to source valuable metals such as cobalt, nickel, copper, and lithium.

The faster we can make battery packs, the faster we can move to a sustainable energy economy

At the Tesla 2023 Shareholder Meeting, Elon Musk stated (32 min mark): “The faster we can make battery packs, the faster we can move to a sustainable energy economy. That’s the fundamental limiting factor.”

The chart below reinforces this showing in simple terms what Elon Musk described yesterday that solar & wind production needs to increase by 3x/year, battery production by 29x/year, and battery electric vehicle production by 11x/year.

Elon Musk has previously stated that the limiting factor to making more batteries is lithium. Now we can see why Tesla is spending more than US$1 billion to get into the lithium refining business. Lithium mining and then refining are the choke points to achieve a 100% renewable economy.

FIGURE 1: Tesla says solar & wind annual production needs to increase by 3x, battery annual production by 29x, BEV annual production by 11x (from 2022 levels)

Source: Tesla 2023 shareholder meeting

Closing remarks

A lot is happening very fast in the world of renewable energy and the electrification of transport.

Tesla Master Plan 3 and 2023 Shareholder Meeting has clearly defined what is needed to be done to move to a sustainable energy future. All of this is achievable and Tesla is way out in front with ever-increasing electric vehicle and stationary energy storage/solar factories and now a Tesla lithium refinery (under construction) and soon a battery recycling facility.

Tesla is rapidly gaining market share in the new renewable energy economy and is now securing their supply chain with a U.S. lithium refining facility.

May has been magnificent and the decade ahead looks to be very promising for investors focused on the greatest trends of our time – Renewable energy (solar/wind), lithium-ion battery energy storage, and electrification of the transport sector.

FIGURE 2: Schematic of Tesla’s under-construction lithium refinery at Corpus Christi, Texas, USA

Source: Tesla 2023 shareholders meeting (video)



Telsa Unveils ‘Masterplan 3’ and Ways to Invest in Renewable & Energy Transition Companies

Tesla‘s (NASDAQ: TSLA) Master Plan 3 was released in detail on April 5, 2023, and it gives the world a road map on how the world can transition to a clean sustainable energy future. It is arguably one of the most important documents ever released in history.

Key pillars of the plan include re-powering the existing grid with renewables (including solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro), switching to electric vehicles (“EVs”), switching to heat pumps, and some use of green hydrogen for high-temperature applications. Elon Musk also supports smart nuclear as a good base load power option, especially when compared to fossil fuel power, especially coal.

To achieve this, the world needs to build out a new infrastructure and a key part is stationary energy storage, mostly using batteries. Musk’s Master Plan 3 suggests we need a massive 240 TWh of energy storage globally to support both energy production and EVs. To get some perspective on this number, in 2022, the world produced only about 700 GWh of lithium-ion batteries. 240 TWh is equal to 240,000 GWh, which is 342x the current 700 GWh.

Of course, other energy storage apart from lithium-ion can be used, but certainly, the electric transport sector will rely on lithium-ion and it is estimated to need 112 TWh of the total 240 TWh needed. If the world was to steadily grow and reach 20TWh per annum (“pa”) of new energy storage production starting in 2030, then it would take 12 years (240/20=12) to reach the end goal sometime around 2042. In terms of costs, the plan suggests it would cost about US$10 trillion, which is only 10% of the world’s 2022 GDP. Also because electrification for transport and heat pumps are much more efficient, then the world would only need to produce 1/2 as much energy.

Tesla Master Plan 3 – The world needs 240 TWh of energy storage to become clean energy sustainable and avoid using fossil fuels

Source: Tesla Master Plan 3 (April 5, 2023)

Investing in renewable & energy transition companies

One way to cover many of the areas discussed above is via some or all of the Sprott ETFs shown below:

Some other EV, battery, and battery metals ETFs include:

The fact that renowned investor Eric Sprott has recently added several new energy transition ETFs bodes well for the various sectors. It also helps individual and professional investors gain broad access to these markets via a single ticker.

Another way to invest in these themes is via companies covered by InvestorIntel.com. Probably the best place to start is looking under the Critical Minerals & Rare Earths tab and the ESG & Cleantech tab.

EIA data and forecasts showing solar and wind to grow the fastest to 2050

Source: U.S. EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2020

Closing remarks

Tesla continues to lead the world toward a clean and sustainable energy future. Their Master Plan 3 gives a concise and detailed picture of what needs to be done. It details solar and onshore wind as the two cheapest forms of energy production (page 19) and lithium-ion batteries as the cheapest energy storage (page 18) solution.

The clean energy transition has already begun with solar and wind as the fastest-growing new energy generation globally and battery energy storage global growth is set to double in 2023. To meet all the 240 TWh of global energy storage needed, lithium-ion battery capacity would need to grow by several hundred times. The global electric vehicle market share reached 13% in 2022 and is a key part of this megatrend.

The global energy transition and transport electrification is the biggest trend of our time, at least until the full build-out is completed by approximately 2050. Investors should embrace the change and understand it is inevitable.

Our children, grandchildren, and future generations will also want to enjoy a clean planet one day.




Vertical Integration is all the Rage in the EV Industry, is Musk the New Ford?

Last week, Bloomberg news reported that Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) was in talks to buy Sigma Lithium Corporation (TSXV: SGML | NASDAQ: SGML), a company that is focused its 100%-owned Grota do Cirilo project, a large hard-rock lithium deposit in Brazil with lithium production aiming for 2024.

The stock price of Sigma Lithium was up 16% after the news was released and is up almost 250% over the past year in lockstep with other lithium miners. Electric vehicle (“EV”) manufacturers want to lock up lithium supplies as the metal increases since it is a key component in EV batteries and there are worries that demand will soon outstrip supply.

Neither Telsa nor Sigma Lithium released any news release on the subject nor provided any comment to the media. Tesla, led by Elon Musk, is looking at various options to secure its lithium sources, including potentially its own mining and refining.

Previously to fund its exploration and development, Sigma Lithium had signed a funding and 6-year offtake agreement with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (TSE: 8031) of Japan and also signed a six-year lithium offtake agreement with Korean-based LG Energy Solution (KOSE: A373220).

In the past, Tesla signed contracts for lithium with Ganfeng Lithium Group Co. (SZSE: 002460), one of the largest lithium suppliers in the world, and more recently, Liontown Resources Limited (ASX: LTR), an Australian miner.

Is Elon Musk the New Henry Ford?

The reappearance of Henry Ford-style vertical integration in car manufacturing marks a big 180-degree turn from the late 1990s when outsourcing to sub-contractors began.

In the early 1900s (over 100 years ago!), Henry Ford had a keen interest in acquiring and controlling the sources of raw materials for his company to achieve manufacturing self-sufficiency for his automobile operations. By achieving vertical integration, a business strategy in which a company controls all aspects of production, from raw materials to finished products, Henry Ford believed he would ensure a reliable supply chain and potentially reduce costs.

To achieve this desire, Henry Ford bought vast tracts of timberland and built sawmills in Michigan to control the wood required in his vehicles but also used to create shipping containers and for heating his factories. Henry Ford had a strong interest in controlling other sources of raw materials for his company, such as iron ore for steel production, a key component of automobiles, and also coal for his factories.

But Henry Ford also went further afield as he sought to secure a reliable source of rubber for his company. In the mid-1920s, he purchased a large tract of land in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and established a rubber plantation and community called Fordlandia. Unfortunately, it was abandoned in the late 1930s due to challenges with the workers and the physical environment.

The New Vertical Integration Trend Continues…

Not to be outdone by Tesla, earlier this month, General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) announced the closing of the initial tranche, a $320 million investment, of a previously announced $650 million investment and offtake agreement with Lithium Americas Corp. (TSX: LAC | NYSE: LAC). Lithium Americas is advancing the Caucharí-Olaroz lithium project in Argentina towards first production and is also developing the Thacker Pass lithium project in Nevada which is advancing towards construction.

Last year, Rio Tinto Group (NYSE: RIO | LSE: RIO) and the Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F)  signed an agreement whereby Rio Tinto would supply Ford with materials including lithium, low-carbon aluminum, and copper and Ford would become the initial customer for Rio Tinto’s Rincon lithium project in Argentina.

It’s also happening with the smaller technology components in EV batteries. In June 2022, Nano One Materials Corp. (TSX: NANO), a company with patented processes for the low-cost, low-environmental footprint production of high-performance cathode materials used in lithium-ion batteries, announced a strategic US$10 million equity investment and collaboration agreement with Rio Tinto. The two companies entered into an agreement under which they would work together to support the acceleration of the commercialization of Nano One’s patented cathode technology.

Also in June of last year, NEO Battery Materials Ltd. (TSXV: NBM | OTCQB: NBMFF) announced a C$3 million strategic investment from Automobile & PCB Inc. (KOSE: A015260) into its Korean subsidiary for the first phase of its commercial plant project. NEO focuses on producing silicon anode materials for lithium-ion batteries through its proprietary single-step nanocoating process.

Final Thoughts

Ford’s attempts to control raw materials were not always successful, and he faced challenges such as labor disputes, market fluctuations, and supply chain issues.

Nonetheless, his focus on vertical integration and self-sufficiency had an impact on the American manufacturing industry.

Perhaps what is old is new again.




Is Elon Musk turning Twitter’s eagle into a turkey?

With his takeover of Twitter, Musk has proven himself to be more of an agent of chaos than a disrupter. Disrupters have been celebrated as the innovators and drivers of the new economy, blazing new trails and finding new markets, but as Twitter users, employees and advertisers have discovered in the last few weeks there is a big difference between disruption and wholesale carnage.

Since his takeover of Twitter for $44 billion Musk has forgotten the cardinal rule of takeovers and senior management changes – don’t do anything for a few months. Unless there is an absolute crisis, the best thing new management can do is nothing at all. In a buy-out, this is the time to learn about your new toy and reassure your clients and employees that all is well. From this base of stability and knowledge, changes and innovations can be slowly introduced without destroying the company.

This is not, however, Elon Musk’s way. On day one he posted a tweet of himself walking into Twitter HQ carrying a kitchen sink, saying: “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!” He immediately began making untested changes to the platform, making major policy announcements in real time via tweet and then immediately reversing himself, firing and rehiring key staff, and generally trolling Twitter users and the world from his new platform. He fired CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, and policy chief Vijaya Gadde in the first couple of weeks.

The result has been a rush for the door, both in long-time users and advertisers. Twitter has (or had) roughly 450 million monthly active users. In FY 2021 advertising services generated USD $4.5 billion for Twitter, or about 89% of its revenue. As a result of the chaos and criticism of Twitter’s rudderlessness, advertisers have canceled or “put on pause” their ad buys. To date these include General Mills, the Volkswagen Group, General Motors, Pfizer, United Airlines, Audi, Farvel, and Carlsberg. Their concerns are not just about a drop in Twitter users, but also “concerns about a rise in misinformation, hate speech, and other distasteful content under his watch.”

This is also a major concern for thousands of marketing specialists, investor relations professionals, journalists, media and others who support and report on the small to medium cap public markets. In a few years Twitter has become a cornerstone for companies getting their stories out to a wider audience through press releases, corporate updates, CEO interviews and presentations. Facebook and LinkedIn are also part of the social media ecosystem, but reach and serve different markets.

It is also not just about audience size. According to its public filings, Twitter:

“…creates tailored advertising opportunities by using an algorithm to make sure promoted products make it into the right users’ timelines, search results, profile pages, and Tweet conversations. Advertisers have the ability to target an audience based on multiple criteria. Twitter provides ways for advertisers to build and grow an audience interested in the products or services they are offering. Advertisers also have the option to pay for ads that will appear at the top of the trending-topics list or timeline.”

If Twitter crashes and burns companies and investor relations professionals will be faced with a fragmentation of their social media buys. Facebook has far more users than Twitter (with roughly 2.96 billion monthly active users as of Q3 2022) and uses its own ad targeting algorithms, but reaches a different audience than Twitter. For business, Twitter’s value in the space is as an aggregator of users, particularly journalists and media outlets, and no other similar platform comes close to its audience. Mastodon and CounterSocial are popular destinations for people fleeing Twitter, but they are both small, ad-free, appeal to different demographics, and it will be a long while before they accumulate an audience or for companies to re-create their hard-won audience of Twitter followers.

It may well be, in the phrase often attributed to Mark Twain, that reports of Twitter’s death are greatly exaggerated. The brand, the technology and the market are all valuable properties. Maybe not worth $44 billion by the time Musk is finished with his capricious vanity meddling, but a valuable property nonetheless. Musk may have put up a lot of money from the sale of his Tesla shares, but the financiers who put up the rest of the funding for the buyout will have something to say seeing their investment evaporate. Major banks, including Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley, MUFG, and Societe Generale committed to giving Musk $13 billion for the acquisition. Morgan Stanley alone has contributed nearly $3.5 billion for the acquisition. There will be a point when they demand that Musk stop running with scissors.

Companies and their marketers are holding their collective breath as they watch one of their most useful investment relations tools speed towards the cliff, wondering what they will replace it with.

In the words of Elon Musk in a tweet addressed specifically to his “Dear Twitter Advertisers” on October 27th who were jumping ship:

“Fundamentally, Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world that strengthens your brand and grows your enterprise… Let us build something extraordinary together.”

It may still be possible, if he can restrain himself for five minutes in his reckless campaign to tear it down.




Musk Twitter Deal, Predatory Short Selling Takes a Hit and Rethinking Greenland Rare Earths in this Week-in-Review….

This weekend was spent enjoying reviewing an interview with Elon Musk, hosted by Head of Ted, Chris Anderson, from April 2022. Click here to access: Elon Musk talks Twitter, Tesla and how his brain works. Seeking enlightenment on his perceived value of Twitter and the capital markets as a news media outlet, it is clear that Musk is a self-professed truthseeker. Arguing that the fortitude behind Twitter, combined with the speed to coverage, makes it an undeniable tool for freedom of speech, the backbone for democracy.

Reviewing a Forbes column on Musk’s recent sell-a-thon of Tesla shares, it is clear that whether he buys or litigates, he has the funds to do so. Forbes.com highlights include: (a) “Musk sold $6.88 billion in Tesla shares earlier this month, accounting for around 7.92 million shares total, reports Forbes.” (b) Adding that Musk “has sold almost $7 billion worth of Tesla stock in recent days …brings the total liquidation to over $15 billion so far this year, and almost $32 billion over the past 12 months.” And (c) “Speculation is that the funds are being gathered in order to fund Musk’s lawsuit with Twitter, and to provide capital should he be forced to pay a fine or go ahead with the purchase.”

Conclusion & Recommendation: Twitter continues to be the top social media outlet for news updates and if you’re not on it, get on it today. My vote? Musk, get in there – clean it up, and BUY it.

Sent this from a NYC financier on August 13th titled “Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Other Billionaires are Funding a Quest for Rare Minerals Buried Beneath Greenland’s Ice Capable to Build Electric Cars and Renewable Batteries” (click here to access).

Suspicious of the PR machine behind it, not to mention the experience of working with Greenland residents who make Californians look slack on environmental issues, deemed it to be both irrelevant and/or wishful thinking. Then this breaking news came out today: Hudson Resources and Neo Performance Sign Agreement on the Sarfartoq Rare Earth Element Project In Greenland (click here to access), one is driven to rethink this position.

To Do: Interview Jack Lifton on the Neo Performance/Greenland deal. Discuss the rare earths in Greenland and correct perhaps my own misconceptions on previous media coverage that the residents will not allow anyone to secure production. This to include reaching out to Dr. Ruben Shiffman from Greenland Resources Inc. (NEO: MOLY) and invite him to the Critical Minerals Summit on Wednesday, November 9, 2022.

Finally, in reference to Twitter Tips, in addition to constantly reminding companies to include both their trading symbols and web URL on their “About” information on Twitter, was watching an expert explain how to be an effective Twitter user. He says that we should find a passion topic and keep our readers interested in something we are engaged in.

“Engage your reader…” is a theme repeated over and over.

Thinking about this, my favorite Twitter user is Terry Lynch of Power Nickel Inc. (TSXV: PNPN | OTCQB: CMETF) — “Canada’s Next LOW-CARBON HIGH-GRADE Nickel Mine”. Terry is behind Save Canadian Mining and is a front-runner in the market on discussions about the negative impact on the market from predatory short selling. Elon Musk specifically addresses the unprecedented levels of attacks on him and Tesla on this front, so perhaps Elon will enjoy Terry’s most recent tweet….

Terry Lynch posts this via @SCMining on Twitter and writes: @IIROCinfo has made a very important statement. This puts Investment Banks on notice – the liability for predatory naked #shortselling is on them. This is a great start to correcting a major problem in our markets (click here to access).

Now for the week in review for the week of August 15-19, 2022.

The Top 10 Trending Columns on InvestorIntel.com for the last 30-days include:

  1. Nano One’s cathode materials are inventing the zero-emission battery future
  2. What does the replacement of the Australian Strategic Materials CEO mean?
  3. MP Materials is riding the rare earths tonnes per year train
  4. The Dean’s List – Part 1: What rare earths company will benefit from Canada’s commitment to critical minerals?
  5. The Dean’s List – Part 2: What nickel company will benefit from Canada’s commitment to critical minerals?
  6. Disregarding ESG standards is key to China’s rare earths dominance
  7. Eye on the price of uranium, Cameco brings crown jewel back into production and Ur-Energy is set to go.
  8. Lynas Bets $500 Million on Rare Earths Market Expansion
  9. China owns the Green revolution with falling prices of critical technology minerals
  10. Appia Rare Earths & Uranium by the numbers

We published 2 interviews. A slowdown in video output here due to our Director and Editor for 21-years running off to Croatia to get married!

InvestorIntel Interviews WATCH (please of course):

And now —- if you missed the features, you could NOT go wrong by reviewing any of the below written by brilliant analysts and professionals such as Dean Bristow, Bob Hanes, Byron W King and Mel Sanderson.

InvestorIntel Columns to REVIEW:

Special Thanks to ii8 System Users. This membership program is what helps us invest in independent market coverage by world class writers. Publishing the news output from all the ii8 System users, here is the list of news coverage for the week of August 15-19, 2022.

ii8 System News Releases for the Week in Review for August 15-21, 2022:

Want to get in touch with me? Send an email to [email protected], and here’s to a great week!




The Secret that Elon Musk and Twitter Share

Elon Musk reneging on a deal is hardly a shocker for me. I remember when he promised to only use US-based battery materials in his Teslas produced only in the States, and well – we told him that he couldn’t make this happen, but did it ever get him some attention. So, while it is incomprehensible to me what it must be like when you are the richest man on the planet, I have some insight into Elon’s autism spectrum disorder and how Twitter could still —- close their deal.

Elon has publicly described himself as having Asperger’s Disorder, which is defined as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) …or was. The Asperger’s diagnosis only started being used by the medical professional in the mid-nineties. Later they would pop back and forth between Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD) and Asperger’s and that of course, became quite confusing to parents and educational facilities attempting to create infrastructure for the diagnoses. Today, Asperger’s is rejected by many physicians and simply referred to as ASD. While Elon has popularized this dated diagnosis and added some sizzle to Asperger’s, it is my opinion that this can be an extraordinarily debilitating life challenge that can make functioning in our society nothing short of brutal.

So, what is my secret for Twitter to pull this deal out of the flames?

A person with ASD is driven by attention. Most people are, however, what makes ASD individuals different is that they get a kind of high* from it. And the part of this equation that is critical in understanding ASD is that the high an individual derives from attention is indifferent to positive or negative attention.

What does this mean? While most people would feel threatened by a litigation suit over a ‘tousled’ $44B deal falling into the crapper, Elon is getting – what? He is getting the high-octane drive that he thrives on – he is receiving endless cavalcades of attention.

My advice to Twitter? It is simple. Call me and put together some of the brightest media minds in the nation to collaborate on how to make buying Twitter have more appeal (aka, higher levels of media attention) than losing it. As we can all see by the headlines, Elon is getting his thrill with the impact of saying no, and the reasons he is presently proposing are currently shielded by the pleasure of the raging media rivers of attention from the ability to be free from the types of horror any of the rest of us would feel if Twitter decided to sue any of us over the loss of a $44B deal.

I am not a scientist, but I am a mother of an adult that has ASD, and the word ‘high’ is the only way I can describe what I have seen in endless interactions with professionally diagnosed ASD individuals. And with this experience, I can bet that Elon is not stressed about the potential tens of millions in legal fees and if anything – I can also bet that Elon will be seeking the most decadent magnetic legal team for drawing more attention to guess who? Ah yes, Elon Musk.

At this moment in time, Twitter is the most powerful media platform that the world has ever seen, and it runs similar to an ASD mindset as it’s powered by energy — driven by attention. The more tweets, the more the news is deemed relevant, and Elon understands this, which is why he needs to nuke the fake accounts that throw off the algorithms that monitor our society’s pulse on what we believe matters versus what we believe does not.

And if Twitter can hang tough on the wisdom of understanding the ASD model, which innately they do — Musk is the perfect man to lead Twitter.




With lithium demand skyrocketing here are 5 early-stage lithium junior miners to watch

With lithium demand projected to increase 10-11 fold this decade, there is a huge opportunity for successful lithium junior miners to prosper. Last year Rio Tinto was quoted as saying that “filling the supply gap will require over 60 Jadar projects”.

Then just last month Tesla CEO Elon Musk said (Tesla Q1 2022 earnings call transcript): “…can more people please get into the lithium business? Do you like minting money? Well, the lithium business is for you…” Musk also said on Twitter: “Price of lithium has gone to insane levels! Tesla might actually have to get into the mining & refining directly at scale unless costs improve.

Of course, industry experts have been warning of EV metals supply deficits for some years, but it appears these warnings mostly fell on deaf ears. With this background in mind, today we take a look at some early-stage lithium junior companies with the potential to help fill the lithium supply gap in the second half of this decade.

China lithium carbonate spot prices – up about 6x over the past year due to lithium shortages

Source: Trading Economics

5 early-stage lithium junior miners to watch out for in 2022 (in no particular order)

  1. Essential Metals Limited (ASX: ESS)
  2. Green Technology Metals Limited (ASX: GT1)
  3. Metals Australia Ltd. (ASX: MLS)
  4. Lithium South Development Corporation (TSXV: LIS | OTCQB: LISMF)
  5. Winsome Resources Limited (ASX: WR1)

Essential Metals Limited (ASX: ESS)

Essential Metals is an Australian exploration company with 9 projects (lithium, gold, gold JV, and nickel JV) all in Western Australia (WA). Three of the projects are 100% owned and 6 are JV’s with other companies, with ESS retaining a 20-30% interest (see below).

Essential Metal’s flagship project is their 100% owned Pioneer Dome Lithium Project in WA. The Project is located in a known lithium corridor and the gold-rich Eastern Goldfields region of WA, which contains the Mt Marion, Bald Hill and Buldania lithium mines/projects. The Project has a reasonable sized JORC compliant Total Resource of 11.2Mt at 1.21% Li2O, still with exploration upside. The Resource starts from or near surface. Drill assay results from the recent campaign are due out by the end of May 2022.

Essential Metals also has two other 100% owned gold projects in WA, namely the Golden Ridge Project (100% owned), 20kms from the Kalgoorlie super pit and the Juglah Dome Project, 60km east-southeast of Kalgoorlie. In addition, the Company has numerous JV projects including Acra Gold Project JV (25% interest), Kangan Gold Project JV (30%), Balagundi Gold Project Farmin/JV (25%), Larkinville Gold Project Farmin/JV (25% gold interest) (hosts a JORC Resource of 19,700 t @ 3.02 g/t for 11,600 oz. Au), Blair-Golden Ridge Nickel Farmin/JV (25% nickel interest) and Wattle Dam Nickel Joint Venture (20% nickel interest).

Essential Metals trades on a market cap of A$162 million.

Essential Metals summary showing the Pioneer Dome Lithium Project location near other successful lithium mines and projects in WA

Source: Essential Metals company presentation

Green Technology Metals Limited (ASX: GT1)

Green Technology Metals (GT1) has multiple lithium projects (options to acquire, some at 80% interest others at 100% interest) spread over 39,982 hectares in Ontario, Canada. GT1’s most advanced project is the Seymour Lithium Project with a JORC Total Mineral Resource of 4.8Mt @ 1.25%. Within the Seymour Project, drill results include an impressive 40m @ 1.54% Li2O. When combining all GT1’s Ontario Lithium Projects the target resource is 50-60 MT @ 0.8-1.5% Li2O.

An updated resource estimate is targeted for Q2, 2022. Management is top tier and highly experienced.

Green Technology Metals trades on a market cap of A$212 million.

GT1’s portfolio of multiple lithium projects in Ontario Canada

Source: GT1 website

Metals Australia Ltd. (ASX: MLS)

Metals Australia is an Australian junior miner with several projects. Their most advanced project is the Lac Rainy Nord Graphite Project in Quebec, Canada with an Indicated and Inferred Resource of 13.3Mt at 11.5% TGC for 1.529M tonnes of contained graphite.

With regards to lithium, Metals Australia 100% owns the promising Manindi Lithium and Zinc Project in WA. The Project has several lithium-cesium-tantalum (LCT) pegmatites spread over a total 3km strike length. Individual pegmatites have strike lengths of over 300m and widths of up to 25-30m. Past drilling includes intersections of 15m @ 1.2% Li2O, 117 Ta205 from 34m. Drilling is ongoing notably at the Foundation pegmatite where consistently high grade lithium grab samples (1% Li2O and >0.4% Rb) have been detected over the entire 500m strike length. Assay results are expected shortly. Manindi also has an existing JORC 2012 Resource estimate of 1.08Mt at 6.52% Zn, 0.26% Cu and 3.19g/t Ag.

Metals Australia trades on a market cap of A$54 million.

Lithium South Development Corporation (TSXV: LIS | OTCQB: LISMF)

Lithium South Development Corporation (Lithium South) is already quite advanced at their 100% owned Hombre Muerto North Lithium Brine Project in Argentina. The Project lies near several billion-dollar projects such as Livent’s lithium mine, Allkem’s Sal de Vida project, and POSCO’s quite new project purchased for US$280 million. Hombre Muerto is the premiere salar in Argentina, known for very high grade lithium and very low impurities.

The Hombre Muerto North Project has an M&I Resource of 571,000t contained LCE, with an excellent grade of 756mg/L, and a very low Mg/Li ratio of 2.6:1. Drilling is about to begin at their Alba Sabrina claim with results to follow most likely later in Q2, 2022. The Resource has potential to grow significantly from here.

Lithium South trades on a market cap of only C$68 million.

Winsome Resources Limited (ASX: WR1)

Winsome Resources is a lithium explorer focused on their 4, 100% owned, projects spread over 50,000 Ha in Quebec, Canada. The Projects are Cancet, Adina, Sirmac-Clappier, and Decelles (option to acquire 100%).

The flagship Cancet Lithium Project has had outstanding previous drilling success and boasts a JORC Exploration Target of 15-25Mt @ 1-2% Li2O + 100-250ppm Ta2O5. The past drilling includes 59 holes for 5,216m averaging ~70m drill depth defining a shallow high-grade lithium deposit. Drilling will continue in 2022 with a substantial maiden Resource estimated expected later this year.

Winsome Resources trades on a market cap of A$66 million.

Summary of Winsome Resources 4 lithium projects in Quebec, Canada

Source: Winsome Resources company presentation

Closing remarks

Investing in early-stage lithium juniors carries higher risk and reward.

Of the 5 companies discussed in this article three (Essential Metals, Green Technology Metals, Lithium South Development Corp.) already have a lithium resource, one (Winsome Resources) has defined a lithium deposit with a resource estimate due later in 2022, and the other (Metals Australia) has a graphite and a zinc-copper-silver resource with an exciting lithium project with drill results out soon.

I could also include Avalon Advanced Materials Inc. (TSX: AVL | OTCQB: AVLNF) in this group, but I already wrote on them recently here, discussing their lithium projects, lithium resource, and plans for a JV lithium refinery in Thunder Bay which were given a huge boost recently as you can read here.

Finally to answer Elon’s question: “Can more people please get into the lithium business?” The problem is it takes at least 5-10 years to build a lithium mine from scratch. I will finish with two key quotes last month from lithium market experts:

  • Benchmark Mineral Intelligence was quoted stating: “Battery capacity is currently growing at twice the speed of lithium raw material supply.
  • Mr. Lithium, Joe Lowry was quoted stating: “I believe there will be a day in the future when lithium is in oversupply, but it won’t be in this decade…..You can build a battery factory in two years, but it takes up to a decade to bring on a lithium project.”

Disclosure: The author is long ALL the lithium companies mentioned in this article and intends to hold long term.




Magical Thinking about China, Lithium and the Rare Earths in the ICE to EV Transformation

Rather than blocking China’s ambitions, America’s verbal theatrics about policies encourage China to continue hedging its bets, including by rethinking its national-security strategy and shifting more resources to its science and technology sectors. In the worst decoupling scenario, the world’s two largest economies will end up controlling their own technology-supply systems, each with its own rules and standards. America, though, unlike China has no firm rules or standards in place on supporting key industries’ basic needs, raw materials, and energy. At the moment America is not prepared to compete with a rising Chinese industrial economy.

Two hundred years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte famously said, “China is a sleeping giant. Let her lie and sleep, for when she awakens, she will astonish the world.”

As a good sample of unpreparedness look at the politicians who support and the Ivy League MBA managers who run the global OEM automotive industry. They tell us that they are well on their way to solving the electric vehicle battery and infrastructure shortage in the non-Chinese OEM automotive world. At least that’s what they think.

Last week, the White House launched an electric vehicle (“EV”) charging action plan, designed to progress the USA towards the President’s goal of 500k chargers nationwide, and 50% of EV sales share by 2030. [italics and boldfacing, mine]

This is a patently ridiculous, unobtainable, goal, for the United States, and it childishly ups the ante with China, which has published a serious, well thought out, do-able and government-supported 40% of EV sales goal by 2030.

A dispiriting record of misjudgment, hubris, and delusion has brought the global non-Chinese OEM automotive industry to the brink of chaos, which is the opposite of where an industry should be that makes complex end-user products based on carefully articulated robust supply chains ( i.e.: one’s where each link in the chain is critical and is multi-selected so that secondary sources [backups] are kept ready at all times).

It was not really disruptive technologies, nor climate change (then known as “global warming” and before that as “global cooling”) that brought about the apparent suicide of the internal combustion engine (ICE) powered transportation industry, after more than 100 years of the mass production of ICE vehicles. It was, ironically, vastly improved quality, durability, fuel efficiency, emissions reduction, (domestic) market saturation, pricing ceilings, and shrinking margins on manufacturing in the most capital-intensive business in the world, the OEM automotive industry. This was coupled with the increasing reluctance of banks to support massive lines of credit at interest rates that the OEM automotive industry could afford. By the beginning of the 21st-century American carmakers were only making their profits from purchase and lease financing, and from the high priced, non-critical, comfort and entertainment options and gadgets on the vehicles they sold, which vehicles had, in their basic forms, become commodities.

The rise of the hedge funds at the end of the twentieth century was eclipsing wealth creation through manufacturing productivity improvements and replacing it with financialization, making money by financial manipulation. The most recent market crashes (even before 2008’s giant size one), Black Monday of 1987, the 2001 dot-com bubble, the 2008 sub-prime housing crisis, and the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic crisis were increasingly the results of pure financialization. When Elon Musk, who made his money through the innovative online service PayPal, decided that he wanted to tackle the idea of entering the multi-trillion dollar a year OEM automotive industry, by transforming it, the time, the early 21st century, was right.

International capital had robbed and pillaged through Black Monday, the dot-com bubble and then the sub-prime housing bubble. Low Federal Funds interest rates did not deter astronomical credit card rates and facilitated low (or no) cost buyouts, privatization, and then, after asset stripping, the resales of the “restructured” companies as IPOs to the public at ludicrous values. These transactions were lining the pockets of financiers, but there was still one more giant industry, the biggest, to churn, the low margin, but huge capital deploying and using, the OEM automotive industry. It was Musk who brought a method to the madness, the revival of the Electric Vehicle powertrain to supposedly help to stop climate change due to carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels for transportation.

Tesla, founded in 2005, struggled for 10 years, but then the outside financializers, perhaps, not Musk, himself, caught on. They could hype Tesla’s shares and create a bonanza.

Institutional finance has made a sucker’s game out of Tesla. It has been bid up by the market to where its market capitalization is greater not only than VW and Toyota (combined), both of which sell 15 to 20 times the number of cars and trucks that Tesla does, but also of the entire Non-Chinese OEM automotive industry! But, so what, a company the shares of which could be traded for billions of dollars turnover per day! Thus, even tiny prices changes could mean millions of dollars in revenue and, better yet, profits, each day! The hedge funds’ dream.

On any given day, Tesla shares, priced around $1,000.00, will trade 10 million shares. That’s $10,000,000,000 of buy/sell per day! By comparison the entire TSX does less than half a billion on a good day.

But, unnoticed at the time by Musk or the financializers, Lithium and the rare earths are the irreducible minimum of critical materials necessary to produce the most efficient EVs, alternate energy production and storage, and the transformation of electrical energy to useful electronic, mechanical and optical energy, in general. Therefore, these chemical elements in various forms, such as metals, alloys, and chemical compounds will always be in demand to “combat” climate change. The mainstream media, the politicians, and the academics “get this,” but, so long, as those groups are headed and staffed by individuals with no industrial or mining experience their predictions of the growth of EVs and the ultimate replacement of ICEs by EVs will be at best, magical thinking, and at worst just make-believe. There will be no complete EV transformation, so long as the, individually owned and operated, ground transportation conveyance operated by lithium-ion battery powered electric motors dominates the OEM automotive/rail/sea/aircraft transportation industries.

Why?

Until the decision-makers in government and the transportation industry discover the natural and economic limitations of the production of critical metals, the prices for those metals will remain strong. And so long as the managers of the global OEM auto/rail/aircraft/shipping industries refuse to analyze the situation or listen to the conclusions on supply from basic “informed” mineral economics, the OEM transportation industries outside of China, Japan, and Korea will descend into insolvency as their massive investments in vehicle electrification flounder without the critical metals to support them.

The increasingly superficial education of America’s bureaucrats and their lack of real-world qualification based upon actual experience has rendered America’s national government incapable of understanding the day-to-day details and problems of establishing and maintaining a secure supply chain. Offshoring was done not for greed, but for retaining competitive advantage, a concept seemingly unknown to America’s left-leaning “elites” and their unthinking followers who proselytize equality for the masses overseen by a class of highly paid bureaucrats living in isolation and relative luxury and serving an oligarchy itself based on monopoly state control of market segments primarily for their own benefit.

Let’s look at a conservative version of the 2030 car market. It’s likely that China would be the largest global producer by volume, at a rate of 30,000,000 cars and trucks that year (this is the official “goal” articulated by the Chinese government itself). The Chinese gov’t has recently also said that it requires 40% of 2030 auto production to be New Energy Vehicles (Battery alone, hybrid, and hydrogen types). To achieve this goal, the Chinese OEM automotive industry has been actively pursuing the strengthening of its battery and rare earth permanent magnet supply chains for at least the last decade. A very good example of this is the activity of the Chinese for securing supplies of lithium apparent from the chart below:

lithium ion

What “expert” analysts don’t seem to understand is that China is acquiring these lithium sources not to corner the global supply market, in the manner of a global capitalist enterprise, but to secure sufficient resources to meet the Chinese government’s mandated EV production goal by 2030. Price and profit, the sole drivers of capitalism’s interest are secondary to security of supply for the Chinese.

China has also built, as part of its dedicated industrial policy, the world’s largest lithium processing and lithium-ion battery manufacturing industry. Today China processes to battery grade 60% of the world’s lithium production and manufacturers 82% of all lithium-ion batteries.

China operates without a junior mining market, and it has realized that the identification of accessible, mineable, deposits of lithium in brines, hard rock, or clay is just the beginning of a process to complete a supply chain for the critical battery component for lithium-ion batteries. Such a total supply chain consists of mining, extracting the desired elements from the minerals, selectively separating and purifying the desired elements, transforming them into end-user forms, such as metals or fine-chemicals, and supplying them to the component and finished product manufacturers, who deliver the products to the end-use product consumer.

China has now built up a highest capacity in the world domestic lithium-ion battery manufacturing supply chain to match its highest capacity in the world total rare earth permanent magnet components supply chain.

It should be noted that Western analysts’ predictions of enough increased production of lithium to support a transformation of the ICE powered vehicle industry to battery EV powertrains, even though they are wildly and ignorantly optimistic, simply ignore the fact that most of the new lithium production over the next decade will be owned or operated by the Chinese for their domestic benefit not that of the Non-Chinese market.

China has a well thought out industrial policy and a technically proficient mandarinate that carries it out. The goal is being well on the road to absolute independence in key critical technologies beginning in 2025. To do this China will need absolute security in its supply of critical metals for the 10 technologies enumerated in its China 2025 plan.

A dynamic America could challenge China in this arena. Instead, our senescent “leaders” have gone to sleep bickering about pronouns while a giant arises that has already astonished the world.




The Tesla led electric vehicle boom will lead to a tsunami of demand for the EV metal miners

The recent electric vehicle (EV) stock prices surge is telling a story. The story is one of change. The change is that electric vehicles are coming much sooner than many think. While EV manufacturer stocks have surged, battery manufacturers have done well, the EV metal miners are yet to jump. This presents one of the biggest investment opportunities of the 2020s decade, as a tsunami of demand hits the EV metal miners.

Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) stock is up over 8 fold the past 14 months (up 492% the past 1 year) and is now the world’s largest car company by market cap. Tesla is rapidly gaining market share and is severely production constrained, as shown by their over 650,000 Cybertruck orders, not to mention a backlog of orders for Model Y, Roadster 2 and Semi.

In fact it was reported yesterday: “Later this year, we (Tesla) will be building three factories on three continents simultaneously.” This followed the Tesla Q2 earnings release with Tesla now achieving 4 quarters of consecutive profitability making them now eligible to join the S&P500, a move that would typically see a surge of Index funds buying the stock. Meanwhile other pure EV plays are also booming. Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA) is up 285% in the past year and NIO Inc. (NYSE: NIO) is up 250%. Will Fisker (NYSE: SPAQ) be next?

Lithium-ion battery megafactories are being built as fast as they can to meet the surging battery demand. There is currently over 115 Li-ion battery megafactories either built or in planning until 2029. This equates to enough capacity to make 39 million EVs per annum by 2029. This is a massive increase on the 2.2 million electric cars sold worldwide last year.

As a result, shares of the leading battery manufacturers are flying higher. LG Chem is 57% higher the past year and Chinese giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (“CATL”) is 174% higher over the past year.

The 2017 boom in EV metals was merely the entree. What is coming this decade is so much bigger. Nickel sulphate battery demand is set to lead the pack with a staggering 14x increase in demand from 2019 to 2030. Aluminum, phosphorous, and iron will also be needed to meet the EV production surge. Copper demand for EVs is forecast to surge 10x due to its use in electric motors, wiring, and charging infrastructure. Finally the other battery metals are all set for a surge in demand. These can perform the best as they are often smaller markets with supply constraints as most investors know with cobalt in particular highly reliant on the volatile and corrupt DRC.

  • Graphite – A 10x increase in battery demand from 2019 to 2030.
  • Lithium – A 9x increase in battery demand from 2019 to 2030.
  • Cobalt – A 3x increase in battery demand from 2019 to 2030.
  • Manganese – A 3x increase in battery demand from 2019 to 2030.

Note: Rare earths will also see a surge in demand as they are needed for powerful magnets in EV motors and wind turbines.

Bloomberg forecasts a tsunami of demand coming for EV battery metals this decade

When have you ever heard of a car manufacturer publically saying this? Elon Musk’s plea yesterday for mining companies is quoted below:

“Please mine more nickel……Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way.”

Closing remarks

The EV boom is about to take off as EV prices become purchase price competitive with conventional cars by ~2022. The battery factory build out is well underway. What is lacking is investment into the EV miners to supply what will be the much needed raw materials, hence Elon Musk’s plea to miners. Many investors don’t understand to bring on a new mine to full production can take 5-10 years, compared to 1-2 years for an EV or battery factory. EV metals supply constraints will be the biggest obstacle that the EV boom will face this next decade.

For investors the opportunity is now clearer than ever. Buy EV metal miners with quality assets in safe jurisdictions and with ability to scale rapidly to meet surging demand. While current producers are the safest and preferred way, the near term junior producers (developers) can offer tremendous returns, albeit with higher risk.

—————————–

Disclaimer: The InvestorIntel Sr Editor Matthew Bohlsen currently owns shares in Tesla. The information in this article is general in nature and should not be relied upon as personal financial advice. For more information, contact Tracy Weslosky at [email protected].




Tesla is Using Nortel’s Business Plan (that’s not a good thing)

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so let’s use Nortel’s history to learn why Tesla, Inc. may be about to drive itself into deep trouble.

If you’re reading this, you’ve heard of Tesla. It has been a stock market marvel. The past five years have seen wealth created for long-holding shareholders – 5 years ago, Tesla was trading around USD$45 a share, and today it’s around $297. The chart from Nasdaq shows for the last year Tesla has been the poster child for “choppy”, as its stock price has oscillated with amplitude between $390 and $245 per share.

Tesla’s PromotionMachine has been sleeping at the factory trying to convince the investing public that revenue and earnings will ultimately catch up with the stock price. Bears and shorts are convinced the last part of that sentence is backwards.

Tesla is at a difficult stage of its existence as it tries to go from start-up to establishment. It needs to show the doubters that it has revenue, that the pre-orders for the Model 3’s are not being cancelled and are actually being converted to sales, and that the Holy Grail of positive cash flow is glowing in the road ahead. The latest Q2 was Tesla’s most productive in its history.

The problem is, Tesla has had and continues to have horrific issues on the shop floor. Production, while up, remains far behind the original and the revised targets. Panasonic and the Cobalt Cliff have something to do with this, but Tesla has acknowledged the production failures are mainly a function of over-automating the shop floor to a point of unmanageability.

Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk need this year to be an operational success. The company can’t run forever on champagne wishes and caviar dreams. It must show Wall Street and the global green investing community that it can dent the Detroit Big Boys, it can take a run at Honda and Toyota, that German engineering is secondary to American gee-whiz know-how.

Litigation lawyers will tell you when the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. Tesla looks like it’s opting for the table pounding.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Tesla, “has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously”.  WSJ also reported that Tesla confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed.

Did we mention that Tesla is burning through about USD$1,000,000,000 per quarter, with only about $2.7B in the bank ? And don’t look at the convertible debt pricing issues lurking over the horizon…

What Tesla needs is a much higher stock price, for the inevitable equity financing and to help with those pesky convertible debt problems.

Bring Nortel back into the picture. Visit the Wikipedia page for Nortel  for links to the painful facts below.

Nortel Networks Inc. (then called the Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company Limited) was partially spun out of a predecessor to mighty BCE Inc. in 1895 (yes, 123 years ago), and completely spun out from BCE in the internet madness of the year 2000. It was a huge financial win for BCE. Nortel ultimately made equipment for the heavy-breathing internet industry – switches and multi-protocol optical networks.

Nortel was a strange chimera, a combination R&D – manufacturer – vendor; much like Tesla is today. The hype machine was running well ahead of the financial statements as the company was worth roughly one-third of all companies then listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

You remember what happened next, right?

Sufficient cash flow and revenue failed to materialize. Nortel’s market cap went from close to $400B to only $5B, and ultimately Nortel filed in court in Canada and the USA for protection from its creditors. Goodbye, over 95,000 jobs worldwide.

The bankruptcy process ended in 2017, by when over $2,000,000,000 had been chewed up in the process, including legal fees.

Prior to bankruptcy, one of Nortel’s operational problems was negative cash flow. Despite growing revenue, over the years its cash flow never did catch up to the expected glowing future and the soaring stock price. The car-wreck crash in the stock price, followed by the creditor protection process, were reflections of that failure.

Nortel’s management team used every tool at hand to bring new revenue onto the P&L. Some of those tools could not be used today under new accounting standards such as under IFRS 15. Back then, one of the tools available to increase revenue was to vendor finance its own customers.

That vendor financing worked like this. Internet usage was booming, so websites and networks needed better equipment capable of processing the growing loads. Nortel and its advanced optical technology were the solution, but the equipment was very expensive. Not many start-ups had $10M to spend on a network switch, but without all those start-ups buying equipment Nortel couldn’t hit its targets which would have lead to a cratering of its stock price.

Nortel’s fix was to finance those start-ups and deliver the switches before receiving full payment. In some cases up to 80% of the purchase price was financed, which meant Nortel was using its working capital to sell at a loss to gain future cash and to buttress the current revenue number.

As always, after the boom comes the bust. Internet stocks tanked in 2000, killing many of Nortel’s customers and wiping billions in financing off Nortel’s financial statements. The cash flow that seemed so clear just months before failed to materialize, eventually taking Nortel into the sad tale of creditor protection.

Nortel, like Tesla, artificially distorted its own business model by causing elements in its supply chain to finance its activities. Nortel used its clients, Tesla is using its suppliers.

Tesla declined to provide the markets with a copy of the recent memo but confirmed it is seeking price reductions from certain suppliers for historic projects, some of which date back to 2016, and it is engaged in discussions concerning future pricing based on production ramp-up.

The automotive industry is a highly competitive margin-driven business, and Tesla is looking to save a buck / make a buck anywhere it can, as it should. While it’s true that ongoing discussions with Tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers are common, asking suppliers for cash back is closed-system cannibalistic behaviour, and reeks of desperation. As Tesla’s cash dwindles and its options slowly disappear, Tesla must fix its manufacturing issues and create real value by executing on its business plan, not by parasitically sucking cash out of the system by draining its suppliers.

Nortel taught the lesson. Will Tesla learn from it or repeat it?