MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379055869 · doi:10.4095/331879

A preliminary techno-economic assessment of lithium extraction from flowback and produced water from unconventional shale and tight hydrocarbon operations in Western Canada

2023· report· en· W4379055869 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Leece, Chunqing Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium hydroxideLithium carbonateEnvironmental scienceTonneWaste managementOil shaleLithium (medication)Renewable energyExtraction (chemistry)Environmental engineeringPetroleum engineeringPulp and paper industryChemistryIon exchangeEngineeringChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the path towards decarbonization, rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are critical for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles and renewable energy storage systems. To meet the growing demand for this mineral, various sources of lithium are being explored. This study evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of direct lithium extraction (DLE) from flowback and produced waters (FPW) of the Duvernay shale reservoir development near Fox Creek, Alberta and the Montney tight reservoir development in Northeast British Columbia using ion-exchange sorbents. Results indicate that lithium extraction from FPW using DLE technology is a viable option, with fluid pH, temperature, total suspended solids, and organic carbon affecting extraction efficiencies. In the assessment of Duvernay-based FPW fluids processed at a selected centralized facility, approximately 93 tonnes of lithium carbonate, or 105 tonnes of lithium hydroxide monohydrate could be produced annually, based on an average lithium content of 45.1 mg/L and a capacity of approximately 475,000 m3 per year. A discounted cash flow analysis determined the after-tax and royalty internal rate of return of 22% in the production of lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), and 38% in the production of lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LiOH·H2O) from the Duvernay development area. Comparatively, in the assessment of Montney brine fluids processed at a modelled centralized facility, approximately 117 tonnes of lithium carbonate or 134 tonnes of lithium hydroxide monohydrate could be produced annually, based on an average lithium content of 57.7 mg/L and a capacity of approximately 475,000 m3 per year. A discounted cash flow analysis determined the after-tax and royalty internal rate of return of 29% in the production of lithium carbonate and 48% in the production of lithium hydroxide monohydrate from the Dawson Creek Montney development area. These findings demonstrate the economic feasibility of extracting and refining lithium into battery-grade products from a novel source based on forecasted commodity prices and the development of a domestic battery supply chain system. Further investigation of DLE technology, a strategic resource sampling and analysis program, and investigation into the minimum scale of lithium extraction development are recommended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207