Bias and Skepticism in Climate Science and Policy: It Goes Both Ways and It’s Important to Know Who is Who

 

      Physicist and climate scientist Peter Kalmus is also a climate activist and author of the 2017 book, Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution. He is described in a recent Newsweek article as follows: “Dr. Peter Kalmus is a climate scientist at NASA studying future extreme heat impacts on human health and ecosystems, speaking on his own behalf. He is also a climate activist and the author of Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution.”  “The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.” This is a case where Newsweek discloses the author’s bias, which is good in my view. Of course, the title of the opinion article: Sadly, It's Not 'Just Another Summer.' We Must End the Fossil Fuel Industry pulls no punches about bias. In the article he opines: “…I do think we are on a sociopolitical pathway—fossil fuel expansion—that will eventually end civilization as we know it, cause billions of human deaths, and further worsen widespread ecological collapse and mass extinction—damage that will take millions of years for Earth to recover from.” And this: “Finally, accept that we are in a war. It's a real war, not a figurative one, although it's not like any other war in human history. People are dying, all over the world, because of decisions made by fossil fuel executives in tall buildings. And I can confidently state that many more people will die from climate impacts in the coming years.” He readily utilizes the psychological technique of association bias, referring to the fossil fuel use that necessarily continues to economically undergird our society as extractive-colonial capitalism. He demonizes fossil fuel executives in particular. This guy is a hardcore catastrophist. He thinks he has it all figured out and that he can predict the future. In fact, that is one thing some climate scientists and especially climate policy wonks and activists profess to be able to do. Are they prophets? He tells activists to take risks and be bold in professing their activism and fighting that war he mentions. He is not the first.

 

Partisanism in the Climate Debate

     Now in 2023 we are in position where one group of activists and media are demanding that we call climate change, the climate crisis or climate emergency, or that the president or other prominent people make a declaration that we are in a climate crisis, akin to declaring a state of emergency. On the other end of the spectrum are those that still refer to climate change as a hoax and are ready to reverse any policies meant to mitigate emissions. However, as a climate crisis skeptic, I can relate to calls to slow down and to not enact mandates and regulations that increase energy and electricity costs for consumers. I also think we can criticize climate change overreach without becoming climate change denialists, but radical climate activism also tends to stir backlash that strongly opposes it. In fact, that radical climate activism on the political left is seen as ‘wokeness’ and tends to empower the radical right. It’s quite easy to see that extremism on one end of the spectrum tends to empower extremism on the other end of the spectrum. Other overreach issues such as forced social justice advocation and extremes in addressing migration issues, taxation, labor, trade, environmental, bioengineering and other issues have led to similar backlashes. Yascha Mounk’s new book, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, addresses trends of obsessions with identity among the social justice-oriented part of the political left that tend to have the unintended reversed effect of empowering right-wing populism. It has been shown pretty conclusively that countries with lots of wind and solar have the highest electricity prices. That has likely led to backlash against left-leaning governments in Europe. The high prices in Europe of natural gas, coal, oil, fertilizer, and many other things due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have also likely strengthened that backlash since there was underinvestment in needed fossil fuels, over-reliance on Russian energy, and overemphasis on renewables. Overreach leads to backlash. It is politically risky. Curbing overreach can also curb backlash to it. That is my view.      

 

Anti-Fossil Fuel Bias Among Scientists and Engineers

     One of the social impacts of climate change is that it has led to an anti-fossil fuel bias. That is, of course, a dilemma since even with record wind, solar, and battery deployments, fossil fuels still make up a steady 82% of global primary energy production and there is little real chance that is going to change soon. Bias among scientists is not new. Over 50 years ago the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) was founded. According to their website they combat climate change, strive to develop sustainable means of power, food, and transport, reduce the existential threat of nuclear war, and fight against corporate misinformation about science. I am not sure these days that there is that much corporate misinformation about science to fight against. Certainly, there are disagreements about what regulations should be, but things have changed in the corporate world. The UCS says that they analyze, expose, advocate, and activate. They advise 1500 local and national organizations. They are a data source for activists.

     The UCS bias is obviously left wing, but there are right-wing biased scientists as well. I have spent the past 31.5 years working in the oil & gas industry. The political bias of industry as a whole is clearly to the right. However, the industry has accepted many of the realities of environmental impact and climate change. It took some time for this to develop and there is still considerable skepticism, but most companies are addressing these issues according to the expectations from society, investors, and from the desire to be problem-solvers. Pride is a component of innovation. Addressing environmental impact and climate change are not political challenges but engineering challenges, problem-solving challenges. While some compliance-based solutions are needed, many solutions can be voluntary. The industry strongly prefers voluntary solutions. I think this is the right approach. The industry is also full of highly educated, talented, and innovative people who have engineered new ways to produce oil & gas efficiently and are now developing ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

     U.S. universities are fairly well known to have left-leaning biases. The UCS was founded by scientists and students at MIT. Many universities have codified anti-fossil fuel biases through fossil fuel divestment movements led by activists. The demonization of fossil fuel industries has become institutionalized. The Guardian recently reported a new analysis that showed that “at least 20 board members at California public universities have direct ties to the fossil fuel industry.” These are people who work or have worked at fossil fuel companies. I say, so what? Other board members no doubt have worked in other industries. Fossil fuel companies make up a certain percentage of the corporate world so this should not be seen as unusual or alarming in any way, but it is being depicted that way. According to some, their mere presence in academia is nefarious: “These board memberships are a form of “infiltration” by polluters into academia, said Alicia Colomer, communications and operations coordinator at the group Fossil Free Research, which advocates for research institutions to cut all ties with the fossil fuel industry.” She is essentially demanding an anti-fossil fuel bias for academia. The Guardian also reported: “Universities and firms associated with board members which responded to requests to comment from the Guardian defended their positions and disputed assertions they influenced university polices or research priorities.” At least they are pushing back on these groundless accusations of impropriety. Several people cited in the article argued that fossil fuel executives (called polluters and “bad faith partners”) should be effectively banned from influencing academia in any way. Personally, I think these ideas are rather ridiculous.    

     There are several academic scientists who have repeatedly found themselves in the midst of debates with their own research, and they have been accused of activated bias. This is most common on the left. Some have made the rounds on late night talk shows and articles of their work have been amplified in the media. These include Mark Z. Jacobson, the atmospheric physicist at Stanford who famously came up with a 100% renewable energy scenario for the U.S. utilizing just wind, solar, and pumped hydro. It was debunked in a paper by 22 scientists who said many of his assumptions were inaccurate and unfeasible, but Jacobson uttered (rather arrogantly IMO) that there was not a single error in his data and calculations.

     Cornell Civil Engineering professor Dr. Anthony Ingraffea also made the rounds, always arguing about the detriments of fracking. He and his Cornell colleague Robert Howarth, a biogeochemist, have made predictions about fugitive methane emissions that have been debunked by other studies. They did manage to bring the issue before the public at a time it wasn’t emphasized, and they should be commended for that. Howarth has done the work on methane emissions. His estimates are considered to be at the extreme high end of the range given in many other studies, much higher than the EPA’s estimates. His conclusions are in the minority of conclusions. However, he is the go-to scientist when anti-fossil fuel advocates need one to add to their argument. Ingraffea said he did not want to be labeled an activist but with his advocacy to vilify and phase out fossil fuels, it’s hard to argue that he is not an activist. Even Obama and his energy secretary Stephen Chu found Howarth’s methane emissions estimates to be not credible.

     Stanford’s Rob Jackson has been involved in a number of studies seemingly designed to point out the dangers of natural gas. He was instrumental in some water contamination studies that attempted to point the finger at gas migration from the Marcellus Shale into freshwater aquifers. Isotope studies showed that the gas migrated from gas zones just below the aquifers and that water wells drilled too deep could cause the same issue. That work, too, helped to point the industry toward developing stronger strategies to mitigate stray gas migration. Thus, one can see that some of the activism in the early part of the fracking revolution had a net positive effect. The same is not true now, where news articles against fracking still bring up data and studies from over a decade ago before the problems were mostly eliminated. One thing that can be said is that the widespread fears of water and air contamination that were predicted have not appeared, even as the oil & gas industry produces far more oil and gas with far fewer wells and well pads. The industry has also been exemplary in addressing the issues brought up by activists. Roger Jackson appeared in 2022 in articles about his research on gas stove emissions. His methodology in the experiment was strongly criticized as non-realistic. When I read the article, I saw something about a Stanford scientist and immediately thought of Jackson, and indeed it was him leading the research. Jackson had been accused of being strongly biased against oil & gas back in the early 2010s when he was involved in water contamination studies in Pennsylvania.

     Dr. Emily Grubert, a civil engineer and environmental sociologist, has been invoked as a subject matter expert on decarbonization in energy debates in the media. She is an Associate Professor of Sustainability Policy at Notre Dame. She completed her Ph. D. at Stanford in 2017 and was an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Georgia Tech, previously. She also worked for a time as deputy assistant secretary of carbon management at DOE. She has authored and co-authored many papers. She has written about decarbonization, U.S. emissions projections, methane emissions, environmental assessment, life cycle analyses, social effects of extractive industries like oil & gas, water use and consumption of energy and power providers, hydroelectricity, and aspects and effects of fossil fuel plant retirements. Her degrees are interesting in that they bridge engineering and sociology which are not usually considered in tandem in a single researcher. I have seen her invoked in a number of energy transition articles where she argued in favor of an accelerated energy transition and emphasized the downsides of fossil fuel production and consumption. Recently, in a short piece in Utility Dive, she accused the DOE of “error-ridden analysis” on a coal CCS project in North Dakota. She cites a paper she co-authored in Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability - US power sector carbon capture and storage under the Inflation Reduction Act could be costly with limited or negative abatement potential - that suggested that abatement via CCS can be smaller than sought or even negative. She compared CCS to ethanol, an odd comparison perhaps since ethanol CCS projects have become more common because CO2 can be captured at high capture rates from ethanol plants. Renewables advocates have long argued that wind and solar are cheaper than CCS and that CCS just extends the life of fossil fuels. They don’t mention that abated fossil fuels would keep our electricity supply reliable and running full time, something wind and solar can’t do without massive storage and transmission expansions and overbuilds, which would make the whole costs of those renewables much higher than fossil fuels. Advocates also try to account the social costs of carbon into economic analyses. While I don’t think Grubert’s life cycle analysis here does that (though I’m not sure), I do know she considers upstream methane emissions in natural gas life cycle analyses, and I wonder which data she uses for that since there is a whole range of data that can be used. Her argument about the North Dakota plant may or may not be valid. It centers around the emissions associated with extending the life of the plant with retrofitted CCS vs. retiring it. Retrofitted CCS is more expensive than new CCS. One would have to consider the needs of the local power grid to determine reliability concerns for each project. The North Dakota plant may be an outlier since it burns local lignite coal, one of the highest-emitting forms of coal. Also, as I have read about this plant (if I have the right plant), it supports a local lignite mine which would have to shut down if the plant were retired. The mine is the main employer of the small town nearby and closing it would devastate the town. As Grubert is also a sociologist and has argued previously for a just energy transition, and as the Biden administration has goals and mandates to consider local effects of energy projects and emissions abatement projects, especially on disadvantaged communities, one might consider that this particular project, despite its lesser economic and abatement merits, might still be desirable from a society perspective. I do agree with her, however, that CCS and other abatement projects should apply more to newer plants and less emitting plants in general rather than focusing on retrofitting high-emitting plants near the end of their normal lifespan. Thus, while she may be correct about the plant, its special circumstances may warrant that it be approved even with marginal abatement and at high costs. As her own analysis shows, the costs of CCS projects vary considerably by plant. I do question some aspects of her own analysis such as the capacity factors of natural gas plants. The reason is that many of the simple cycle plants as well as some combined cycle plants run as necessary backup to wind and solar. In this role, they are often idling and have higher emissions due to ramping up and down. Thus, as I have long argued, they should be considered as renewables system costs (to give her a taste of her own medicine since she makes somewhat similar arguments about life cycle analysis in comparing abatement vs. retiring) While it may well be cheaper to just retire older fossil fuel plants than to retrofit them for CCS, if there is no viable near-term replacement for them that can provide baseload energy then their life extension may be desirable. Theoretically, an abated plant could run at a higher capacity factor if able without affecting emissions too much. While the economics of fossil fuel abatement methods like CCS and hydrogen can be hyped to seem viable, they are not without considerable incentives. However, in order to keep our electricity systems reliable, resilient, and stable these projects are still needed in considerable numbers as a vital part of the energy transition as the IEA and many others note, whether they are cost-effective or not. Since much of the funding for CCS will be private funding it is all but certain that the most economic projects will be selected based on cost advantages over other projects, Thus, the North Dakota project is likely an outlier.        

    

 

Predictions of Prominent Scientists Have Missed the Mark Many Times

     While many of the predictions of scientists turn out to be correct there are also many examples where they have been incorrect. Particularly, many catastrophic predictions have turned out to be incorrect. These instances are well known, including those of biologists Paul Ehrlich and his protégé John Holdren (Obama’s science advisor), Michael Mann, James Hansen, and many others. Mann and Hansen had to tone down the magnitude of their predictions to be less catastrophic than originally predicted. The same is true of some climate skeptics like John Christy and Roy Spencer who had to recalibrate their satellite temperature measurements to show more warming than they originally predicted. In fact, scientists in general have not always been that great at predicting the future, even though that is one of their mandates, in a sense. This just shows that science is not easy. That is not to bash science but just to point out the limitations of prediction about global statistical phenomena with many variables like climate that are highly dependent on modeling and model assumptions. A decade ago, many thought shale gas and oil would have been largely played out by now but instead recoverable reserves have grown considerably and the cost to extract them has dropped. Predictions about peak oil and peak everything have largely not materialized.  

 

Climate Denialism, Climate Skepticism, and Climate Pragmatism

     We should distinguish between those who outrightly deny the validity of anthropogenic climate change from those who are skeptical to varying degrees of the narrative advanced by the U.N., the IPCC, activists, and others. The outright deniers also deny science. Those who are skeptical generally do not deny science, but those on the more skeptical fringe of skepticism have distorted science to their own liking. Some climate skeptics have dwelled on irrelevant data and weak arguments. Both climate change skeptics and advocates have distorted and cherry-picked data to support their own arguments. The important thing here is to point out when that is the case. In order to understand and form valid opinions on policy there is a need to look at the whole picture, not just parts.

     Climate change advocates have engaged in a kind of harassment by painting climate change skeptics as climate crisis deniers. The connotations of the word “denier” suggest holocaust deniers which makes the designation a kind of trope, comparing those so designated to cold-hearted conspiracy theorists who veil themselves from truth. That is why I do not use the word. I prefer to use the word “denialist,” which is quite similar, but less connotative. I would say I fall into the camp of a climate crisis skeptic. I do not deny that it is possible we may be facing a climate crisis, either now or in the future, but I don’t think the current evidence is definitive that this is the case.

     Regardless of one’s level of climate change skepticism or advocacy, one’s position on climate policy is partially a separate issue. Some consider that even if we are in a crisis, there are other crises that are more important to finance and address in the near term. Those who are unsure or don’t think we are in a crisis are stronger in this view. Pragmatism has to do with applying a methodology that supports a utilitarian approach by doing the most good with all of the financial resources available. It often includes trade-offs, compromises, and sometimes piecemeal approaches that advocates reject. There are many examples. Many people advocate for developing countries to be coerced into green energy by limiting financing of fossil fuel projects in those countries that would be much more beneficial to them economically by providing much-needed access to affordable and reliable energy and electricity. The tax and mandate approach to carbon emissions, especially with ratcheting up schedules and phase-out schedules, can lead to high energy costs which disproportionately affect the poor. With all the current inflation, that is even more of an issue. Many of us simply can’t afford to adopt more green tech and find that it would be unfair to have it forced upon us. We are forced to be pragmatic.  

 

Pseudoscience Among Scientists

     Scientists are not immune to the charms of pseudoscience. Many doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other prominent professionals have fallen under the spell of conspiracy theories. This is true of both ends of the political spectrum, although those in the middle are generally less influenced by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories.

     We encounter many headlines about climate change that support catastrophism. Some are quite true but often there is a bigger picture to better evaluate the risks. We hear about the doomsday glacier in Antarctica, Arctic acceleration where temperatures have risen much faster than the global average, damage and bleaching of coral reefs, and of course, all the headlines about hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires that are partially attributable to climate change but made to seem wholly attributable. Rarely do we hear headlines that say climate change may not be as bad as we thought. If there are few or no deadly hurricanes in a season that is generally not a newsworthy topic. Thus, climate change as a newsworthy subject is influenced by the biases and fallacies that make bad news more newsworthy than good news and controversial news more newsworthy than uncontroversial news. Thus, when we compare our own exposure to the issue it seems that the catastrophic view is more prominent. Climate catastrophism has been compared to religious apocalypticism and indeed there are many similarities. Indeed, as I wrote in Sensible Decarbonization, there is a long history of environmental apocalypticism that parallels and overlaps with religious apocalypticism, but I’ll save the details for another post.

     One of the biggest uncertainties about climate change is climate sensitivity. The range of sensitivity put forth by climate scientists has not budged much, if at all, since the 1970s, from about 1.5 deg C to 4.5 deg C. Others have pegged the range from 1.8 deg C to 5.6 deg C and others yet have sought to put it between 2.1 deg C and 3.6 deg C. Two NASA climate scientists, John Christy and Roy Spencer, published a recent paper about their new one-dimensional climate model that shows climate sensitivity near the lowest end of the range at 1.9 degrees C. They claim their model is better because it accounts for heat storage in deeper layers of land which other models do not incorporate. I do not know how valid this point is. There are many studies of climate sensitivity that have come up with values across the range. Other climate scientists that are climate skeptics like Richard Lindzen have also argued that climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range. Climate scientists who are climate advocates have tended to find values closer to the higher end of the range. Christy and Spencer are known for their satellite measurements of temperature which showed a “pause” in warming. That data has been reworked numerous times from slight errors pointed out by other scientists so that the magnitude of the pause is less than originally thought. There is still the matter of the satellite data not matching the surface temperature data and the ocean temperature data which do not show the pause. The pause has long been a rallying point for climate skeptics. Christy and Spencer are also religious conservatives. Spencer is a meteorologist. I read one of Spencer’s books published in 2010: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.  He has written several other books about climate skepticism, so he definitely has a bias. The book was fair in explaining concepts and good in pointing out the politicization of the IPCC and others but was not conclusive in debunking mainstream climate science. More disturbing to me is hearing about his stance toward evolution, favoring intelligent design creationism over established science. I had done some research about Christy and Spencer and wrote about them in my book Sensible Decarbonization. Christy is a Baptist minister and a former missionary.

     Christian Dominionism is based on a quote from Genesis that says humans should rule over other living creatures. Based on a 2011 article in The Guardian, there is an evangelical group called the Cornwall Alliance. They published a book by James Wanliss called Resisting the Green Dragon: Dominion Not Death that paints environmental movements as a “native evil.” They are motivated by what they call the “dominion mandate” that they interpret from the Book of Genesis. Roy Spencer was on the board of directors of the Cornwall Alliance. The group is also closely connected to the policy group CFACT and the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot. The site is singularly focused on debunking climate science much like the anti-fossil fuel activist groups are singularly focused on debunking the benefits of fossil fuels. The information spheres of both extremes in the climate debate are populated with echo chambers. Spencer’s website’s posts after the 2020 election were all about using statistical science to prove election fraud against Trump. I found that to be disturbing – a scientist attempting to use statistical science to dispute an election that was found by many different election commissions in multiple states run by both parties to be free and fair. Of course, religion itself is not considered to be pseudoscience, although one can argue that some of the superstitions inherent or implied in many religions are indeed pseudoscience, including creationism. I found Trump and company’s Stop the Steal movement to be very cult-like from its very beginning. Despite all the massive evidence to the contrary, Trump still maintains he was cheated, and an uncomfortable amount of his supporters agree.

     On the left side of the spectrum (mostly, as there is a presence on the right as well), pivots toward pseudoscience include the anti-GMO and anti-vax groups. Perhaps the lines are drawn differently on the left and right. On the left, the corporations (especially profitable fossil fuel companies) and the complicit right or centrist government are demonized. On the right, the leftist government and left-leaning industries like the tech industry and the so-called “climate-industrial complex” are vilified. Warriors of bias, fed by echo chambers, fan out to look for enemy combatants to further vilify them. The left, by and far, has favored the Precautionary Principle to inform all issues involving environmental impact and technological impact. I have argued the merits for and against it here. I believe that a cost-benefit feasibility approach is much better.  

 

The Importance of Minimizing Bias in Energy and Climate Science

     The late climate scientist Stephen Schneider called on people to actively exaggerate the issue of global warming because he considered the problem so dire that even the truth should be sacrificed to help solve it. Many climate activists seem to echo such a view. That kind of a view is not helpful in reducing bias because it says strong bias is necessary whether it is warranted or not. On the other end of the spectrum, the idea that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by foreign adversaries or socialists bent on wealth redistribution is also extreme and unhelpful in reducing bias. By definition, the most extremist viewpoints are the most biased. Thus, the level of bias is the issue. We all have biases to some extent, and it is the extent that is important here. Maintaining that the vast majority of climate scientists and scientists, in general, are simply wrong is not a very feasible or defendable position. Similarly, maintaining that it is necessary that we expend all of our resources to combat climate change at the expense of other more immediate and more impactful problems is also not feasible, not sensible, and can be seen as a cruel approach in that poor people would suffer the most and people who need help will not get it because there are less funds available.

     Moderate policy approaches have the great advantage that they are more likely to result in real cooperation and more likely to solve problems. Even in the energy transition space, there are many collaborative efforts happening, especially with decarbonizing fossil fuels and developing new technologies that depend on fossil fuels like hydrogen. More collaborative efforts are needed to help decarbonize fossil fuels and to reiterate to climate activists that fossil fuels are a necessary driver of our modern industrial society that should be revered as such by avoiding attacks against the industry from rhetoric to mandates and taxation. Mandates and taxation, while meant to harm the fossil fuel industry, often harm the poorest among us as well, simply by making energy cost more. That should not be in anyone’s interest. Incentivization of wind, solar, and batteries increases energy and electricity prices for consumers. We are willing to accept those increases, more or less, but adding mandates and taxes on top of that to the main sources of power and fuel would be more impactful to consumers. This is true since gas and coal are by far the biggest energy sources on our power grid and diesel and gasoline power the vast majority of our cars. Mandates and taxes should be left for the future when renewables and EVs will likely be more competitive. Decarbonization already hurts the poor a little, but accelerated decarbonization will hurt the poor a lot more.

     I found it interesting that Obama energy secretary Ernest Moniz and Trump energy secretary Dan Brouillette, now an executive at LNG firm Sempra, maintain a good friendship and have appeared on panel discussions together. While their views no doubt differ on several issues, they can work together. More of that needs to happen. There are many scientists and engineers who support the energy transition and also support the fossil fuel industry. The two are not, or at least should not be, mutually exclusive. The narratives that demonize fossil fuels do not help solve problems even if they identify and highlight issues. The profitability of the fossil fuel industries allows them to spend considerably on decarbonization and to invest in their competitors, wind, solar, batteries, and electrification, where profits are smaller but where they can also build up their decarbonization portfolios. The oil & gas and utilities industries are among the biggest practitioners of voluntary decarbonization as well as among the biggest recipients of mandated decarbonization. New fines on methane emissions and looming power generation emissions mandates (unneeded IMO) attest that that is the case. Incidentally, it is profitability that allows industries like oil & gas and the tech industries to invest in decarbonization. The tech industries are part of the information and communications sector that is emissions-heavy. That is one reason they mitigate by powering their vast data centers with renewables. The other is that they can afford to do it.

     Another issue is perhaps the veiling of bias in media amplification. While many groups and media presences wear their biases on their sleeves, usually in their names, others try to sound less biased than they are, to increase their bandwidth. There is a post in the London Evening Standard, which when I looked up its bias, is considered center-right and factual. A post - Best books on climate change to help you understand the crisis, by Saskia Kemsley, in August 2023, suggested books by Naomi Klein, Christine Figueres, Greta Thunberg, and one on intersectionalism, all very biased books no doubt (though I have only read Klein’s book which was extremely biased). They also included one by climate scientist Kerry Emmanuel (also biased) and Bill Gates. Gates is obviously the least biased on the list. I am surprised that a media source considered center-right and factual would recommend such biased accounts of the climate change issue (demands to refer to it as a climate crisis is a coercive way to force a bias on others). Bias veiling is a common tactic among biased media and biased groups. It is rare to find a non-biased group trying to be seen as more biased. The whole idea of veiling an identity is to attract others to one’s bias, especially when it might be viewed as too extreme. Thus, extremely biased groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the Organic Consumer Organization can seem non-biased.

 

 

References:

Sadly, It's Not 'Just Another Summer.' We Must End the Fossil Fuel Industry | Opinion. Peter Kalmus. Newsweek. October 4, 2023. Sadly, It's Not 'Just Another Summer.' We Must End the Fossil Fuel Industry | Opinion (msn.com)

Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact. Kent C. Stewart. Amazon Publishing, 2021.

Climate model provides data-driven answer to major goal of climate research. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville. Phys.org. September 29, 2023. Climate model provides data-driven answer to major goal of climate research (phys.org)

At least 20 California public university board members linked to fossil fuels. Dharna Noor. The Guardian. October 4, 2023. At least 20 California public university board members linked to fossil fuels | California | The Guardian

Best books on climate change to help you understand the crisis. Saskia Kemsley. Evening Standard. August 2023. Best books on climate change to help you understand the crisis (msn.com)

Union of Concerned Scientists. www.ucsusa.org

Two Professors Faced Years of Harassment for Defying the Fossil Fuel Industry. Now, They Are Reframing the Discussion Around Fracking. Anil Oza. The Cornell Daily Sun. November 16, 2020. Two Professors Faced Years of Harassment for Defying the Fossil Fuel Industry. Now, They Are Reframing the Discussion Around Fracking - The Cornell Daily Sun (cornellsun.com)

US power sector carbon capture and storage under the Inflation Reduction Act could be costly with limited or negative abatement potential. Emily Grubert and Frances Sawyer. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, Volume 3, Number 1. March 10, 2023. US power sector carbon capture and storage under the Inflation Reduction Act could be costly with limited or negative abatement potential - IOPscience

DOE’s error-ridden analysis on coal CCS project threatens climate and engagement goals. Emily Grubert. Utility Dive. September 5, 2023. DOE’s error-ridden analysis on coal CCS project threatens climate and engagement goals | Utility Dive

Brine Mining: Mineral Extraction Opportunities from Oilfield and Geothermal Brines

 

     Brine mining refers to the extraction of minerals from brines by evaporation and/or precipitation or by chemical, physical and/or electrical separation. Brine mining began with extracting salt from seawater. Potassium is sometimes extracted from the bittern left over from salt precipitation. The seawater bittern solution contains sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, sulfide, iodide, and other ions that precipitate out as compounds, as salts along with the sea salt. Bittern is one of the coagulants used in the production of tofu. It is used in the treatment of some wastewater and to make fertilizer. Epsom salts are another bittern precipitate. Desalination plants process seawater to extract the salts.

     The Chinese began digging brine wells around 500 B.C., some over 330 ft deep. The wells utilized salt-resistant bamboo for derricks, ropes, and casing. Iron wedges pounded the bamboo into the ground by men jumping on a lever.

     A January 2023 paper in Nature Water - Prospects of metal recovery from wastewater and brine – did some technological and economic feasibility analyses of brine and industrial wastewater mining. They concluded that initial concentrations of the minerals in the brine and wastewaters and the cost of each mineral commodity dictates viability. Thus, only certain brines and wastewater will be prospective.  

 

 

Saline Lakes, Shallow Groundwater Brines, Geothermal Brines and Deep Brines in Sedimentary Basins

 

     Brine is also mined from saline lakes that have higher salinity and yield higher concentrations of salts than seawater. The Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake are examples. Different saline lakes have different chemistries. Shallow groundwater brines are associated with saline lakes or dried-up saline lakes. Deeper geothermal brines may influence the chemistry of shallow groundwater brines. Sodium sulfate, soda ash, salt, colloidal silica, boron, magnesium, calcium, potassium, bromine, zinc, tungsten, and iodine are other extractable minerals and compounds from saline lakes, shallow brines, and deeper geothermal brines. The tables below show some of the main locations, sources, and concentrations of mined brines.

 

    

Lithium Recovery from Ores and Brines

     Lithium is produced from lithium-rich rock from pegmatite deposits such as spodumene and from the extraction of salts from subsurface brines. Some lithium is also expected to be produced from clay. Lithium from rock ore is of higher concentration but is more costly to produce because it requires digging out, crushing, heating, and cooling. Lithium from shallow brines is concentrated through time in evaporated ponds called salars in Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia in an area of the Andes with very little rainfall. Brine is extracted from shallow wells and evaporated in ponds on the surface to concentrate the mineral precipitates. When concentrations reach suitable levels, the mineral salts are taken for further processing. Now there are new methods to extract lithium and other minerals from brines that do not require the very large evaporation ponds.

     The economics of lithium extraction depend on the concentrations of lithium in the brines and ores, the cost of extraction, and the price of lithium. Lithium prices have been high in recent years and demand is expected to stay robust in the years to come as more EVs, grid-scale batteries, and lithium-powered products are built. The downsides of lithium extraction via solar evaporation ponds include the long timelines (18 months), the large amount of required acreage, and the environmental impacts.

     Lithium is further processed into metals. Via an electrolytic cell, lithium chloride (55%) is mixed with potassium chloride (45%). This makes a molten eutectic electrolyte. The combined chemicals increase the conductivity of the lithium and lower the fusion temperature. When fused and electrolyzed at 840 deg F chlorine gas is liberated, and molten lithium rises to the surface. It is collected in cast iron and treated with paraffin to prevent oxidation. It takes about 5.3 times as much lithium carbonate to make the same amount of lithium metal.

 

 

Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) from Brines

     The methods of lithium production in the salars and solar evaporation ponds in South America are not applicable to other places due to space requirements and environmental degradation. The South American high deserts are not populated, have a low amount of flora and fauna, and much of the groundwater (the brine) is already naturally contaminated and unsuitable for drinking. Direct lithium extraction (DLE) has far less environmental impact and space requirements. The DLE process relies on filters, membranes, ceramic beads, and other equipment to extract lithium and other minerals. The post-extraction water is pumped into wastewater injection wells nearby. The process resembles a wastewater treatment plant.

     An article in Civil Engineering Magazine describes it as follows: “Depending on a particular brine’s geochemistry, various pretreatment steps are used to remove solids, hydrogen sulfide, and other contaminants. Adsorption, ion exchange, and solvent extraction are among the most common methods under development to extract lithium directly from brine.” DLE methods are applicable as well to the South American brines traditionally extracted with solar evaporation ponds and offer a way for those companies to reduce their environmental footprint. Goldman Sachs thinks DLE will be adopted in many of those operations in the 2025-2030 timeframe. Their market report from late April 2023 suggests that costs are comparable between solar evaporation ponds and DLE. DLE requires higher upfront costs but recovers much higher percentages of lithium. The ability to eliminate many of the environmental downsides at comparable costs makes widespread adoption likely.

     A paper in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment - Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines – noted that many environmental impact studies of DLE thus far have not been performed on real brines. Thus, there may be some pre-processing issues for different brine chemistries. Those often require heat energy and have emissions. Environmental impact studies of DLE methods need to consider the use of heat, pH adjustment, and other energy and water inputs when doing a lifecycle analysis for each method. For instance, methods requiring high water inputs would not be environmentally sound in arid areas. They would also be less cost-effective.  

     There are three main DLE methods in operation and two more in development. Those in operation are adsorption, ion exchange, and solvent extraction. Those in development are membrane separation and precipitants. High lithium demand and prices and new government incentives for domestic critical minerals production in the U.S. have spurred new pilot and production projects for DLE technologies.

     Adsorption is the most developed DLE method globally. This method is used in many other industries as well. One of the advantages of adsorption is that it uses water to yield lithium chloride and soda ash to yield lithium carbonate rather than using reagents (acids). It produces less waste and is efficient as it extracts over 90% of the lithium. It does have high upfront costs, some process contamination issues, can have high operating costs, and may require additional heat energy.

     According to Goldman Sachs: “Ion exchange systems separate ionic contaminants from solution through a physicochemical process where undesirable ions are replaced by other ions of the same electrical charge. Essentially, the ion-exchange material acts as a sieve with an adjusted porosity that only allows lithium (and hydrogen) ions to pass through, where the ion-sieve can then be washed with an acidic solution promoting the replacement of lithium ions with hydrogen ions. Lithium recovery by ion exchange can change with a simple adjustment in pH, temperature, or stream composition (though the same goes for other lithium extraction methods), but researchers also believe this method can recover ~90% of the lithium present.” Several of the Salton Sea projects as well as Standard Lithium’s Smackover projects plan to use ion exchange DLE with some expected to commence operation in 2024. Advantages of ion exchange include simplicity of the process, low chance of process contamination, high capacity, ability to process low-concentration brines, low energy and water consumption, and likelihood of continuous operation. The downsides include high acid and base input requirements with accompanying risks, high upfront costs, and some components vulnerable to acid degradation.

     Solvent extraction utilizes a physical means or a chemical combination of a solvent (often kerosene) and an extractant to separate out the lithium since the extractant will select lithium over sodium and magnesium. Solvent extraction can also be used as a post-DLE step to “polish” the lithium closer to battery quality. The method has a high recovery rate, and low operating costs, and it eliminates one of the steps in the other two methods. The downsides of the method are that it is not applicable to brines with lower lithium concentrations, or those with high concentrations of magnesium and calcium (which would require preprocessing). The solvents are also a fire risk with high temperature brines, have corrosion issues, and environmental transport and disposal issues. It is also an expensive process.

     Membrane separation utilizes membranes to separate lithium and magnesium ions and may utilize one of the following to induce the process: pressurized nanofiltration, electric field(electrodialysis), or thermal gradient. The process is efficient with low environmental impact but is not applicable to brines with high sodium or potassium concentrations. It is a water-intensive process that is also expensive.

     An interesting new membrane separation method involves using 12-Crown-4–functionalized polymer membranes in coordination with ion binding sites to select for lithium chloride over sodium chloride. Imbuing the polymers with interactants gives them the ability to foster the ion transport that separates the lithium out. The sodium ions bind to the crown ether enough to slow them down so the lithium ions travel faster through the polymer. The researchers from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of California, Santa Barbara think that this is a promising method for extracting from oilfield-produced water.  The table below from Goldman Sachs compares the different brine extraction methods.    

 

 

The Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation Deep Sedimentary Basin Lithium Brine Play

 

     Thus far, the best brine lithium concentrations in the U.S. have been found in the Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation which is distributed deep in the subsurface along the Gulf Coast Basin from Eastern Texas to Western Florida. It is a deep sedimentary basin brine developed in the past as a very productive oil & gas reservoir in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Southern Arkansas. The brine production comes from zones about 7500-8500ft below the surface in Southern Arkansas. A company called Standard Lithium has been focusing on lithium extraction from Smackover brines for a few years now. It is probably one of the best lithium brines outside of Chile and Argentina, according to Standard Lithium.

 

     Just a few weeks ago on October 10, 2023, Standard Lithium announced that from a newly drilled well in East Texas they achieved the highest brine concentration in North America at 663mg/L which is comparable to the South American brines. Two samples were taken from the Upper Smackover with the avg. lithium concentration at 638mg/L. Just a few days ago they reported that a sample from another well measured lithium at 806mg/L which broke the record from a few weeks ago. The average overall for their East Texas field is 644mg/L. In addition to lithium, Standard’s East Texas wells tested at economically viable concentrations of potassium and bromine as well. Lithium concentrations as high as 597mg/L have been found in Southwest Arkansas.

 

     The Smackover formation is limestone, often sucrosic, and locally dolomitized. It overlies the Norphlet formation and more importantly the Louann Salt formation. The Louann Salt is the source of the minerals that migrated via faults through the Norphlet formation into the Smackover. Authors Eva P. Moldovanyi and Lynn M. Walter in a 1992 AAPG Bulletin article note that their regionally extensive database of Smackover water geochemistry shows that heterogeneities in Smackover water geochemistry occur along faults due to upward migration of hotter fluids. “One of the most pronounced heterogeneities in water chemistry is an H2S-rich anomaly in the center of the shelf. Enrichments in H2S are accompanied by large increases in alkali elements (Li, K, and Rb) and B, which could be produced by higher temperature diagenesis of clay minerals and feldspars in deeper seated siliciclastic strata.” They also note that bromide and chloride, concentrated by seawater evaporation, were further enriched by halite dissolution followed by expulsion of meteoric waters along fault systems. Looking at Standard Lithium’s Li concentration numbers in Southwest Arkansas on a map suggests that while Li concentrations vary quite a bit, they could be contour mapped and compared with structural geology to help determine trends. In a 2018 thesis, Pamela Joy Daitch utilized the U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database to identify lithium-rich brine from wells across the U.S. She found that the Smackover formation was by and far the main lithium-rich formation brine in the U.S. Based on financial analysis she also determined that the best way to develop the Smackover was to drill standalone brine wells where concentrations are the highest. This is how Standard Lithium is approaching the play. She also noted an economic cutoff concentration for lithium production of about 70mg/L. This, of course, will vary depending on lithium prices and extraction innovations. Some of the lithium projects in Alberta, Canada are at the low end of profitability with concentrations of about 75mg/L.

 

 

The Smackover Bromine Play

 

     The Smackover formation brine has long been a major source of bromine. Bromine production in Southern Arkansas began in 1957. According to the Arkansas Dept. of Energy & Environment: “Since 2007, all US bromine has been produced in southern Arkansas. In 2013, 28% of the global bromine production (225,000 tonnes) in Arkansas made the United States the second-largest producer of bromine, after Israel. At an advertised price of US$3.50 to US$3.90 per kg, the 2013 Arkansas production would have a value of roughly US$800 million.” Fire retardants are the major use of Arkansas bromines, making up about half of the production. Other uses include insect and fungus sprays, anti-knock compounds for leaded gasoline, disinfectants, photographic preparations and chemicals, solvents, water-treatment compounds, dyes, insulating foam, hair-care products, pharmaceuticals, energy storage, mercury emissions reduction, reinforcing rubber materials, and oil well-drilling fluids. Bromine is a highly corrosive liquid. It is harmful if it contacts human skin and breathing its vapors is harmful, so safety precautions are in place at processing plants. Albemarle Corporation and Chemtura are the two biggest bromine producers in South Arkansas.

 

 

 

The Salton Sea Geothermal Brines Lithium Play in Southern California

 

     In California, the geothermal brines below the evaporating Salton Sea are a great source of lithium and other minerals. The hot brines are already being circulated to the surface in geothermal wells to power the steam turbines of the geothermal plants. Brine production rates are high in the Salton Sea. The high flow rates associated with the geothermal wells mean processing rates have to be high to keep up. This is challenging. Many DLE projects are ramping up in the Salton Sea play. Investors include Energy ventures by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, the U.S. DOE, and automaker Stellantis. The biggest players in the Salton Sea DLE Projects are Berkshire Hathaway Energy, EnergySource Minerals, and Controlled Thermal Resources (CTR).

     The Salton Sea is one focus for the U.S. ramp-up of domestic critical minerals production, deemed as necessary to reduce dependence on China and to eventually ease supply chain issues. Typically, geothermal energy powers mineral extraction, keeping emissions low. Some CO2 is released in the steam that surfaces in the course of geothermal energy production.

     As of 2022, there were 11 geothermal power plants in the Salton Sea area, also now known as Lithium Valley. As mentioned, the flow rates from the geothermal recycling process are very high so the extraction methods need to be scaled up for the higher flow rates. While the Smackover play has a much higher lithium concentration than the Salton Sea, it may have a lower brine production rate. I am just speculating here. The Salton Sea has the advantage that the extraction of the metals is a co-benefit to the geothermal power plants so that operation is simultaneous. It is unlikely that existing Smackover oil and gas wells will develop mineral extraction as a co-benefit, especially since standalone brine wells have been the preferred method for bromine recovery for many years. Berkeley Lab has been leading the effort to quantify the Salton Sea geothermal brine resources.

     Flow rates may also affect the depletion of the brine of the desired minerals. Productivity of wells, flow rates and recirculation rates, and geochemistry of the brine are some of the main variables that can affect depletion. The paper about the environmental impacts of DLE from brines emphasized the importance of geochemical heterogeneity as follows: “Knowledge of the precise number, distribution and depths of brine and fresh water wells is vital for hydrogeological modeling of lithium brine deposits. The distinct hydrogeology of each salar means that each deposit should be modelled independently, and results from one exploitation cannot be directly extrapolated to another.” This suggests that there should be more data collected as brine samples at different depths in many more wells to map out mineral concentrations in each zone. This data should be compared to geology trends like faults and stratigraphy.

 

 

 

Brine Mining from Marcellus Shale Produced Water in Pennsylvania

 

     Brine mining projects in the Marcellus Formation in Pennsylvania tap a brine with a lithium concentration of 95mg/L on average but also leverage pre-existing oilfield water treatment facilities where direct mineral extraction provides additional revenue. According to Shale Directories: “Eureka Resources owns and operates three centralized treatment/recycling facilities that process flowback/produced waters (i.e. wastewater) from the Marcellus Shale. Two of the facilities are located in Williamsport (Lycoming County), PA, and one in Standing Stone Township (Bradford County), PA, near Towanda. Eureka has just announced a joint venture to use high tech to recover lithium from the Marcellus wastewater they process.” The lithium recovery venture was announced together with Canada’s MGX Minerals in March 2019. The Eureka process treats about 10,000 Bbls (420,000 gals) per day of brine to extract sodium chloride, calcium chloride, freshwater, and lithium. MQX Minerals uses its own DLE method to extract lithium. Together the two companies plan to install multiple lithium rapid recovery systems at wastewater treatment facilities across the Marcellus and Utica shale formations. Utica brine has a lower average lithium, around 70mg/L which is near the cutoff of economic feasibility. This effort opened the gates to petrolithium, the extraction of lithium from oilfield brines. They say they can process oilfield brines rapidly and at smaller scales as well.

     In November 2020 Eureka Resources got a patent for their own lithium extraction technology and expanded their Northeast Pennsylvania operations. Eureka reported in late July 2023 that they successfully produced 97% pure lithium carbonate from the Marcellus brine, in partnership with SEP Salt & Evaporation Plants Ltd. (SEP). Apparently, they are utilizing the same methods to extract lithium as they use to extract sodium chloride and calcium chloride. They say it will be operational within two years, by mid-2025, which would make it the fastest-to-market lithium brine extraction technology, including DLE (it is apparently not a DLE method as normally understood). The brine is pretreated to remove heavy metals, ammonia, magnesium, sulfates, carbonates, and TOC through filtration, pH adjustment and precipitation reactions. SEP employs several proprietary extraction and recrystallization processes.

      Below is a process schematic for the solvent extraction method tested on Marcellus brine.

Solvent extraction method for lithium recovery from diluted shale gas produced water utilizing D2EHPA as the extractant in Marcellus brine. Source: Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges. Abdullah Khalil, Shabin Mohammed, Raed Hashaikeh, Nidal Hilal. Desalination. Volume 528, 15 April 2022, 115611. Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges - ScienceDirect

Oilfield Brines Processing. Source SEP

Source: SEP

 

Paradox Basin Brine Mining Play in Utah and Colorado: Lithium, Potash, Bromine, and Boron

      The Paradox Basin is a Pennsylvanian-aged sedimentary basin with a thick sequence of evaporites and brines that yield favorable concentrations of minerals. It is thought to be one of the largest potential sources of potash in America. The brines also contain commercial concentrations of lithium, bromine, boron, and likely iodine. The depths of the brines in the Southern Natural Gas well log and stratigraphic column (shown below) range from 5000ft to 7500ft below the surface. American Potash Corporation is exploring for brine minerals in the Paradox Basin and expects to employ both solar evaporation ponds and direct extraction.  

     Anson Resources plans to extract lithium and bromine from Paradox Basin brines in Utah. According to Mining Weekly: “The proposed Phase 2 expansion will target substantial expansion in the production of lithium carbonate and bromine, and will expand the Paradox project resources through the re-entry and sampling of historic wells, including Mineral Canyon; Sunburst; and high-grade, large Mississippian formations.” Thus, they plan to get more concentration data, including for deeper Mississippian formations.

 

Brine Processing Plants Processing Oilfield Brines and Desalinization Plant Effluent for Minerals Extraction, Irrigation, and Drinking Water

     A Brine processing plant plans to extract minerals from oilfield brine and brackish brine from the adjacent desalinization plant. This is not happening anywhere yet but a project in El Paso, Texas, that previously failed to materialize due to financial, investor, and engineering difficulties was purchased by a Florida company, Critical Minerals Corporation that plans to reconfigure and run the plant. The desalinization plant, the largest inland one in the U.S., has been in operation since 2007. The plan is to treat the brine and extract minerals to sell to oil & gas companies and for fertilizer. Lithium extraction is also in the works when more lithium-rich brines can be delivered. The brine processing plant will be the first of its kind in the country. I am not sure about the timeline or what stage of commercialization is happening at present.  

 

Japanese Iodine-Rich Brine and Natural Gas Play

     Chile produces more than half of the world’s iodine and Japan about 30%. Together the two countries produce nearly 90% of the global supply. Chile’s production comes from naturally concentrated precipitates. Japan produces iodine along with natural gas from brines. Natural gas is dissolved in the brines in Chiba prefecture and other areas. According to the book Iodine Chemistry and Applications: “Iodine production in Japan occurs at the Minami-Kanto gas field near Tokyo, the Niigata gas field, the Nakajo oil and gas field, both in Niigata Prefecture, and the Sadowara gas field in Miyazaki Prefecture, all of which are brine-dissolved gas fields. Although iodine is known to exist at high concentrations in submarine sediments, the commercial production of iodine from brine involves drilling on land. In Japan, iodine is produced from natural gas brine by a blowing-out process and an ion-exchange process.” After extraction, the water must be reinjected back into the ground to prevent land subsidence due to the presence of unconsolidated sediments. This prevents the operations from expanding processing volumes. Below is a schematic of the blowout process for extracting iodine.

 

Blow Out Method Used to Extract Iodine from Japanese Brines

Iodine Brine Play in Pennsylvanian Morrow Sandstone in the Anadarko Basin in Northwest Oklahoma

     The U.S. is the world’s third-largest iodine producer. The iodine in the U.S. comes from the Late Pennsylvanian-aged Morrow Sandstone in the Anadarko Basin of Northwest Oklahoma. AAPG’s Susan Nash writes “Chile is the world’s dominant producer, where iodine is recovered principally by heap-leaching nitrates containing iodate. In Japan’s Chiba prefecture, iodine is recovered from natural gas brines using the blowing out process, which involves vaporizing the iodine, then absorbed, crystallized, and purified. In Oklahoma, the iodine is found in the Morrow sand brines. It is also extracted via proprietary processes from the oilfield brines co-produced with oil and gas. There are currently three operators in Oklahoma, along with another chemical company that creates products from the brine.” The iodine-rich brine is produced from a single paleo-valley located in the Anadarko Basin in one specific feature, the Woodward Trench, a paleo-valley 1 to 2 miles wide in the Morrow formation that extends 70 miles from Vici, Oklahoma, north to the Kansas border. The source of the iodine is the Late Devonian/Early Mississippian Woodford Shale which lies below the Morrow. Organic matter including seaweed, brown algae, coral, and other marine life helped to concentrate the iodine in the shale. The iodine concentration in the Mississippian rocks of the Woodward Shale is as high as 1560 parts per million (ppm). The iodine-rich brines occur at depths from 6000 ft to 10,000 ft below the surface. The iodine concentration in the Morrow Sandstone is as high as 700 ppm. This is about twice as concentrated as the Japanese brines which have average concentrations of about 160 mg/L. This maximum concentration (700 ppm) is at least three times higher than anywhere else found in the U.S. with the exception of newly found iodine-rich brines in the Paradox Basin with concentrations as high as 596mg/L, almost twice that of the Morrow Sand.  Nash wonders whether there are any other paleo valleys in the Anadarko vicinity or elsewhere with iodine-rich brine that await discovery.

     The first iodine processing plant was built in Oklahoma in 1977, based on Japanese and European designs. Acids are used in iodine processing, which requires precautions for handling corrosive material. Iodine prices rose sharply in 2017-2023 by 200%. Uses for iodine include X-ray contrast (biggest use), disinfectants, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), nutritional supplements for humans and animals, pharmaceuticals, LEDs, and specialty chemicals. Iodine recovery from oilfield brines involves settling tanks where the oil is skimmed off the top and chlorination of the brine which separates out the iodine. The vaporized iodine compounds are condensed back into a liquid or solid form through distillation or sublimation and further purified by extraction through oxidation-reduction reactions. The process yields flakes or pellets of 98% pure iodine.

 

This map does not have the 596mg/L data point in Southeast Utah Paradox Basin

Leduc Lithium Brine Play in Western Canada

     E3 Lithium reported in mid-October 2023 that they recently tested their DLE pilot project in Alberta’s Leduc Brines. The tests evaluated lithium recovery and lithium grade at different flow rates. The company noted that all the parameters exceeded their expectations. Thus, they are optimistic about continuing toward commercialization. The Leduc brines are at the lower end of lithium concentrations for economic viability so I would guess projects in that range would be especially sensitive to lithium prices and things like O&M costs.

     Calgary, Alberta-based Volt Lithium has a pilot demo project at Rainbow Lake in northwest Alberta. They are processing oilfield brines from throughout North America. Lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate are produced. The pilot was a success. They are now building a permanent demonstration plant. A schematic is shown below.

Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Brines: Currently, Not Economically Feasible

     A 2017 paper On the Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Geothermal Brines. York R. Smith, Pankaj Kumar, and John D. McLennan. Resources 2017, 6(3), 39, concluded that “rare earth element extraction from geothermal fluids is technically possible, but neither economically viable nor strategically significant at this time.” Rare earths can far better be extracted from veins of much higher concentration than brines. Basically, the same separation methods used for critical minerals would be used to separate rare earth elements in brines, if and when doing so ever becomes feasible.

 

Market Predictions and Incentives

     Most economic scenarios that incorporate the energy transition forecast continued increases in demand for lithium and some of the other brine minerals. DLE as a processing method is very desirable due to its low environmental, climate, and land footprints. It is already modeled as cost-comparable to solar evaporation. Thus, it seems likely that widespread adoption is likely in the next 5-10 years. The number of pilot and commercialization projects in development and planning has been growing. Over the next 2-5 years we should get an idea of what DLE can do to meet demand and for the U.S. perhaps ensure a more robust domestic supply with clean energy credentials.

     In the U.S. the Critical Minerals Exploration Tax Credit (CMETC) was expanded from 15% to 30% as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. This credit includes lithium and a few other brine minerals like zinc and magnesium. It will offset some of the inflation and help companies commercialize their projects and operations.

 

References:

Brine Mining. Wikipedia. Brine mining - Wikipedia

Bittern. Wikipedia. Bittern (salt) - Wikipedia

Standard Lithium’s East Texas Drilling Program Delivers New Highest Confirmed Grade Lithium Brine in North America. Standard Lithium. Press Release. October 10, 2023. Standard Lithium’s East Texas Drilling Program Delivers New Highest Confirmed Grade Lithium Brine in North America :: Standard Lithium Ltd. (SLI)

E3 Lithium Says Field Pilot Test Results Exceed Expectations. Hart Energy. October 18, 2023. E3 Lithium Says Field Pilot Test Results Exceed Expectations | Hart Energy

An Overview of Commercial Lithium Production. Terence Bell. ThoughtCo. August 21, 2020. Commercial Lithium Production and Mining of Lithium (thoughtco.com)

New methods could extract large lithium stores from brine. Jay Landers, Civil Engineering Magazine. October 26, 2023. New methods could extract large lithium stores from brine | ASCE

Standard Lithium Delivers Highest-Ever North American Lithium Brine Grade 806 mg/L; East Texas Asset Includes Significant Potash and Bromine Concentrations. Standard Lithium. October 25, 2023. Standard Lithium Delivers Highest-Ever North American Lithium Brine Grade 806 mg/L; East Texas Asset Includes Significant Potash and Bromine Concentrations :: Standard Lithium Ltd. (SLI)

Petrolithium: Extracting Minerals From Petroleum Brine. Jared Lazerson, MGX Minerals. Hart Energy. April 3, 2017. Petrolithium: Extracting Minerals From Petroleum Brine | Hart Energy

Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines. María L. Vera, Walter R. Torres, Claudia I. Galli, Alexandre Chagnes & Victoria Flexer. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 4, pages149–165 (2023). February 23, 2023. Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines | Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Groundwater in sedimentary basins as potential lithium resource: a global prospective study. Elza J. M. Dugamin, Antonin Richard, Michel Cathelineau, Marie-Christine Boiron, Frank Despinois & Anne Brisset. Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 21091 (2021). October 26, 2021. Groundwater in sedimentary basins as potential lithium resource: a global prospective study | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Prospects of metal recovery from wastewater and brine. Ryan M. DuChanois, Nathanial J. Cooper, Boreum Lee, Sohum K. Patel, Lauren Mazurowski, Thomas E. Graedel & Menachem Elimelech. Nature Water volume 1, pages37–46 (2023). January 19, 2023. Prospects of metal recovery from wastewater and brine | Nature Water

Regional Trends in Water Chemistry, Smackover Formation, Southwest Arkansas: Geochemical and Physical Controls. Eva P. Moldovanyi and Lynn M. Walter. AAPG Bulletin (1992) 76 (6): 864–894. Regional Trends in Water Chemistry, Smackover Formation, Southwest Arkansas: Geochemical and Physical Controls1 | AAPG Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld

Lithium extraction from oilfield brine. Pamela Joy Daitch. Thesis Abstract, June 19, 2018. University of Texas at Austin. Lithium extraction from oilfield brine (utexas.edu)

As Companies Eye Massive Lithium Deposits in California’s Salton Sea, Locals Anticipate a Mixed Bag. June Kim. Inside climate News. August 26, 2023. As Companies Eye Massive Lithium Deposits in California’s Salton Sea, Locals Anticipate a Mixed Bag - Inside Climate News

Lithium recovery from shale gas produced water using solvent extraction. Eunyoung Jang, Yunjai Jang, Eunhyea Chung. Applied Geochemistry. Volume 78, March 2017, Pages 343-350. Lithium recovery from shale gas produced water using solvent extraction - ScienceDirect

Eureka To Extract Lithium From Marcellus/Utica Wastewater. Shale Directories. March 2019. Eureka to Extract Lithium from Marcellus/Utica Wastewater - Shale Directories

MGX Minerals and Eureka Resources Announce Joint Venture to Recover Lithium from Produced Water in Eastern United States. MGX Minerals. March 5, 2023. MGX Minerals and Eureka Resources Announce Joint Venture to Recover Lithium from Produced Water in Eastern United States (prnewswire.com)

Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges. Abdullah Khalil, Shabin Mohammed, Raed Hashaikeh, Nidal Hilal. Desalination. Volume 528, 15 April 2022, 115611. Lithium recovery from brine: Recent developments and challenges - ScienceDirect

Florida firm plans to mine minerals by reviving failed El Paso brine treatment plant. Vic Kolenc. El Paso Times. April 21, 2021. Florida firm plans to mine brine waste by reviving El Paso plant (elpasotimes.com)

Technology for the Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brines. William T. Stringfellow and Patrick F. Dobson. Energies 2021, 14(20), 6805. October 18, 2021. Energies | Free Full-Text | Technology for the Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brines (mdpi.com)

Geothermal brines in California’s Salton Sea could be future source of lithium in the US. Valentina Ruiz Leotaud. Mining.Com. December 12, 2021. Geothermal brines in California’s Salton Sea could be future source of lithium in the US - MINING.COM

Paradox basin brine project. US. Creamer Media’s Mining Weekly. May 12, 2023. Paradox basin brine project. US (miningweekly.com)

Lithium & Brine Project: Paradox Basin, Utah. American Potash Corporation. Presentation. September 2022. paradox_basin_lithium_and_brine_project_sept_2022.pdf (americanpotash.com)

General Information Regarding Brine in Arkansas and Geology of Brine Resources in South Arkansas. Arkansas Dept. of Energy & Environment. Office of the State Geologist. Brine (Bromine) in Arkansas

Brine Mining Iodine in Oklahoma: A Little-Known Treasure. Susan Nash, Director of Innovation & Emerging Science and Technology / AAPG. June 11, 2023. (24) Brine Mining Iodine in Oklahoma: A Little-Known Treasure | LinkedIn

Direct Lithium Extraction: A potential game-changing technology. Goldman Sachs. April 27, 2023. Global Metals & Mining Direct Lithium Extraction A potential game changing technology (goldmansachs.com)

Iodine. U.S. EPA. Identification and Description of Mineral Processing Sectors and Waste Streams | US EPA ARCHIVE DOCUMENT

Iodine. Stanley T. Krukowski. Oklahoma Geological Survey. Mining Engineering. July 2016. MEV68.7P54-57-Krukowski-Iodine.pdf (ou.edu)

Engineering Li/Na selectivity in 12-Crown-4–functionalized polymer membranes. Samuel J. Warnock, Rahul Sujanani, Everett S. Zofchak, and Christopher M. Bates. PNAS. September 7, 2021 118(37). Engineering Li/Na selectivity in 12-Crown-4–functionalized polymer membranes | PNAS

How lithium can be efficiently extracted from oil and gas wastewater. Mining.Com. Staff Writer | September 22, 2021. How lithium can be efficiently extracted from oil and gas wastewater - MINING.COM

On the Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Geothermal Brines. York R. Smith, Pankaj Kumar, and John D. McLennan. Resources 2017, 6(3), 39. Resources | Free Full-Text | On the Extraction of Rare Earth Elements from Geothermal Brines (mdpi.com)

Eureka Resources expanding operations in northeast Pennsylvania. NCPA Staff Mar 29, 2021. North Central PA. Eureka Resources expanding operations in northeast Pennsylvania | Business | northcentralpa.com

Eureka Resources Successfully Produces Lithium Carbonate From Oil & Natural Gas Brine Wastewater. July 31, 2023. Business Wire. Eureka Resources Successfully Produces Lithium Carbonate From Oil & Natural Gas Brine Wastewater | Business Wire

Shale Gas Produced Water. SEP. Shale Gas Produced Water (sepwin.ch)

Lithium Salts. SEP. Lithium Salts (sepwin.ch)

Paradox basin brine project. US. Sheila Barradas. Creamer Media’s Mining Weekly. May 12. 2023. Paradox basin brine project. US (miningweekly.com)

Utica Shale Play Oil and Gas Brines: Geochemistry and Factors Influencing Wastewater Management. Madalyn S. Blondes, Jenna L. Shelton, Mark A. Engle, Jason P. Trembly, Colin A. Doolan, Aaron M. Jubb, Jessica C. Chenault, Elisabeth L. Rowan, Ralph J. Haefner, and Brian E. Mailot. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 21, 13917–13925. October 14, 2020. Utica Shale Play Oil and Gas Brines: Geochemistry and Factors Influencing Wastewater Management | Environmental Science & Technology (acs.org)

Berkeley Lab leading investigation to quantify and characterize Salton Sea’s geothermal lithium resources. Green Car Congress. February 17, 2022. Berkeley Lab leading investigation to quantify and characterize Salton Sea’s geothermal lithium resources - Green Car Congress

Iodine and Natural Gas. Nippoh Chemicals. Iodine and Natural Gas | Unique Technologies | NIPPOH CHEMICALS (npckk.co.jp)

Iodine Chemistry and Applications, Editor: Tatsuo Kaiho, Wiley, October 2014. Chapter 13: Iodine Production from Natural Gas Brine. Iodine Production from Natural Gas Brine - Iodine Chemistry and Applications - Wiley Online Library