remix logo

Hacker Remix

USGS uses machine learning to show large lithium potential in Arkansas

242 points by antidnan 10 hours ago | 139 comments

folli 9 hours ago

From the paper's method section, a bit more about which type of ML algo was used:

An RF machine-learning model was developed to predict lithium concentrations in Smackover Formation brines throughout southern Arkansas. The model was developed by (i) assigning explanatory variables to brine samples collected at wells, (ii) tuning the RF model to make predictions at wells and assess model performance, (iii) mapping spatially continuous predictions of lithium concentrations across the Reynolds oolite unit of the Smackover Formation in southern Arkansas, and (iv) inspecting the model for explanatory variable importance and influence. Initial model tuning used the tidymodels framework (52) in R (53) to test XGBoost, K-nearest neighbors, and RF algorithms; RF models consistently had higher accuracy and lower bias, so they were used to train the final model and predict lithium.

Explanatory variables used to tune the RF model included geologic, geochemical, and temperature information for Jurassic and Cretaceous units. The geologic framework of the model domain is expected to influence brine chemistry both spatially and with depth. Explanatory variables used to train the RF model must be mapped across the model domain to create spatially continuous predictions of lithium. Thus, spatially continuous subsurface geologic information is key, although these digital resources are often difficult to acquire.

Interesting to me that RF performed better the XGBoost, would have expected at least a similar outcome if tuned correctly.

jofer 5 hours ago

Put another way, this is pretty similar to the interpolation approaches that would normally be used for datasets like this in the world of mineral exploration. Kriging/co-kriging (i.e. gaussian processes) is the more commonly used approach in this particular field due to both the long history and the available hyperparameters for things like spatial aniostropy.

However, kriging is really quite difficult to use with non-continuous inputs. RF is a lot more forgiving there. You don't need to develop a covariance model for discrete values (or a covariance model for how the different inputs relate, either).

aaronblohowiak 19 minutes ago

for other folks wonder what the acronym means; RF in this context is Random Forest

lordgrenville 6 hours ago

So it turns out that there's no theoretical reason that gradient boosting will always outperform RF (which would violate the "no free lunch" theorem). But it does usually seem to be the case in practice, even with small and noisy data.

I would hazard a guess that with better tuning, XGBoost would still have won. (The paper notes that the authors chose a suboptimal set of hyperparameters out of fear of overfitting - maybe the same logic justifies choosing a suboptimal model type...)

levocardia 6 hours ago

That's been my experience. RF tends to do quite well out of the box, and is very fast to fit. It's less of a pain to cross-validate too, with fewer tuning parameters. XGBoost has a huge number of knobs to tune, and its performance varies from god-awful with bad hyperparameters to somewhat better than RF with good ones. Giant PITA with nested cross-validation, etc. though.

I haven't read in detail what their validation strategy is but this seems like the kind of problem where it's not so easy as you'd think -- you need to be very careful about how you stratify your train, dev, and test sets. A random 80/10/10 split would be way too optimistic: your model would just learn to interpolate between geographically proximate locations. You'd probably need to cross-validate across different geographic areas.

This also seems like an application that would benefit from "active learning". given that drilling and testing is expensive, you'd want to choose where to collect new data based on where it would best update your model's accuracty. A similar-ish ML story comes from Flint, MI [1] though the ending is not so happy

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/01/how-m...

jandrese 7 hours ago

Did they actually verify the predictions? In my reading of the article I didn't see any core samples being made to verify the model is correct.

jofer 5 hours ago

There wouldn't be any core for this. It would be a holdout of the brine samples used in training. The thing that would be being produced is brine, so lithium concentrations in brine samples are the validation dataset as well. In other words, this is spatial interpolation.

Animats 6 hours ago

There's also a big lithium deposit in Nevada, and preparations for mining are underway there.[1] General Motors put in $650 million for guaranteed access to the output of this Thacker Mine.

It's in a caldera in a mountain that I-80 bypassed to go through Winnemuca, Nevada. Nearest town is Mill City, NV, which is listed as a ghost town, despite being next to I-80 and a main line railroad track. The mine site is about 12km from Mill City on a dirt road not tracked by Google Street View.

Google Earth shows signs of development near Mill City. Looks like a trailer park and a truck stop. The road to the mine looks freshly graded. Nothing at the mine site yet.

It's a good place for a mine. There are no neighbors for at least 10km, but within 15km, there's good road and rail access.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thacker_Pass_lithium_mine

diggernet 6 hours ago

Your description of the location of this mine doesn't match your Wikipedia link.

Searching in Google Maps, Thacker Mine comes up as 40.58448942010599, -117.8912129833345. As you say, that is near I-80 and Mill City, and there is nothing there.

But Wikipedia says it's at 41.70850912415866, -118.05475061324945 in the McDermitt Caldera, nowhere near Mill City or I-80.

I'm thinking probably don't trust Google on this one. :)

Animats 5 hours ago

Right. The Nevada Appeal, which actually has people on the ground, has far more info.[1] North of Thacker Pass is the area to look. The mine is building their own rail yard west of Winnemuca. The mine will be an open-pit mine like a coal mine. Sawtooth Mining division of North American Coal will do the mining. Dig down 350 feet, take out clay with lithium, process, put back clay without lithium. The processing plant will be at Thacker Pass. Big plant, maybe 1800 people. Lithium in clay is a new thing - the usual input is brine. Also a sulfuric acid plant, a power plant, housing, etc. Project assumes a loan of US$2.3 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy.

"Lithium Americas will contract with a bus company to drive workers an hour to the site for 10-hour work shifts, he added. An additional two hours will be added for transportation time. If you go to work on our project, you will have free room and board and free transportation to the site every day. You would get three free meals a day." If you're an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, that might look good.

[1] https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2024/oct/12/nevada-operati...

CSSer 2 hours ago

And they can all visit us at Burning Man every year!

mjrpes 5 hours ago

Looks like Google got "Thacker Pass Lithium Mine" in the McDermitt Caldera confused with an old gold mine called "Thacker Placer Mine" that was southeast of Mill City: https://westernmininghistory.com/mine-detail/10042614/

jeffbee 3 hours ago

Yeah I asked Google Gemini to make a map showing the three principle lithium developments of Nevada and it pinned the historical Thacker Mine, not the new Thacker Pass Mine.

Then I asked chatgpt and it refused to make a map but said that I should just look on the map for Thacker Pass, which is almost right but it also said I should look northeast of Winnemucca, which isn't correct. It's north and west.

Zero for two, for robots.

_heimdall 5 hours ago

Well I guess this is a good win for short term energy infrastructure, though I'm always pretty torn when its at the cost of ripping open huge swaths of earth to get at the raw material.

It is interesting to see how much of this data could be modelled based on wastewater brines from other industries in the area, assuming we go on to mine the lithium it will say a lot if the ML predictions prove accurate.

One thing I couldn't tell, and its probably just a limitation of how much time I could spend reading the source paper, is what method would be needed to extract the bulk of the lithium expected to be there. If processing brine water is sufficient that may be easier to control externalities than if they have to strip mine and get all the overburden out of the way first.

jofer 5 hours ago

You physically can't remove the overburden for this. The Smackover is at a depth of multiple kilometers in most of these areas.

It's mining brine. I.e. the "mines" are basically deep water wells.

The limestone itself doesn't have any lithium. It's the water in the pores in the limestone that is relatively concentrated in lithium.

In most of these cases, you're already producing brines from the smackover formation as a part of existing oil and gas production, but the brine is being re-injecting after oil is separated from it. The idea is that it's better to keep those and evaporate them down for lithium production.

That does require large evaporation ponds, generally speaking, but it's not strip mining.

_heimdall 4 hours ago

Extremely helpful, thanks for the extra detail here. I have a background in the oil industry and live in a region strip mined for coal (I actually can't tap a useful ground well because of it), but I don't know much about how lithium is actually extracted.

As far as evap ponds go, are there usually chemicals or elements in the same brine water as lithium that is important when evaporating into the atmosphere?

jofer 2 hours ago

There are a lot of things in deep subsurface brine. It really varies.

First and foremost, here are definitely lots of other salts. It is brine, after all. You produce a lot of halite (salt), gypsum, calcite, and all kinds of other evaporite minerals.

There are all kinds of things in smaller concentrations, though.

What comes out of a oil/water separator would need lots of additional processing before going to something like an evap pond. It's relatively hazardous stuff for a lot of reasons other than oil (e.g. it can be rather radioactive). It typically goes through quite a bit of additional processing unless it's being immediately reinjected.

lazide 45 minutes ago

Yeah, underground brine is rarely nice to be around, especially when concentrated, but does often have a lot of useful minerals. Related facts, I’m guessing.

pfdietz 3 hours ago

I think they're using better processes than evaporation these days. For example, concentrating the brine using reverse osmosis first.

jofer 2 hours ago

Those are expensive and are avoided when possible. Brine ponds are cheap if you can use them. But with that said, yeah, evaporation ponds don't work especially well on the Gulf Coast.

pfdietz 58 minutes ago

The process for here, I was reading, would involve concentration of the lithium with resin absorbers (to separate it from other alkali elements, I imagine), followed by elution into water, reverse osmosis, and only then evaporation. This is called "DLE": Direct Lithium Extraction.

jeffbee 3 hours ago

> ripping open huge swaths of earth

Do you have the same trepidation about aluminum, iron, dish soap, and table salt? I ask because the amount of "ripping open" involved in lithium production is like a speck in the eye of a whale compared to all the other mining. In terms of scale all existing and proposed lithium mines are teensy tiny by the standards of mines.

_heimdall 3 hours ago

Sure, yes I do wish that we weren't opening such huge holes as we are for aluminum, iron, coal, etc. I worked in the upstream oil industry for a bit and live in an area heavily coal mined, I just wasn't clear how lithium mining compared and didn't want to assume that damage was on the same scale as the others.

jeffbee 3 hours ago

It's not even close to as large as the footprint of oil and gas. The Thacker Pass project, which is one of several that are all individually described as satisfying global demand, will ultimately disturb only 7000 acres. Fossil fuel wells usually disturb 5 net acres each, and there are five million such wells in America alone.

lazide 43 minutes ago

Additionally, that area in Nevada can be - at best - charitably described as moonscape.

Which, for those of us that like moonscape, is a bit sad. But there is a lot of moonscape in that region, and there aren’t a huge number of moonscape fans. At least that are going to try to picket any projects. So overall, meh.

That area of Nevada is also pretty economically ‘challenged’, so why not.

tommykins 5 hours ago

Ah spatial autocorrelation, my old friend.

Very good work - but typically we don't build prospectivity models this way (or rather we don't validate them this way anymore). Great to see the USGS starting to dip their toe back in this though, they and the GSC were long the leaders in this, but have dropped it on the last 5-7 years.