Smackover Lithium JV approved for brine production in Arkansas
The Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission has unanimously approved a 20,854-hectare brine production unit for phase I of the South West Arkansas project
The project is part of Smackover Lithium, a joint venture between Equinor and Standard Lithium (TSXV:SLI)
Standard Lithium is a near-commercial lithium development company with a portfolio of large, high-grade lithium-brine properties in the United States
Standard Lithium stock has added 31.82 per cent year-over-year and 212.31 per cent since 2020
The Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) has unanimously approved a 20,854-hectare brine production unit for phase I of the South West Arkansas project under Smackover Lithium, a joint venture between Equinor and Standard Lithium (TSXV:SLI).
The unit, now formally known as the Reynolds unit, is expected to produce 22,500 tons of battery-quality lithium carbonate per year once it reaches commercial scale in 2028.
The milestone follows a hearing open to all community stakeholders resulting in no objections.
Smackover's assets include the East Texas project, which yielded North America's highest-ever reported lithium brine grade of 806 mg/L, and the South West Arkansas project, which houses a high-grade resource averaging 437 mg/L and was recently named as a Transparency Project under the Trump administration's move to strengthen domestic critical mineral production. Leadership insights
'We thank the AOGC for their due diligence in reviewing our application and for their swift approval,' Andy Robinson, Standard Lithium's president and chief operating officer, said in a statement. 'The establishment of the Reynolds brine unit is another key milestone our team has now successfully completed as we march towards a final investment decision for the South West Arkansas project, and also a necessary statutory requirement as we look to set a royalty for the unit in late May.'
'Gaining regulatory approval for our first brine unit is an important step in our project timeline. We look forward to working with the AOGC and community stakeholders to establish a competitive royalty rate for this unit and continue momentum with the South West Arkansas project,' added Allison Kennedy Thurmond, vice president of US lithium at Equinor. About Standard Lithium
Standard Lithium is a near-commercial lithium development company with a portfolio of large, high-grade lithium-brine properties in the United States.
Standard Lithium stock (TSXV:SLI) is up by 1.5 per cent trading at C$2.03 per share as of 9:44 am ET. The stock has added 31.82 per cent year-over-year and 212.31 per cent since 2020.
Join the discussion: Find out what everybody's saying about this lithium stock on the Standard Lithium Ltd. Bullboard and check out the rest of Stockhouse's stock forums and message boards.
The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. For full disclaimer information, please click here.
(Top image: Standard Lithium)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
4 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
Published Jun 07, 2025 • 3 minute read President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago, Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla. Photo by Evan Vucci / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' Olympics Sunshine Girls NHL Sunshine Girls Toronto & GTA
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts — but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Global News
5 hours ago
- Global News
Bank of Canada's head says rate pause a result of ‘shock-prone' world
Tiff Macklem is wearing an Edmonton Oilers pin as he reflects on coming very close to beating big odds. It's a significant day for the governor of the Bank of Canada: he's just laid out his reasons to the entire country and a global audience for keeping the central bank's benchmark interest rate steady for a second straight time. That night is also Game 1 of the NHL's Stanley Cup finals; Macklem ends his press conference with a hearty 'Go Oilers!' It's a rematch from last year's heartbreak, when the Oilers came oh-so-close to mounting a seemingly impossible four-game comeback against the Florida Panthers, only to fall short by a single goal in Game 7. Macklem, too, was almost safe to declare victory last year. He had just about secured a coveted 'soft landing' for Canada's economy — a rare feat that sees restrictive monetary policy bring down surging levels of inflation without tipping the economy into a prolonged downturn. Story continues below advertisement 'We got inflation down. We didn't cause a recession,' Macklem said in an interview with The Canadian Press after the rate announcement Wednesday. 'And, to be frank, until President (Donald) Trump started threatening the economy with new tariffs, we were actually seeing growth pick up.' Fresh out of one crisis, the central bank now must contend with another in U.S. tariffs. 1:28 Doug Ford blames Trump, interest rates for Canada's stagnant housing market Five years into his tenure as head of the Bank of Canada, Macklem said he sees the central bank's role in stickhandling the economy — as well as Canada's role on the world stage — evolving. Many Canadians have become more familiar with the Bank of Canada in recent years. After the COVID-19 pandemic recovery ignited inflation, the central bank's rapid tightening cycle and subsequent rate cuts were top-line news for anxious Canadians stressed about rising prices and borrowing costs. Story continues below advertisement That was all in pursuit of meeting the central bank's inflation target of two per cent, part of a mandate from the federal government that's up for review next year. Get weekly money news Get expert insights, Q&A on markets, housing, inflation, and personal finance information delivered to you every Saturday. Sign up for weekly money newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Macklem said the past few years have led the Bank of Canada to scrutinize some of its metrics, like core inflation and how it responds to supply shocks in the economy. But he defends keeping the bank's inflation target, particularly at a time of global upheaval. 'Our flexible inflation targeting framework has just been through the biggest test it's ever had in the 30 years since we announced the inflation target,' he said. 'I'm not going to pretend it's been an easy few years for anybody. But I think the framework has performed well.' Macklem said, however, that he sees room to build out the mandate to address other areas of concern from Canadians, such as housing affordability. Whether it's the high cost of rent or a mortgage, or surging prices for groceries and vehicles, Macklem said the past few years have been eye-opening to Canadians who weren't around the last time inflation hit double digits in the 1980s. 'Unfortunately, a whole new generation of Canadians now know what inflation feels like, and they didn't like it one bit,' he said. Story continues below advertisement Monetary policy itself can't make homes more affordable, he noted — in a nutshell, high interest rates make mortgages more expensive while low rates can push up the price of housing itself because they stoke demand. But Macklem said one of the things he's reflecting on is that inflation can get worse when the economy isn't operating at its potential or when it's facing great disruption. 'There is a role for monetary policy to smooth out some of that adjustment — support the economy while ensuring that inflation is well-controlled.' He didn't offer suggestions on how the mandate might expand to address housing affordability specifically, but said 'the work is ongoing' and will be settled in meetings with the federal government next year. Right now, he's trying to make sure that the economic impacts from Canada's tariff dispute with the United States don't result in prolonged inflation. The Bank of Canada is not alone in debating how monetary policy ought to respond in what Macklem called a more 'shock-prone' world. The G7 Finance Ministers' Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., last month also featured roundtables with the bloc's central bankers. Conversations at the summit were 'candid,' Macklem said, and though the nations issued a joint statement at the close of the event, that doesn't mean they agreed on everything. Story continues below advertisement 'International co-operation, to be honest, has never been easy. It is particularly difficult right now, but that doesn't make it less important. That makes it more important,' he said. 'I do think Canada, as the chair of the G7, has a leadership role to play.' 2:56 Carney's government tables 'One Canadian Economy' bill to eliminate internal trade barriers The Bank of Canada is also changing the way it has conversations with Canadians and the kind of data it considers. A day after the June interest rate decision, deputy governor Sharon Kozicki told a Toronto business crowd how the central bank is using data more nimbly, relying heavily on surveys and more granular information to make monetary policy decisions in an uncertain time. These sources offer a faster way to see what's happening on the ground in the economy than traditional statistical models allow. Story continues below advertisement Macklem said the central bank would previously have dismissed most supply shocks as transitory — likely to pass without the need for central bank adjustments, such as rising and falling oil prices. But he said the Bank of Canada needs to be running a more 'nuanced playbook' now to respond to some increasingly common shocks: supply chain disruptions, trade conflicts and extreme weather to name a few. An overheating economy running up against a supply disruption is the kind of inflationary fire Macklem is trying to avoid in this latest crisis. 'The economy does not work well when inflation is high,' he said. 'And the primary role of the Bank of Canada is to ensure that Canadians maintain confidence in price stability. That's all we can do for the Canadian economy. That's what we can do for Canadians. And that's what we're focused on.' Later in the day on Wednesday, the Edmonton Oilers took Game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals. The Canadian team was down but roared back to win 4-3 in overtime. It's still early in the Bank of Canada's response to the latest global shock. But with any luck, Macklem's team might also get a leg up with lessons learned the last time they faced big odds.
