USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70250904

Machine learning approaches to identify lithium concentration in petroleum produced waters

Abstract

Prices for battery-grade lithium have increased substantially since 2020, which is propelling the search for additional sources of this important element. Battery-grade lithium is predominately recovered from continental brines. Most crude oil and natural gas wells recover briny formation water, which may represent an additional source. Chemical analysis of these waters has been shown to indicate the presence of varying concentrations of lithium and related elements. This paper briefly reviews developments and literature supporting the presence of lithium in petroleum reservoir brines. It also describes the coverage and distribution of lithium data analyses in the United States Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database (PWGD). It then addresses the question as to whether a lithium concentration can be accurately predicted using constituents of ion chemistry in produced brines from specific geologic formations. Four machine learning algorithms are employed to classify the commercial potential of lithium in oil field brines using data from oil wells recovering formation water from the Smackover Formation. The calibrated classification models are further applied to new (out-of-sample) data from the Marcellus Formation in the Appalachian Basin. Among the approaches considered, the predictive performance and wider applicability of the gradient boosted tree and the deep neural network models are determined to be the most promising. Finally, we discuss how the calibrated models could be applied to assure the quality of the data reported from chemical laboratory analysis and for imputation when lithium values are missing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Emil Attanasi, Timothy Coburn, Philip A. Freeman. 2024-01-09. Machine learning approaches to identify lithium concentration in petroleum produced waters. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-023-00409-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Indirect mineral import reliance and provenance

Mineral commodity supply chain analyses rely on international trade data reported by individual countries as quantities of a mineral commodity form imported from (or exported to) a partner. However, export quantities frequently exceed a country’s domestic production, or occur when no production data are reported, suggesting that the trade partner is merely an intermediary in a transshipment. These discrepancies can result in misleading conclusions regarding supply chain vulnerabilities and dependencies. We present a two-stage methodology to reconcile gaps between reported material sources and actual producers. First, we construct trade networks for specific mineral forms, treating production as a type of import to distinguish producing nations from entrepôts. By tracing flows through these networks, we attribute a target country’s imports to original producers via both direct (in a single trade link) and indirect (transferring through intermediaries) pathways. Second, these production-attributed flows are incorporated into multi-stage supply chains to determine the upstream provenance of feedstock for domestic refining and processing. This approach provides a more representative picture of trade reliance. For example, while the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey reports no imports of unwrought antimony metal from Russia in 2022 (U.S. Geological Survey (2025). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025. 10.3133/mcs2025), our analysis reveals that over 16% of U.S. imports can be traced back to Russian mining through intermediate processing in countries such as China, India, and Vietnam. Additionally, our analysis of the aluminum supply chain shows that while the U.S. is reported as 52% net import reliant on aluminum materials in 2022, it is 100% reliant on foreign bauxite, 7% of which arrived indirectly. This unreported reliance, which is predominantly tied to bauxite mined in Brazil (43%) and Jamaica (28%), highlights our methods ability to capture the supply chain’s dependence on foreign feedstock that may be missing in single-stage trade data.

Mineral Economics

Understanding market sensitivity: Estimation of supply and demand elasticities for non-fuel minerals

In today’s rapidly changing economic landscape, understanding market responsiveness to price changes and the factors influencing commodity prices has become increasingly relevant. Price elasticities serve as indicators of how variations in market conditions affect supply and demand, providing insights into the sensitivity of commodity markets to price fluctuations. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of price elasticities of supply and demand for 74 non-fuel mineral commodities including precious metals, base metals, minor metals, and industrial minerals that are utilized across various industries. We employ various econometric techniques, including fixed effects models for panel data and two-stage dynamic ordinary least squares (2S-DOLS) alongside autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) models for time series analysis, to derive robust estimates of price elasticities. Our findings reveal variability in elasticities among different commodities and indicate that all studied mineral commodities exhibit price inelastic supply and demand in the short run, which we define as one year for the purposes of our analysis, given that the data is all annual. This research provides original estimates of price responsiveness for a wide range of commodities that have not been previously addressed in the literature, thereby enhancing the understanding of market dynamics in the mineral sector. Given that price elasticities can be influenced by factors such as market structure, technological advancements, mining costs, and industry-specific demand drivers, we use variables that serve as proxies for these factors.

Mineral Economics

The development of China’s monopoly over cobalt battery materials

While previous resource conflicts have often been linked to fuel minerals such as oil, future resource conflict may revolve around nonfuel minerals that enable strategic emerging technologies. During a 2010 diplomatic dispute, China reportedly blocked exports of rare earth elements to Japan, thereby leveraging China’s near-monopoly to threaten Japanese manufacturers of advanced technologies including batteries and permanent magnets. Although this caused significant concern for manufacturers outside China, China’s control over other critical minerals has yet to be studied comprehensively. Besides rare earth elements, perhaps no mineral has received more attention for its supply risks than cobalt. Here Chinese control is estimated for each cobalt material at each stage of the cobalt supply chain from 2000 through 2022. The results show that from mining, to refining, consumption, recycling, stocks, and trade, China dominates the cobalt materials that feed lithium-ion battery cathode production. Specifically, the results show that in 2022 Chinese firms had control over 62% of cobalt mine materials primarily used for cobalt chemical refining, 95% control of refined commercial-grade cobalt chemicals, 92% control of battery-grade tricobalt tetroxide, 85% control of battery-grade cobalt sulfate, and 91% control of nickel–cobalt-manganese cathode precursor materials. China’s monopoly over cobalt battery materials may imply a serious supply risk to non-Chinese battery producing and consuming industries—especially given rising geopolitical tensions and the reemergence of critical mineral export restrictions including gallium for semiconductors, germanium for solar panels, graphite for lithium-ion batteries, and (again) rare earth elements.

Mineral Economics