Industry expert expresses concerns over Westwin Elements’ Richmond Hill Nickel Refinery proposal

BRYAN COUNTY, Ga. (WTOC) - As the controversial Westwin Elements proposal to build a nickel refinery in the Richmond Hill area continues to draw scrutiny, WTOC sat down with Michael Hargett, president and CEO of CVMR, a company currently involved in a lawsuit against Westwin Elements.

With 40 years of experience in the metal technology field, Hargett offered a critical perspective on the proposed location, saying Richmond Hill is not suitable for such an industrial facility.

Hargett expressed significant concerns about the proposed site’s proximity to residential areas.

“I would be very concerned with the siting,” Hargett said. “It’s just too close to the people. You know, you have a lot of industrial processes. The more hazardous, the more reason that it needs to be remote, and this is not remote. This is in the middle of a residential area.”

Hargett flew from Europe to attend Monday night’s town hall meeting in Richmond Hill, where he witnessed strong community opposition to the proposal.

“The general response was negative tonight, not just a little negative,” Hargett said. “We almost had chaos at some times with the blizzard of questions that were thrown at the West Wind presentation.”

The two companies have a contentious history. Hargett explained that CVMR and Westwin split ways years ago after CVMR disapproved of how Westwin handled business operations.

“Their performance as a company, their leadership, their planning, their understanding of the technical issues and the direction that the company was going in,” Hargett said.

The companies are now embroiled in dueling lawsuits over a contract disagreement and payment disputes. According to Hargett, the dispute stems from a canceled study that Westwin had initially commissioned from CVMR.

Westwin claims that CVMR never delivered what was agreed upon on the contract.

“To date, CVMR has never delivered a single engineering or BFS document or material piece, Simply, Westwin sought a refund on its payment. Once CVMR denied repayment and missed all delivery deadlines and extensions, Westwin filed a suit against CVMR,” said Westwin’s CEO, Kaleigh Long

Hargett claims: “So as we had begun the study, they canceled the study,” “They had given us a deposit on that. And part of the nature of the suit is they want their money back.”

Adding to the tension, Westwin recently claimed in a public statement that their case had been dismissed—a claim Hargett vehemently disputes.

“We have a pending case,” Hargett said. “Tonight, it was announced by Westwind that our case has been dismissed. And that could not be further from the truth.”

Long responded to the statement she said the night prior.

“Now, on February 2, 2026, I repeated that CVMR’s counterclaims were dismissed in court. Please allow me to clarify that one of their counterclaims was dismissed in court; however, not every counterclaim has been dismissed at this time. Please forgive me for my error on this point.”

When asked directly whether CVMR would consider Richmond Hill as a location for its own refinery operations, Hargett said without hesitation:

“So, would we choose this particular area? No, we would not,” he said. “It would not be ready for us. It would not be appropriate for us. And it would create additional problems long term in the operation of such a facility.”

See the full statement from Westwin Elements below:

CLARIFICATION AND SUMMARY OF WESTWIN – CVMR DISPUTE FROM WESTWIN ELEMENTS FOUND & CEO, KALEIGH LONG

Despite evident misinformation surrounding Westwin’s lawsuit against CVMR, filed on January 6, 2025; the facts surrounding Westwin’s claims against CVMR persist. Westwin provides the following summary of events and claims relevant to the Westwin – CVMR dispute:  

• On January 6, 2023, Westwin hired CVMR to produce a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS) – Basic Engineering Report, consistent with industry standards to produce engineering and technical validation of CVMR’s alleged scalable cobalt carbonyl capabilities.  
• Per contractual terms, on January 9th, 2023, Westwin paid CVMR $3,000,000 for the first phase of engineering and study deliverables.  
• Per contractual terms, CVMR was to deliver its obligated engineering and study deliverables by July 6, 2023.  
• To date, CVMR has never delivered a single engineering or BFS document or material piece.  
• To date, CVMR has never refunded Westwin its transactional payment. 
• Simply, Westwin sought a refund on its payment. Once CVMR denied repayment and missed all delivery deadlines and extensions, Westwin filed a suit against CVMR.  
• On March 25, 2025, CVMR filed a countersuit against Westwin.  
• • On December 3rd, 2025, one of CVMR’s counterclaims against Westwin was dismissed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  
• Westwin persisted critical mineral processing operations through nickel refining with an in-house team of more than 250 years of nickel processing experience and 130 years of engineering experience.  
• The basis of Westwin’s deployed technology was first commercialized in 1902 in Clydach, Wales through a commercial nickel carbonyl refinery that still operates today.  
• The Nickel Carbonyl process was first discovered in 1890 by Ludwig Mond.  
• The Nickel Carbonyl process and chemistry, though tightly held, is more than a century old, well understood, used by several companies globally, and therefore, not exclusively owned by any one entity.  
• Supported by substantial third-party engineering, Westwin’s deployment of this process is both possible and proven because of the experience and knowledge base of its in-house technical and operations teams. 
• Current Status: The case is ongoing in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma. Motions and procedural filings are part of the docket, but no final ruling has been publicly reported yet 

Now, on February 2, 2026, I repeated that CVMR’s counterclaims were dismissed in court. Please allow me to clarify that one of their counterclaims was dismissed in court; however, not every counterclaim has been dismissed at this time. Please forgive me for my error on this point. I’m grateful for our broader team at Westwin, committed to abundant accuracy who supported me in this correction.  

We take accuracy in our public communications seriously. This clarification is provided in the interest of transparency and to ensure that the information shared with the public and with those who attended the referenced event is precise and complete. 

Importantly, this correction does not change the underlying facts or the procedural history of the case, which are reflected in the public court record. Anyone seeking a complete and accurate understanding of the matter may do so by reviewing the rulings in the case.

Westwin Elements