⌘K
t
On 24 August 2023, CleanTech Lithium PLC announced an upgraded JORC resource estimate for its Francisco Basin project. The total JORC resource increased by 74% to 0.92 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 207mg/L lithium. Of this, 0.44 million tonnes of LCE has been upgraded to the Indicated category at an average grade of 221mg/L lithium.
| Date | 24 Aug 2023 |
| Time | 07:00:04 |
| Category | Corporate updates |
| ID | 2715K |
24.08.23
CleanTech Lithium PLC ("CleanTech Lithium" or the "Company")
Francisco Basin JORC resource increases 74% to 0.92 million tonnes of LCE of which
0.44 million tonnes is upgraded to Indicated, with significant expansion potential
CleanTech Lithium PLC (AIM:CTL, Frankfurt:T2N, OTCQX:CTLHF), an exploration and development company advancing sustainable lithium projects in Chile for the clean energy transition, announces an upgraded JORC resource estimate of 0.92 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent ("LCE") at an average grade of 207mg/L lithium at the Company´s second project - Francisco Basin. The resource estimate now includes 0.44 million tonnes at an average grade of 221mg/L lithium in the Indicated category.
Although not yet categorised as a Reserve, this resource is considered sufficient for a production rate of 20,000 tonnes per annum of battery grade lithium carbonate for up to a possible 20-year operation, which will be used in the Scoping Study which is nearing completion. The Scoping Study is expected to reinforce the project's path to production, capital requirements and will support CleanTech Lithium's engagement with potential strategic partners.
Summary of the resource upgrade:
Table 1: Comparison of Francisco Basin JORC Resource Estimates: October 2022 and August 2023
Highlights:
· Following an exploration drilling programme completed in 1H 2023, the JORC resource estimate at Francisco Basin has been upgraded to 0.92 million tonnes of LCE including an Indicated resource of 0.44 million tonnes LCE
· The drilling programme encountered challenges with a late start due to heavy snow in the 2022 winter, and drill holes in the east of the resource zone encountered a loose sand unit affecting well completion and sampling in this prospective area
· For the upcoming exploration season (commencing late Q4 2023) modifications to the drilling programme are planned to successfully complete these wells and the Board believes there is large upside to the resource size and grade at Francisco Basin
· A pumping test programme completed at the project recorded a high transmissivity that corresponds to a modelled flow rate of approximately 80L/s in an operation stage well design, providing a potentially positive input into the Francisco Basin scoping study which will be completed in the coming weeks and announced prior to the planned listing on the ASX later in Q3 2023.
Commenting, Aldo Boitano, Chief Executive Officer, of CleanTech Lithium PLC, said: "Seeing a 74% increase in the Francisco Basin resource estimate to 0.92 million tonnes of LCE with 0.44 million tonnes now in the Indicated category provides more confidence in the resource potential and further de-risks the project following an extensive work programme this year. We think there remains strong potential for a large increase in the resource with further exploration work planned in 1H 2024.
The resource upgrade provides support for the Scoping Study which is nearly complete with a base case production rate of 20,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate per annum. High flow rates from a pumping test programme completed this season are a major positive. The recorded flow rates exceeded our expectations and this should reduce the number of wells required for production, potentially reducing the associated capex.
We expect the Scoping Study will confirm the economic potential of this project, alongside our other project Laguna Verde. At both sites we intend to advance our Direct Lithium Extraction process, which removes the need for evaporation ponds, and supply 'green' lithium to the EV and battery manufacturing industry."
Further Information
Project Background
Francisco Basin is located within 100km of the Company´s more advanced Laguna Verde project, as shown in Figure 1. The project has excellent infrastructure with road access to the site and existing power and water supply lines traversing the project area.
Figure 1: Location of the Francisco Basin Project
The previous resource estimate for Francisco Basin was reported in October 2022, based on one well, FB01, completed in 1H 2022 which produced an Inferred resource estimate. To upgrade the resource estimate to a higher confidence level, a drill programme based on 5 additional wells was undertaken in the first half of 2023. The location of wells completed in 2022 and 2023 are shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 2: Francisco Basin Drill Hole Map
Resource Summary
The 2023 resource estimate showing the key inputs in the calculation and the change vs the previous 2022 estimate is shown below in Table 2. The upgraded resource estimate represents an increase in the total estimated resource of 74% to 0.92 million tonnes LCE and includes an upgrade to 0.44 million tonnes in the Indicated category. This represents a large increase in the confidence level of the resource estimate.
Table 2: Updated JORC Resource Estimate 2023
Geological Setting
The Central Andes Altiplano salars form in closed topographic depressions at all elevations from 1,000m to over 4,000m above sea level. They generally represent the end result of a basin infill process that starts with erosion of surrounding relief, which deposits colluvial material, gravels, sheet sands, silts and clays. Alitplano salars are generally divided into mature halite salars and immature clastic salars, the later characterised by greater moisture regimes and a sediment profile with higher porosities. Francisco Basin is classified as an immature salar which features a hyper saline lagoon at the topographic low point of the basin.
The Francisco Basin is an elongated basin aligned on a NW-SE axis bounded on all sides by volcanic mountain ranges. The surface or margin of the lagoon is at an elevation of approximately 4,136m. To the south-east the basin forms a gently rising plain which forms the focus area of the project. The basin fill is characterised by sedimentary deposits that can be separated into three general units:
1. An upper unit of fine to coarse sands intercalated with fine gravels and minor clay and tuff levels
2. A middle unit of clay beds intercalated with minor levels of fine sands and gypsum
3. A basal unit of moderately consolidated gravels and sands, transitioning to silt beds
The brine aquifer is contained mainly from the middle unit down to the basement, with the general basin stratigraphy interpretation presented in Figure 3 below.
Fig. 3: Francisco Basin General Stratigraphy
Drilling Programme
A resource drilling programme consisting of six wells (including 5 new wells) was designed to test a resource area based on the interpreted extent of a low resistivity zone identified by a transient electromagnetic geophysics survey. The hole locations are shown in Figure 2. A first drilling programme comprising drill hole FB01 was undertaken from March to the end of May, 2022, when the programme was suspended due to the onset of winter weather conditions. A second drill programme comprising wells FB02 - FB06 was undertaken from January to the end of June, 2023. The location and drill depth details are provide in Table 1 below.
Table 3: Francisco Basin Drill Hole Details
Drilling Method
Drillholes FB01 - FB04 were drilled with the reverse flooded drilling system which starts with a 20 inch diameter pre-well drilled to 32m depth, cased with 16 inch diameter steel casing to stabilize the upper loose sand interval. The wells are then drilled with 14 inch diameter to the target depth, with the aim of inserting 8 inch PVC casing installed with silica gravel used to pack the casing. The PVC casing is slotted over the depth interval of the brine aquifer. This is a wide diameter well design which is suitable for the high-volume pump tests required for final feasibility level hydrogeological modelling, and ultimately for conversion to production bores in a commercial stage operation.
Drillholes FB05 and FB06 utilised the diamond drilling system. The wells were drilled with 3.8 inch diameter and then cased with 2 inch PVC to obtain brine samples. The primary objective of these diamond drill holes was to collect sediment samples for lithological and porosity analysis, with a secondary objective of collecting brine samples.
Fig. 4: Drill Rig and Auxiliary Equipment at FB03 and FB04, 2Q 2023
Brine Sampling Collection and Analysis
For wells completed with the wide diameter reverse flooded drill method, brine was sampled with suction and/or bailer sampling methods. After well completion a development process including purging the well of three well volumes of brine followed, then a minimum 5-day stabilisation period applied. Suction samples were collected via air lifting of samples into a 20-litre bucket. Samples were taken from every 6m support level. This operation used a rig with a compressor as shown in Figure 5. Bailer samples were then collected using an electronic or a pressurised bailer that is raised and lowered with an electric cable winch as shown in Figure 6. Bailer samples were collected every 6m.
For wells completed with the diamond drill method with 2 inch casing diameter, samples were taken with a double valve disposable bailer. The bailer is lowered and raised with an electric winch cable, to maintains a constant velocity and avoid bailer valves opening after taking the sample from the aquifer interval. Samples were sealed in clean polyethylene bottles, labelled and package on site for shipment to ALS Life Science Chile laboratory in Santiago. The suite of element analysis covered B, Ca, Cu, Li, Mg, K, Na, CaCO3, Cl, SO4, TDS and Density. A detailed QA/QC procedure was applied for sample collection and analysis.
|
|
|
Fig. 5: Suction Sampling with Compressor Fig. 6: Bailer Sampling using Electric Winch
Results from FB01 were used in the 2022 resource estimate produced for the Francisco Basin project, which was reported in an announcement dated October 3, 2022. A total of 34 brine samples were collected from regular intervals with a peak lithium grade of 324 mg/L and an average grade of 305mg/L. Several challenges were encountered in the 2023 drilling campaign that have limited the collection of representative brine samples and subsequent analysis, impacting the size, classification and the average lithium grade of the 2023 resource estimate.
Drill holes FB02 and FB03 were planned to test a low resistivity zone extending to the eastern area of the resource model. Both holes encountered a loose sand unit and drilling was ended before the target drill depth was achieved. The wells could not be completed with 8-inch casing as the loose sand unit prevented removal of drilling rods. A second well was attempted at the site of FB03, designated FB03A, with the same result. A number of attempts were made to salvage the holes, such as inserting narrow two-inch diameter casing past the trapped rods, however the wells were not able to be effectively developed and sampled. Despite this the levels at which brine was encountered during the drilling of the wells does provide an important input in the resource model, whilst limiting the resource classification in the area of the wells to Inferred.
Well FB04 was the southernmost drill hole location, farthest from the Francisco Basin salar, and designed to test the southern extension of the resource. The well was successfully completed and sampled with most water samples being relatively fresh water and a maximum lithium grade of 40mg/L recorded, therefore, the resource area does not extend to FB04.
Wells FB05 and FB06 were narrow diameter diamond drill wells completed with 2-inch casing. These wells were designed primarily to collect sediment core samples for lithological and porosity analysis, with brine sample collection a secondary objective. At FB05 a total of 37 samples were collected which had a range of 74mg/L to 162mg/L lithium, and an average of 111mg/L lithium. The brine had a low total salinity as measured by total dissolved solids (TDS) of 5§5,300mg/L. For comparison sea water has a TDS of approximately 35,000mg/L. The range of lithium values in the samples and relatively low salinity of the brine may indicate dilution from mixing with the fresh upper aquifer.
At FB06 a total of 26 samples were collected with most samples showing a contamination with drilling water. A total of 5 samples showed elevated lithium without the signal of drilling water contamination. This limits the contribution of samples from FB06 to the resource model to these 5 samples which had a range of 117mg/L to 155mg/L lithium and an average of 134mg/L lithium. Due to the limited number of representative samples collected from FB06 the data derived from the wells contributes to an Inferred resource classification.
The Company plans to resample both FB06 and FB05 as soon as site conditions allow. As conditions are currently favourable with very low snowfall and relatively mild winter temperatures, the re-sampling programme is planned in September 2023. In order to effectively drill the eastern targets of the resource area, where FB02 and FB03 were located, the Company´s geology team and drilling contractor will modify the drilling method based primarily on a new drilling mud regime with greater density that will be injected at high pressure to maintain hole stability prior to the installation of metal casing. This area has the most prospective geophysics for resource extension. The Company believes there is significant upside potential for the resource estimate in the upcoming drilling season.
Core Sampling Analysis
Core samples were obtained every 10m from diamond drill holes FB05 and FB06. Undisturbed diamond drillhole core samples with 3 to 5-inch length in HQ3 diameter were obtained for testing (Fig. 7). A total of 29 samples from FB05 were prepared and sent to Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. laboratory (DBS&A) in New Mexico, USA. Samples from FB06 were collected late in the drilling programme and were not sent due to timing, however are available for further test work. Samples underwent Relative Brine Release Capacity (RBRC) laboratory tests, which predict the volume of solution that can be readily extracted from an unstressed geological sample.
|
|
|
Fig. 7: Core Samples for Porosity Laboratory Tests from FB05 June 2023
The results from the brine release testing were used in the resource estimate; however, the analysis from one drill hole is not extendable to the entire basin, and therefore the variability of the results require further test-work. Brine release tests were not carried out for drill holes FB01 - FB04 as these were drilled with a reverse flooded system where only drill cuttings were available.
Pumping Test Programme
A pumping test was undertaken at FB01 in May 2023. The well was completed with 8-inch PVC casing with slotted casing over the brine aquifer level from 90m to 335m. A 50HP submersible electric pump and piping with flow meters were used, as shown in Fig. 8 below. The pump was placed at a depth of 160m for an initial variable flow rate step test using three successive increasing flow rates of 10, 16 and 22 l/s for a total of six hours. Drawdown levels of 5.7m, 8.8m and 12.5m were recorded respectively. A constant flow rate test was then conducted for a period of 14 hours at a maximum flow rate of 24 l/s; maximum flow rate was limited by pump size. Water level drawdown 19m where the aquifer stabilised. On completion of the test the aquifer recovered in approximately one hour.
Fig. 8: Installation of Pump Test Equipment at FB01
Based on the data collected from the pump test programme the Transmissivity (T) value calculated for FB01 ranges from 160 - 230m2/day. This is a relatively high T value and is favorable for allowing pumping at larger rates from larger diameter wells.
Resource Model
The sub-surface geological 3D model was built from the Transient Electro Magnetic (¨TEM¨) surveys performed in 2018 and 2014; these profiles are shown in Figure 9.
Fig. 9: Sub-Surface 3D Geological Model
The 3D model was constrained vertically at the bottom based on a gravimetry survey completed in 2023 and by the basement intercepted in drill holes FB01 and FB05, with this model output shown in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10: 3D Geological Model with Drill Intercepts, Gravity Survey, and Interpreted Basement
The 3D model was constrained vertically at the ceiling by the brine intervals intercepted in each of the drill holes FB01 (99 m), FB02 (260m), FB04 (300m), FB05 (195m) and FB06 (285m), and the brine intercept based on TEM geophysics for drill hole FB03, to form the final 3D model. This model output, shown in Fig. 11 below, completes the Francisco Basin brine volume model.
Fig. 11: 3D Geological Model with Drill Intercepts, TEM Survey, and Interpreted Ceiling
The available brine samples used for the resource model at Francisco Basin are centred on drill holes that are located on the edges of the resource volume. It is considered that the best approach for resource estimation is to use the standard inverse to the square distance method to estimate block values.
Porosity Calculation
The drainable porosity, or specific yield calculation applied a combination of the RBRC laboratory results received for diamond core samples from FB05 and the lithological logging undertaken for all other drill holes which informed the basin stratigraphy model from which porosity estimates were assigned based on established literature values for each lithological unit. This produced an overall average specific yield of 11.2% for the resource estimate in the Indicated category, and 13.8% for the resource estimate in the Inferred category.
Resource Categorisation
Resource criteria was based on the recommended sampling grid distances of the complementary guide to the CH 20235 code to report resources and reserves in brine deposits. A factor in resource categorisation is density of samples. The resources categorisation is dependent on the brine samples availability, their quality in terms of confidence and the drainable porosity assignation confidence level.
Considering the above, the resources categorisation conditions for the Francisco Basin block are:
· Blocks estimated at 2,500 m around FB01 and FB05 samples were considered as INDICATED
· The rest of the blocks that don't match the above condition were considered as INFERRED
The model output is shown in plan view in Figure 12.
Fig. 12: Resource Category Block Mode Output for Below A.S.L. 4,112m a.s.l.
Resource Estimate
The following tables summarise the updated Francisco Basin resource estimate calculation separated by resource category with the total resources presented in the final Table 6. For the calculation of resources in Lithium Carbonate, an industry standard 5.323 factor was applied over the Li mass.
|
Total Indicated Resources |
||
|
Total Volume |
m3 |
3,376,080,000 |
|
Specific Yield |
% |
11.2% |
|
Brine Volume |
m3 |
377,547,013 |
|
Average Li Grade |
mg/l |
220.54 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
83,264 |
|
Indicated Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
443,215 |
Table 4: Francisco Basin Total Indicated Resources
|
Total Inferred Resources |
||
|
Total Volume |
m3 |
3,313,680,000 |
|
Specific Yield |
% |
13.8% |
|
Brine Volume |
m3 |
458,182,522 |
|
Average Li Grade |
mg/l |
195.22 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
89,448 |
|
Inferred Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
476,130 |
Table 5: Francisco Basin Total Inferred Resources
|
Total Indicated + Inferred Resources |
||
|
Total Brine Volume |
m3 |
835,729,536 |
|
Average Li Grade |
mg/l |
206.66 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
172,712 |
|
Indicated + Inferred Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
919,346 |
Table 6: Francisco Basin Indicated + Inferred Resources
The Resources above are reported under JORC Code, 2012 Edition. The Company, which is the operator of the Francisco Basin project, holds 100% interest in the project and accordingly the above are all gross figures.
|
For further information contact: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
CleanTech Lithium PLC |
|
|
|
Aldo Boitano/Gordon Stein |
Jersey office: +44 (0) 1534 668 321 Chile office: +562-32239222 |
|
|
|
Or via Celicourt |
|
|
Celicourt Communications |
+44 (0) 20 7770 6424 |
|
|
Felicity Winkles/Philip Dennis/Ali AlQahtani
|
|
|
|
Dr. Reuter Investor Relations Dr. Eva Reuter
Harbor Access - North America Jonathan Paterson/Lisa Micali
Porter Novelli - Chile Ernesto Escobar
Beaumont Cornish Limited (Nominated Adviser) Roland Cornish/Asia Szusciak
|
+49 69 1532 5857
+1 475 477 9401
+56 2 2335 1693 Ernesto@publicoporternovelli.cl
+44 (0) 207 628 3396 |
|
|
Fox-Davies Capital Limited (Joint Broker) Daniel Fox-Davies
Canaccord Genuity Limited (Joint Broker) James Asensio Gordon Hamilton
|
+44 (0) 20 3884 8450
+44 (0) 207 523 4680
|
|
Competent Person
The following professional acted as qualified person, as defined in the AIM Note for Mining, Oil and Gas Companies (June 2009):
· Christian Gert Feddersen Welkner: The information in this release relates to drilling results, geology, brine assays reports, sediment sampling / specific yield calculation and resource calculation are based on information compiled by Christian Gert Feddersen Welkner, who is an independent Qualified Person to the Company and is a Member of Comision Calificadora de Competencias en Recursos y Reservas Mineras Chile that is a 'Recognised Professional Organisation' (RPO). Mr Feddersen has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralization and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Mr Feddersen consents to the inclusion in the press release of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information communicated within this announcement is deemed to constitute inside information as stipulated under the Market Abuse Regulations (EU) No 596/2014 which is part of UK law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Upon publication of this announcement, this inside information is now considered to be in the public domain. The person who arranged for the release of this announcement on behalf of the Company was Gordon Stein, Director and CFO.
Notes
CleanTech Lithium (AIM:CTL, Frankfurt:T2N, OTCQX:CTLHF) is an exploration and development company advancing next-generation sustainable lithium projects in Chile for the clean energy transition. Proudly sustainable, committed to net-zero, our mission is to produce material quantities of battery grade, carbon-neutral lithium using sustainable Direct Lithium Extraction technology, powered by clean energy, we plan to be the greenest lithium supplier to the EV market.
CleanTech Lithium has three prospective lithium projects - Laguna Verde, Francisco Basin and Llamara - located in the lithium triangle, the world's centre for battery grade lithium production. The Laguna Verde and Francisco Basin projects are situated within basins entirely controlled by the Company, which affords significant potential development and operational advantages. Llamara is the Company's latest greenfield project, which offers material potential upside at a low initial cost. All three projects have direct access to excellent infrastructure and renewable power.
CleanTech Lithium is committed to using renewable power for processing and reducing the environmental impact of its lithium production by utilising Direct Lithium Extraction. Direct Lithium Extraction is a transformative technology which removes lithium from brine, with higher recoveries and purities. The method offers short development lead times, low upfront capex, with no extensive site construction and no evaporation pond development so there is no water depletion from the aquifer or harm to the local environment.
**ENDS**
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 report
Francisco Basin
Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data
(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Sampling techniques |
· Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. · Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. · Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. · In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. |
· After the wells PVC casing and silica gravel installation, a development process took place. The well development includes an injection of a hypochlorite solution to break the drilling additives, enough solution actuation waiting time and then, purging of minimum three well volumes operation to clean the cased well from drilling mud and injected fresh water. · The developing process was made using a small rig, a high-pressure compressor and 2-inch threaded PVC that can be coupled to reach any depth. The purging/cleaning operation is made from top to bottom, injecting air with a hose inside the 2-inch PVC and "suctioning" the water, emulating a Reverse Circulation (Air-Lift) system. · Once the well is verified, clan assuring that the purged water is brine coming from the aquifer, the PVC Casing Suction (Air-Lift) samples were taken on FB01 well from bottom to top, while the 2-inch PVC is extracted from the well. A 20-liter bucket is filled with brine and the brine sample is obtained from the bucket once the remaining fine sediments that could appear in the sample decant. · One-liter Samples every 3 m were taken and, every 6 m sent to laboratory to preserve a second sample set for auditory purposes. · Conductivity-based TDS and T°C were measured in every sample with a Hanna Multiparameter. All materials and sampling bottles were first flushed with brine water before receiving the final sample. · After the PVC Casing Suction sampling, a stabilization period of minimum 5 days took place before proceed with the PVC Casing Bailer sampling to let the well match the aquifer hydro-chemical stratigraphy.
· PVC Casing Disposable Bailer sampling process was made by JCP Ltda., specialists in water sampling on drillholes FB01, FB02, FB03, FB05 and FB06. Samples were taken from the interest depths with a double valve discardable bailer. The bailer is lowered and raised with an electric cable winch, to maintain a constant velocity and avoid bailer valves opening after taking the sample from the desire support.
· PVC Casing Disposable Bailer samples were obtained every 6 m support to avoid disturbing the entire column during the sampling process. Conductivity-based TDS and Temperature °C were measured for every sample with a Hanna multiparameter.
· PVC Casing Pressurized Bailer samples were obtained in FB04. A pressurized bailer brand Solinst proportioned by Geomin SpA were used This bailer permit to obtain sealed water samples down to 1,000 m with a pressure system that open the and seal the sampler in the interest support.
· Pressurized Bailer samples were obtained every 6 m support to avoid disturbing the entire column during the sampling process. Conductivity-based TDS (Multi-TDS) and Temperature °C were measured for every sample.
|
|
Drilling techniques |
· Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). |
· Reverse flooded drilling system with 20 to 14 inch diameter was used in well FB01, FB02, FB03 (FB03A) and FB04.
· FB01 was cased and habilitated from 0 m to its final depth 335 m with 8-inch PVC.
· FB02 was cased and habilitated from 0 m to its final depth 351 m with 4-inch PVC.
· FB03 was cased and habilitated from 0 to 314 m with 4-inch PVC.
· FB04 was cased and habilitated from 0 m to 414m
· Diamond Drilling system with HQ3 diameters were used in FB05 and FB06
· FB05 was cased and habilitated 2 inch PVC from 0 m to 455 m
· FB06 was cased and habilitated 2 inch PVC from 0 m to 450 m
|
|
Drill sample recovery |
· Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. · Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. · Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. |
· On Reverse Flooded Drilling system, cuttings and 10 kg sample bags were recovered for geological logging and tests purposes. Direct supervision and continue geological logging were applied to assure recovery · On Diamond Drilling system, diamond core recovery were assured by direct supervision and continuous geotechnical logging |
|
Logging |
· Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. · Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. · The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. |
· Continue geological logging took place during drilling · For all 2022 brine samples conductivity-based TDS and Temperature °C parameters were measured during the sampling · From 2023, for all brine samples conductivity-based TDS, pH and Temperature °C parameters were measured during the sampling |
|
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation |
· If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. · If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. · For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. · Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. · Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. · Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. |
· On year 2022, during the brine samples batch preparation process, Standard (internal standard composed by known stable brine), Duplicates and Blank samples (distilled water) were randomly included in the batch in the rate of one every twenty original samples. · From year 2023, during the brine samples batch preparation process, Standard (internal standard composed by known stable brine), Duplicates and Blank samples (distilled water) were randomly included in the batch in the rate of one every ten original samples. · After check samples insertion, all samples were re-numbered before submitted to laboratory. The author personally supervised the laboratory batch preparation process.
|
|
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests |
· The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. · For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. · Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. |
· Brine samples obtained on 2022 were assayed on ALS Life Science Chile laboratory, by Li, K, B, Mg, Ca, Cu and Na by ICP-OES, method described on QWI-IO-ICP-OES- 01 Edisión A, Modification 0 EPA 3005A; EPA 200.2. · From year 2023 all brine samples were assayed also on ALS Life Science Chile laboratory by ICP-OES, method described on QWI-IO-ICP-OES- 01 Edisión A, Modification 0 EPA 3005A; EPA 200.2, but now reporting the full element swift · Total Density use the method described on THOMPSON Y, TROEH DE. Los suelos y su fertilidad.2002. Editorial Reverté S.A. Cuarta Edición. Págs.75-85. · Chlorine detemination described on QWI-IO-Cl-01 Emisión B mod. 1 Método basado en Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23st Edition 2017. Método 4500-Cl-B QWI-IO-Cl-01 Emisión B, mod. 1. SM 4500-Cl- B, 22nd Edition 2012. · Total Disolved Solids (TDS) with method describe on INN/SMA SM 2540 C Ed 22, 2012 · Sulfate according method described on INN/SMA SM 4500 SO4-D Ed 22, 2012 · Duplicates were obtained randomly during the brine sampling. Also, Blanks (distilled water) and Standards were randomly inserted during the laboratory batch preparation. · The standards were prepared on the installations of Universidad Católica del Norte using a known stable brine according procedure prepared by Ad Infinitum. Standard nominal grade was calculated in a round robin process that include 04 laboratories. ALS life Sciences Chile laboratory was validated during the round robin process. · Check samples composed by standards, duplicates and blanks were inserted in a rate of one each twenty original samples during year 2022.
· From year 2023, check samples composed by standards, duplicates and blanks were inserted in a rate of one each ten original samples
· For the 2023 QA/QC process, a new set of standards were internally prepared on the Copiapó warehouse installations, using 200 liters of brine obtained from Laguna Verde CleanTech project. Standard nominal Lithium grade was calculated in a round robin process that include 04 laboratories (Ch. Feddersen Standards preparation, statistical analysis, nominal valuation & laboratories analysis, February 2023) · For the TEM Geophysical survey a Applied Electromagnetic Research FAST-TEM 48 equipment was used, composed by a transmitter and receiver unit, a PC and the circuit cables (buckle), with batteries as power source. A coincident transmission / reception loop of 220x220 m2 was used for the 98 surveyed stations, reaching a survey depth of 400 m. · The equipment used for the Gravimetry geophysical survey was a Scintrex portable digital model CG-5 Autograv, type "microgravity meter", with a 0.001 mGal resolution with tidal, temperature, pressure and leveling automatic correction system
· The topographic data measured during the gravimetry survey were acquired with a double frequency differential positioning equipment, brand CHC NAV, model I-80 GNSS, that consists in two synchronized equipments, one fix at a known topographic station and the other, mobile thru the surveyed gravimetry stations |
|
Verification of sampling and assaying |
· The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. · The use of twinned holes. · Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. · Discuss any adjustment to assay data. |
· The assay data was verified by the author against the assay certificate. · Geophysics were used as delivered by Terra Pacific and Geodatos · Geological logs were managed by geology contractor GEOMIN and checked by the competent person · Brine samples batches were prepared personally by the author or by JCP Ltda. And Geomin SpA, with the supervision of the author. All data are in EXCEL files |
|
Location of data points |
· Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. · Specification of the grid system used. · Quality and adequacy of topographic control. |
· Drillhole collars were captured with non-differential hand held GPS. Position was verified by topographic features Total station topographic capture of the drillhole collars is pending · The TEM geophysical survey coordinates were captured with non-differential hand held GPS. · Gravimetry stations were captured with a double frequency differential positioning equipment, brand CHC NAV, model I-80 GNSS, that consists in two synchronized equipments, one fix at a known topographic station and the other, mobile thru the surveyed gravimetry stations · The coordinate system is UTM, Datum WGS84 Zone 19J
|
|
Data spacing and distribution |
· Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. · Whether sample compositing has been applied. |
· PVC Casing Suction brine samples were taken every 3 m and, sent to laboratory every 6 m
· PVC Casing Disposable Bailer brine samples were taken every 6 m
· PVC Casing Pressurized Bailer brine samples were taken every 6 m · For TEM geophysical survey a 750 m stations distance, in lines every 750 m were used. · For the Gravimetry survey a 200 m to 300 m stations distance were used · The author believes that the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Resource Estimation |
|
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure |
· Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. · If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. |
|
|
Sample security |
· The measures taken to ensure sample security. |
· All brine samples were marked and immediately transported them to Copiapó city warehouse · The brine water samples were transported without any perturbation directly to a warehouse in Copiapó city, were laboratory samples batch was prepared and stored in sealed plastic coolers, then sent via currier to ALS laboratory Santiago. All the process was made under the Competent Person direct supervision. · ALS personnel report that the samples were received without any problem or disturbance |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. |
· The assay data was verified by the Competent Person against the assay certificate. · No audits were undertaken |
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Mineral tenement and land tenure status |
· Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. · The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area. |
· CleanTech Lithium holds in Francisco Basin 12,762 hectares of Mining Concessions, separated in 1,474 hectares Exploitation Concessions, 10,088 hectares of Exploitation Applications and 1,200 hectares of Exploration Applications. · The Competent Person relies in the Mining Expert Surveyor Mr, Juan Bedmar. · All concession acquisition costs and taxes have been fully paid and that there are no claims or liens against them · There are no known impediments to obtain the licence to operate in the area |
|
Exploration done by other parties |
· Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. |
· No Lithium Exploration works has been done by third parties in the past |
|
Geology |
· Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. |
· Francisco Basin are classified as the "Salar Marginal Facies" of a hyper saline lagoon that approaches to an immature clastic salar classification (Negro Francisco lagoon), with the lagoon corresponding to the "salar nucleus" |
|
Drill hole Information |
· A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o hole length. · If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case. |
· The following drillhole coordinates are in WGS84 zone 19 J Datum · FB01 E479,904 N6,959,310 ELEV 4,151 m a.s.l. · FB02 E483,350 N6,957,900 ELEV 4,164 m a.s.l. · FB03 E483,949 N6,959,090 ELEV 4,161 m a.s.l. · FB03A E483,835 N6,959,040 ELEV 4,160 m a.s.l. · FB04 E482,715 N6,956,410 ELEV 4,177 m a.s.l. · FB05 E482,000 N6,957,900 ELEV 4,159 m a.s.l. · FB06 E485,600 N6,957,900 ELEV 4,181 m a.s.l. |
|
Data aggregation methods |
· In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. · Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. · The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated. |
· No low-grade cut-off or high-grade capping has been implemented due to the consistent nature of the brine assay data · No data aggregate of any kind has been implemented |
|
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths |
· These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. · If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. · If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg 'down hole length, true width not known'). |
· The relationship between aquifer widths and intercept lengths are direct |
|
Diagrams |
· Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views. |
· Addressed in the report |
|
Balanced reporting |
· Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. |
· All results have been included. |
|
Other substantive exploration data |
· Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances. |
· Pump Test on FB01 well just finished · A 50 hp submergible electric pump, piping with flowmeters were used for the pump tests. The tests consist in 6-hour variable pump test to verify the aquifer capabilities and a constant 12-hour pump test · In FB01 the pump was installed at 159 m |
|
Further work |
· The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). · Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. |
· Drilling to be undertaken upgrade Inferred Resources to Measured + Indicated and Indicated Resouces to Measured Resources and to improve drainable porosity estimation. Include a drillhole designed for reinjection tests · Hydraulic testing be undertaken, for instance pumping tests from wells to determine, aquifer properties, expected production rates, upgrade Resources to Reserves and infrastructure design. · Aquifer recharge dynamics be studied to determine the water balance and subsequent production water balance. For instance, simultaneous data recording of rainfall and subsurface brine level fluctuations to understand the relationship between rainfall and aquifer recharge, and hence the brine recharge of the aquifer. SGA Hydrogeologist consultants are actually working on basins steady still model |
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)
|
Criteria |
JORC Code explanation |
Commentary |
|
Database integrity |
· Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. · Data validation procedures used. |
· Cross-check of laboratory assay reports and Database · QA/QC as described in Sampling Section |
|
Site visits |
· Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. · If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case. |
· Continue supervision of March to May 2022 drilling campaign. · Continue supervision on October 2022 to July 2023 drilling campaign |
|
Geological interpretation |
· Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. · Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. · The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. · The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. · The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. |
· For the geological interpretation was made based in the TEM study and drillholes · Low resistivities are associated with sediments saturated in brines, but also with very fine sediments or clays · Drillholes confirm the geological interpretations |
|
Dimensions |
· The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource. |
· The Brine Resource is a sub horizontal lens with an approximately area of 9 km x 5 km and 320 m wide |
|
Estimation and modelling techniques |
· The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. · The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. · The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. · Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). · In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. · Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. · Any assumptions about correlation between variables. · Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. · Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. · The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available. |
· The brine ore model was built from the TEM geophysical surveys performed by Terra Pacific (Terra Pacific, 2018), and Golder-Kinross TEM survey profiles that are on public domain. 25 every 50 m plans were built, considering a north east limit at 2,500 m from FB01 drillhole (Indicated radius), that collide with the shore of the salt portion of the Del Negro Francisco lagoon. · The built model was clipped from below with the basement surface constructed using the gravimetry survey performed by Geodatos (Geodatos, April 2023), and the basement intercepts in FB01 and FB05 drillholes and, from above by the brine aquifer ceiling surface, constructed with the first brine aquifer intercepts on FB01 (99 m), FB02 (260 m), FB04 (300 m), FB05 (195 m) and FB06 (285 m) drillholes and, the interpreted brine intercept from TEM geophysics on drillhole FB03 (305 m), to form the final 3D model. This final model corresponds to the Francisco Basin Brine Ore Volume · One block model was constructed on Francisco Basin with the following properties: · Block size: 200 m x 200 m x 6 m. · Block Model Origin: 484,800 East, 6,952,400 North, Level 4,080 m a.s.l. · N° Columns: 40 · N° Rows: 60 · N° Levels: 90 · Rotation: 50° Clockwise · The individual block variables are: · Rock Type: 0=No Ore, 1= Brine Ore · Density · Percent · Economic · Material: 1=Upper Zone Sand-Gravel, 2=Inner Zone Clay, 3=Lower Bed Consolidated Sand-Gravel Transitioning to Silt and 4 = 1,000 m around FB05 · Li (Lithium) · Mg (Magnesium) · K (Potash) · B (Boron) · SO4 · Ca (Calcium) · Category: 1=Measured, 2=Indicated and 3=Inferred · Porosity · Elevation · The traditional Inverse to the Square Distance method to estimate the block variables was used. To accomplish this, the samples from the Sub-Surface Assay Resource Database were manually assigned to their correspondent block levels on both block models. Once assigned, the block variable values were calculated by levels with the correspondent assigned samples and their horizontal distances from the individual block to estimate. All calculations were performed in EXCEL files.
· The calculated block variables are: · Lithium (Li) · Magnesium (Mg) · Potash (K) · Boron (B) · Sulfate (SO4) · Calcium (Ca) · To assign drainable porosity for resources calculation, the Francisco Basin Brine Ore Volume was divided in the following units: · Upper unit of Fine to coarse sands intercalated with fine polymictic gravels and minor clay and tuff levels (block variable Material=1). A drainable porosity of 22% was assigned to this unit according literature, as a small amount of the resources lie inside this unit.
· Middle unit of clays beds with variable plasticity intercalated with minor levels of fine sands and gypsum (block variable Material=2). This unit presents RBRC values in FB05 samples between 0.2% and 5.1% depending on the plasticity level and sand content. The suction level at 160 m of the pump test performed in FB01 were located in the upper part of this clay unit, giving transmittivity (k) values between 0.88 m/d and 1.23 m/d. These k values are related with much higher drainable porosity values. On the FB01 detailed cutting geological logging, this unit appear with more fine sand beds intercalations, more sand content and lower plasticity levels. In FB02 this unit also appear with more sand content and lower plasticity levels. Considering all, a drainable porosity of 8% were assigned to this unit.
· Basal unit of moderately consolidated gravels and sands, transitioning to silt beds (block variable Material=3) This unit presents RBRC values in FB05 samples between 0.7% and 10.8%. In FB01 this unit is composed mainly by sands with scarce gravels that are related with higher drainable porosity. To FB03 drillhole, this unit transition to a very soft silt bed with minor plasticity level. This stratigraphical unit was the one that "swallow" the drilling tools, provoking the rods brakeage and tools loose in that well and should have high drainable porosity (silt could reach 20% according literature). Also, starts to appear in the bottom of FB02 drillhole, before the drilling rods brakeage and tools loose, just like in FB03 drillhole.Considering all, a drainable porosity of 15% were assigned to this unit. For the blocks Material variable assignation between values 1 to 3, two surfaces were built with the unit's contacts on Francisco Basin drillholes, corresponding to the ceiling and bottom of the Middle Unit of Clay Bed. Then, these surfaces were intercepted with the blocks that lie inside the Francisco Basin Brine Ore Volume to assign their correspondent Material variable value.
· Volume inside a 1,000 m radius around drillhole FB05 (block variable Material=4) Blocks inside 1,000 m radius around FB05 were assigned with block variable Material=4. For the blocks were variable Material=4, FB05 RBRC samples were manually assigned to their correspondent block level. Once assigned, the block porosity values were copied by levels with the correspondent RBRC sample value. All calculations were performed in EXCEL file. The following is the file used for the porosity assignation around FB05 drillhole. 2023-08-03_PorosityEstimationFB05ReducedV1.xlsx
|
|
Moisture |
· Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content. |
· Not applicable for brine resources |
|
Cut-off parameters |
· The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. |
· No cut-off parameters were used |
|
Mining factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made. |
· Mining will be undertaken by pumping brine from production wells and re-injection · Pump Test on FB01 well just finished · Pump Test on FB01 was made with a 50 hp submergible electric pump, piping with flowmeters were used for the pump tests. The tests consist in 6-hour variable pump test to verify the aquifer capabilities and a constant 12-hour pump test · In FB01 the pump was installed at 159 m |
|
Metallurgical factors or assumptions |
· The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made. |
· Direct Lithium Extraction technology (DLE) with spent brine reinjection is planned for Francisco Basin. Production Plant / Camp, production/reinjection wells, and brine mixing ponds are planned to install on the concession area. |
|
Environmen-tal factors or assumptions |
· Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made. |
· The main environmental impacts expected is the Production Plant / Camp and the surface disturbance associated with production wells and brine mixing ponds. These impacts are not expected to prevent project |
|
Bulk density |
· Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. · The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. · Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials. |
· Bulk density is not relevant to brine resource estimation. |
|
Classification |
· The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. · Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). · Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person's view of the deposit. |
· The considered criteria were based on the recommended sampling grid distances of the complementary guide to CH 20235 code to report resources and reserves in brine deposits (Comision Calificadora en Competencias en Recursos y Reservas Mineras, July 2021).
· The resources categorization is dependent of the brine samples availability, their quality in terms of confidence and the drainable porosity assignation confidence level.
· Considering the above, the resources categorization conditions for the Francisco Basin block are: · Blocks estimated at 2,500 m around FB01 and FB05 samples were considered as INDICATED · The rest of the blocks that don't match the above condition were considered as INFERRED
· The result reflects the view of the Competent Person |
|
Audits or reviews |
· The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. |
· No audit or reviews were undertaken. |
|
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence |
· Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. · The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. · These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available. |
· The estimated tonnage represents the in-situ brine with no recovery factor applied. It will not be possible to extract all of the contained brine by pumping from production wells. The amount which can be extracted depends on many factors including the permeability of the sediments, the drainable porosity, and the recharge dynamics of the aquifers. · No production data are available for comparison |
