26 September 2023
CleanTech Lithium PLC ("CleanTech Lithium" or the "Company")
Scoping Study Confirms Potential Viability of Francisco Basin as
CleanTech Lithium's Second Major Project in
CleanTech Lithium PLC, (AIM:CTL, Frankfurt:T2N, OTCQX:CTLHF), an exploration and development company, advancing sustainable lithium projects in
Highlights:
· Supports the potential for Francisco Basin to become a major supplier of battery grade lithium to European and US markets based on sustainable direct lithium extraction ("DLE") technology
Scoping Study Highlights:
· Based on annual production of 20,000 tonnes of battery grade lithium carbonate for a production period of 12 years based largely on Indicated resources
· Calculates accumulated net cashflows (post-tax and royalties) of
· Estimated capital expenditure of
· Attractive economics with post-tax NPV of
· The study assumes production commences in 2027 as the Company aims to progress project development stages with a one-year lag to the more advanced Laguna Verde project, where production is targeted for 2026
· Industry leading ESG credentials, a critical advantage for the EU market, based on utilising DLE which returns spent brine to the basin aquifers, and renewable energy for processing power by connecting with the Chilean grid and its abundant renewable energy supply
· The Company plans to undertake another resource drill programme at Francisco Basin, commencing Q4 2023, aiming to further upgrade the current resource estimate, which is 0.92 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at a grade of 207mg/L Lithium
· This could extend the 12-year production period and would enhance projected economic returns
· A Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS") on the project is planned to commence on the completion of the resource drill programme, which is expected to be in 2H 2024
Commenting, Aldo Boitano, Chief Executive Officer, of CleanTech Lithium PLC, said:
"The Scoping Study provides added confidence in the robust economics of our second project, Francisco Basin, based on low operating and capital costs, with a post-tax NPV of
"The next step at the project is to complete further resource drilling with the aim to expand and upgrade the current JORC resource estimate of 0.92 million tonnes LCE; an increase in the resource provides the potential to extend the production period of 12 years assumed in the study. DLE test-work on Francisco Basin brine is ongoing and important technical data will be generated when trials start at our pilot plant, which is currently being assembled at our facility in Copiapó. The Company plans to proceed to a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) for the project on completion of the planned resource drill programme, which is expected to be in 2H 2024.
"Francisco Basin is our second project which is being developed on a schedule one year behind our more advanced Laguna Verde project. Combining the two scoping studies means we have a total NPV of nearly
"This Scoping Study marks a major milestone for the Company and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Scoping Study consultant, Chilean based lithium sector experts Ad-Infinitum, as well as our technical team for their hard work in completing the study. The Scoping Study outlines a plan to produce battery-grade lithium with a low environmental footprint, which positions the Company extremely well to supply the EU and US markets."
Further Information
Summary of Key Scoping Study Outcomes
A summary of the outcomes for key operational and economic analysis metrics derived from the completion of the scoping study are presented in the table below.
|
Key Operating Metrics |
Unit |
Study Outcome |
|
Production Rate of Lithium Carbonate |
Tonnes per annum |
20,000 |
|
Operational Life |
Years |
12 |
|
Resource Utilised (Indicated & Inferred) - Total |
Thousand tonnes |
236.0 |
|
Resource Utilised (Indicated) - 68% |
Thousand tonnes |
160.5 |
|
Resource Utilised (Inferred) - 32% |
Thousand tonnes |
75.5 |
|
Construction Period |
Years |
1.5 |
|
Recovery rate - Direct Lithium Extraction |
% |
94.8 |
|
Recovery rate - Concentration stages & chemical plant |
% |
90.0 |
|
Recovery rate - Total |
% |
89.3 |
|
Key Financial Metrics |
|
|
|
Capital Cost (including 20% contingency) |
US$ Million |
450.0 |
|
Operating Cost |
US$ / tonne Li2CO3 |
3,641 |
|
Lithium Price (Lithium Carbonate)) |
$US/tonne |
Forecast Curve |
|
Accumulated Net Cashflows Over Operational Life |
US$ Billion |
2.5 |
|
Payback Period |
Years |
2 years 7 months |
|
IRR Post-Tax |
% |
43.5 |
|
NPV Post-Tax (Discount Rate = 8%) |
US$ Billion |
1.09 |
|
NPV Post-Tax (Discount Rate = 10%) - Sensitivity Analysis |
US$ Billion |
0.89 |
Information on Study and Contributors
The study was undertaken by Ad-Infinitum, a Chilean engineering services company/technical consultant with over 30 years of experience in the lithium sector with clients including SQM, Albemarle and Galan Lithium. Ad-Infinitum specialise in processes and operations involving the processing of brines and minerals that contain Lithium, Potassium, Sulfate, Nitrates and other elements; and provide specialist technical solutions that contribute to the development of projects in all their stages, as well as the improvement of operations. Since 2014, Ad-Infinitum has worked on lithium production processes from brine on different projects in
The capital cost estimates for the DLE plant were contributed by Sunresin, the leader in commercial scale DLE plants. The lithium price cost curve estimate used in the study is based on estimates by Canaccord Genuity, a market leading broker with considerable experience in the lithium sector. The key study contributors are further summarised in the table below.
The Mineral Resource scheduled for extraction in the scoping study production plan is based on the Francisco Basin updated JORC resource estimate reported by the Company in August 2023. For the 12 year production plan, approximately 68% of the volume is attributed to resources classified as Indicated and 32% of the volume is attributed to resources classified as Inferred. The resource estimate was prepared by an Independent Competent Person, Christian Feddersen, in accordance with the requirements of the JORC Code.
|
Scope |
Contributor |
|
Study Manager |
Ad Infinitum |
|
Direct Lithium Extraction Plant |
Sunresin |
|
Metallurgical Test-Work |
Ad Infinitum |
|
Mineral Resource Estimation |
Christian Feddersen |
|
Geological Consultant |
Geomin |
|
Land Title |
Juan Bedmar e Hijo Ltda |
|
Environmental, Social and Community Impact |
Minería y Medio Ambiente Ltda (MYMA) |
|
Lithium Price Forecast |
Canaccord Genuity estimates, May 2023 |
Scoping Study Summary
Project Description and Geology
The Francisco Basin project is located in the northern Atacama Region of
Figure 1: Regional Map of Francisco Basin Showing Distance From Key Centres and Laguna Verde Project
Francisco Basin is classified as an immature clastic salar characterised by greater moisture regimes and a sediment profile with higher porosities than mature halite salars. The Francisco Basin is an elongated basin aligned on a NW-SE axis bounded on all sides by volcanic mountain ranges. The surface of the salar 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, 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 2 below.
Figure 2: Francisco Basin General Stratigraphy
Mineral Property and Title
Under Chilean law, exploration and exploitation of mineral resources are granted through mining concessions. CleanTech Lithium, via its 100% owned subsidiary Laguna Negro Francisco SpA, owns a total of 47 exploitation and exploration mining concessions at the Francisco Basin Project with a total area of 127km2. The map of the concession outline is shown in Figure 3.
Under Chilean law, the exploration and exploitation of lithium can be executed by a Special Operation Contract for Lithium (CEOL), under the terms and conditions established by the President of the Republic. On 6 September 2023, the Company submitted CEOL applications to the Chilean authorities which are now subject to a formal review process which is expected to take 3-6 months. The outline of the area of the CEOL applications is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Tenement map of Francisco Basin Project Mining Concessions
Mineral Resource Estimate
An updated JORC compliant resource estimate for the Francisco Basin project of 919,346 tonnes of LCE was published on 24 August 2023. This estimate was based on resource drill programmes undertaken in the first halves of 2022 and 2023. In addition to a single resource well completed in 2022 (designated FB01), a further five wells (FB02 - FB06) were completed during the 2023 programme, with recorded drilling depths and coordinates as per Table 1 below.
Table 1: Francisco Basin Resource Drilling Details
The resource estimate is classified in the categories of Indicated and Inferred. Of the total resource 443,215 tonnes are classified in the Indicated category and 476,130 is classified in the Inferred category, as shown in Table 2 below. For the 12-year production plan outlined in the scoping study, 68% of the volume is assumed from Indicated resources and 32% from Inferred, which roughly corresponds to the final four years of the production profile.
|
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 |
220.5 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
83,264 |
|
Indicated Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
443,215 |
|
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 |
195.2 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
89,448 |
|
Inferred Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
476,130 |
|
Total Indicated + Inferred Resources |
||
|
Total Brine Volume |
m3 |
835,729,536 |
|
Average Li Grade |
mg/l |
206.6 |
|
Li Mass |
tonne |
172,712 |
|
Indicated + Inferred Resource (Lithium Carbonate Equivalent) |
tonne |
919,346 |
Table 2: Francisco Basin JORC Resource Estimate
Mining Method
Lithium enriched brine occurring within the porous sub-surface sediments is to be extracted utilising a well field. A total of twenty-three extractions wells have been considered in the study, with the area of the well field shown in red in Figure 3. The extracted brine will be transferred to a tank to be mixed prior to being fed into the first stage of plant processing, which is the DLE adsorption columns. The spent brine from the adsorption process, which is the brine with lithium removed, will be reinjected into the salar basin through deep wells, in areas where the mineral resource will not be affected by dilution. The area considered in the Scoping Study for reinjection wells is shown in Figure 4. Further hydrogeological work is required to develop the extraction and reinjection model for the production phase of the project.
Figure 4: Scoping Study Wellfield Infrastructure Layout Plan
Power Supply
Francisco Basin project will use renewable energy for power supply through contracting a supplier of renewable energy via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The study notes that as of December 2022, 62% of the installed capacity in
Process Method
Brine processing test design work has progressed emphasising the minimisation of environmental impact, waste disposal and water consumption to ensure high ESG standards for the project. The process considers the use of DLE to selectively extract lithium-ions from the brine before standard concentration, impurity removal and finally carbonation stages. DLE is primarily a cleaning stage and subsequent concentration stages are used to increase the lithium concentration to about 1% Li. The process design, based on test work completed and simulation, can be described broadly in six stages to produce lithium carbonate as listed below, and shown in Figure 5 which provides an overview diagram of the process stages. As process work is further advanced the option of producing lithium hydroxide, either via conversion of lithium carbonate or an alternative process route will be further evaluated.
1. Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE)
2. Concentration of the solution
3. Purification of the solution
4. Carbonation and Production of Li2CO3
5. Treatment of the Mother Liquor
6. Water Recovery
Figure 5: Process Stages
Process Recovery
Lithium recovery is the key factor to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. The overall recovery rate used in the study of 89.3% is based on the DLE stage achieving a 94.8% recovery. Treatment of the mother liquor after carbonation to precipitate NaCI and then recirculation of the concentrated solution to the first purification stage allows for the maximisation of process water recovery and overall lithium recovery. Based on the modelling, the stages with the lowest recovery are the direct extraction and lithium carbonation processes. These process stages will be optimised in the piloting stage. The modelled lithium recovery according to the process stage is shown in Table 3 below.
|
Flow (ton/hr) |
Li % |
LCE recovered (tonne/hr) |
LCE recovered (tonne/yr) |
Li Recovery |
|
|
From wells |
2,549 |
0.021 |
2.81 |
22,186 |
100.0% |
|
DLE |
509.5 |
0.098 |
2.67 |
21,036 |
94.8% |
|
Membranes NF/RO |
124.9 |
0.393 |
2.62 |
20,617 |
98.0% |
|
Concentration FO |
40.6 |
1.21 |
2.62 |
20,617 |
100.0% |
|
Purification |
40.6 |
1.21 |
2.62 |
20,617 |
100.0% |
|
Carbonation |
2.5 |
18.80 |
2.54 |
20,000 |
90.0% |
|
Mother Liquor recovery |
5.4 |
1.18 |
0.34 |
2,682 |
12.0% |
|
Overall Recovery |
|
|
|
|
89.3% |
Table 3: Overall Process Recovery
Summary Mass Balance
The streams that represent the incoming and outgoing material flows in the system are quantified in the summary mass balance below.
|
Stream |
Mass (tonne/yr) |
|
|
Inlet |
Well brine |
20,092,840 |
|
Na2CO3 Purification |
423 |
|
|
NaOH Purification |
580 |
|
|
IX Boron Reagents |
0 |
|
|
IX Ca-Mg Reagent |
14 |
|
|
Na2CO3 Carbonation |
34,177 |
|
|
HCl mother liquor recovery |
3,840 |
|
|
CaCl2 mother liquor recovery |
829 |
|
|
Water use (recycled & re-injected) |
880,146 |
|
|
Total Inlet |
21,012,850 |
|
|
Outlet |
Spent brine |
20,051,869 |
|
NF reject |
781,744 |
|
|
Purification (Mg (OH)2) solid waste |
1,243 |
|
|
Wash water |
96,041 |
|
|
IX- |
50 |
|
|
Li2CO3 Production |
20,000 |
|
|
H2O moisture |
8,565 |
|
|
Mother liquor recovery. Solid waste (NaCl) |
53,336 |
|
|
Total Outlet |
21,012,850 |
Table 4: Summary Mass Balance for 20,000 tpa LCE production rate
Wash water refers to water used for washing in the process with elements such as
Reagent Requirements
Table 5 shows the volume of reagents required to produce lithium carbonate based on the modelled process with the annual consumption rates based on elemental consumption and adjusted for real volumes of commercial product.
|
Pure Reagent |
Total |
Commercial Reagent |
Commercial name |
Purity |
Adjusted total tonne |
|
Na2CO3 |
34,600 |
Na2CO3 |
Soda ash |
99.2% |
34,879 |
|
NaOH |
580 |
NaOH |
Caustic soda (granular) |
99.0% |
586 |
|
HCl |
3,840 |
HCl al 32% |
Muriatic acid |
32.0% |
12,000 |
|
CaCl2 |
560 |
CaCl2*2H2O (99%) |
Calcium chloride di-hydrate |
74.0% |
757 |
Table 5: Annual consumption of Reagents
Basin Water Balance
The process to produce the planned 20,000 tpa of battery grade lithium requires water for desorption (or elution) in the DLE process, preparation of reagents, washing and other process steps. The total volume required is 880,200m3 or 28 l/s. This is planned to be provided by a fresh water extraction well located in a peripheral area of the basin, where numerous fresh water extraction wells have previously been drilled. This volume of process water, labelled ´Water make-up´ in Figure 6, is part of the reinjection volume and does not therefore represent water loss.
Figure 6: Basin Water Balance
The observed difference in the extraction and reinjection flows corresponds to the water loss in the process, for which a break down is summarised in Table 6. This is based on a loss factor from Nano filtration reject and liquid waste which are not suitable for reinjection, along with moisture loss in the final product and in the NaCl waste stream produced by recovery of mother liquor. This represents a water loss of 31,926 m3/year, which corresponds to 1.6m3 of water loss per tonne of final product.
As a comparison, water loss from evaporation pond based operations in
Table 6: Water loss breakdown
Process Work Next Stage - Pilot Plant and Lithium Hydroxide Evaluation
For the development of more advanced engineering studies, the study recommends the operation of a pilot plant to validate and adjust, if necessary, the process design. The Company has commenced assembly of a pilot plant with the capacity to produce 1 tonne per month of battery-grade lithium carbonate. The pilot plant has a feed brine inlet of 4.5m3 per hour which will be processed by the DLE unit to produce a lithium eluate. For the concentration of the eluate, Nano Filtration, Reverse Osmosis and Forward Osmosis is being considered, with the aim of obtaining a lithium chloride solution with a concentration of 1.2% lithium, before the final removal of contaminants and carbonation stages. The Company has a 1,000m2 facility near Copiapó where the pilot plant DLE unit is currently being assembled for commissioning and commencement of operation before the end of 2023.
|
|
|
Fig. 7: Pilot plant DLE columns installed Copiapó (Aug 2023) Fig. 8: Rotary valve final tests
Based on long-term industry trends, lithium hydroxide is expected to experience higher demand growth than lithium carbonate. Lithium hydroxide can be conventionally obtained by converting the lithium carbonate produced in the first stage of the process with lime. This will be tested in test-work and potentially at the pilot plant scale. Several other processes to produce lithium hydroxide from brines are in development that will also be considered.
Capital Expenditure
Capital expenditure (CAPEX) estimates are based on an annual production of 20,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate. The cost of the equipment has been obtained by Ad-Infinitum from a combination of data from similar projects and information from supplier quotes. A summary of the CAPEX by major areas is provided in Table 7. This estimate was made based on figures for the fourth quarter of 2022 with a 10% inflation adjustment applied for some lines. The estimated accuracy is within a range of -15%/+30%. Maintenance CAPEX is estimated at a total of
|
Area |
Description |
|
|
1000 |
Well Field |
64,032 |
|
3000 |
Lithium Carbonate Plant |
238,939 |
|
3100-3300 |
DLE and Reverse Osmosis (incl. Resin) |
199,018 |
|
3300-3800 |
Chemical Plant |
35,070 |
|
3900 |
Packaging, Storage and Handling |
4,851 |
|
4000 |
Services |
23,800 |
|
|
Total Direct Cost |
326,771 |
|
|
Indirect Cost |
48,198 |
|
|
Contingencies (20%) |
74,994 |
|
Total CAPEX |
|
449,964 |
Table 7: Capital Expenditure Summary Breakdown
The Well Field CAPEX item includes brine extraction wells, spent brine reinjection wells, and water extraction wells as shown in Table 8 below. Twenty-three brine extraction wells have been assumed at an average depth of 350 metres with each well estimated at an average flow rate of 30 L/s. Sixteen spent brine reinjection wells were assumed with spent brine discharged in two reinjection fields, requiring two main pumps. Two wells have been assumed for process water supply, with their respective pumps and pipes transporting the water to the lithium carbonate plant area.
|
Area |
Description |
|
|
1100 |
Brine extraction wells |
51,768 |
|
1200 |
Brine reinjection well |
10,027 |
|
1300 |
Water wells |
2,238 |
|
Total Wells |
|
64,032 |
Table 8: Well Field Capital Expenditure Breakdown
The Plant CAPEX estimate is made up of the DLE plant, based on a quotation received from Sunresin, and a Reverse Osmosis and Chemical plant, based on data from suppliers and developers of the required equipment calculated using Ad-Infinitum's database. Table 9 shows a further breakdown of the DLE and Reverse Osmosis estimates.
|
Area |
Description |
|
|
3100 |
DLE |
115,673 |
|
3200 |
Reverse Osmosis |
83,345 |
|
Total |
|
199,018 |
Table 9: Plant Capital Expenditure Breakdown
The Services CAPEX estimate of
The Indirect Costs estimate of
Finally, a 20% Contingency was applied to all CAPEX items by Ad-Infinitum in accordance with industry practice.
Operating Expenditure
Estimates are based on the design of the production process, considering yields and estimated recoveries, and the estimated consumption and prices for the main reagents used. The estimates of expenses, prices and labour are based on Ad-Infinitum's database for the costs of similar operations in
|
Operating Expenditure |
US$/tonne LCE |
Annual Total US$ mn |
|
Reagents |
1,065 |
21,298 |
|
Water |
196 |
3,927 |
|
Energy |
1,135 |
22,707 |
|
Manpower |
293 |
5,855 |
|
Transport |
201 |
4,012 |
|
Catering & Camp Services |
148 |
2,954 |
|
Maintenance |
369 |
7,388 |
|
Total Direct Costs |
3,406 |
68,134 |
|
SGA |
234 |
4,685 |
|
Total OPEX |
3,641 |
72,826 |
Table 10: Operating Expenditure Summary Breakdown
Energy and Reagents are the two largest items representing 32% and 30% of total operating costs. The unit cost for energy is
Manpower costs include an estimated total operational manpower of 163 people with an additional 59 people providing G&A services - totalling 222 personnel supporting the operation of the project.
Transportation assumes land transportation of the product packed in 1-tonne capacity bulk bags by ramp truck from the plant in Francisco Basin, via Copiapó, to the port at Caldera from where it is shipped in containers to its destination in the EU and/or the
Cash flow and Economic analysis
The economic analysis carried out in the study included the following basic assumptions:
|
CAPEX |
Schedule
|
2025 - 2026 - 2027 - Total - |
|
Production |
Schedule
Grade |
Annual production of 20,000 tonnes per annum Production ramp-up projected at 40% in Year 1 with full capacity being achieved in Year 2. 65% of initial production will be battery grade, reaching 100% in Year 2 |
|
Lithium Carbonate Sales Prices |
Annual Prices |
2027 - 2028 - Long-term - |
|
Opex |
Cost per tonne |
|
|
Financing |
Project Funding |
Analysis assumes entire project funded by the Company from its own capital |
|
Taxes & Royalties |
Corporate Tax
Royalties (CEOL)
Withholding Tax |
First Category Tax as currently defined in the Chilean tax regime for mining industries - 27% on net profits (after royalties) Specific payments to the Chile State - Based on the Companies CEOL applications made in early 2022: § Specific quarterly payment - 3% of revenues § R&D expenses - 1.5% of revenues § Community Development Fund - 1.5% of revenues § Annual Operating Margin Payment - a progressive table which increases from 7% to a maximum rate of 16% when the operating margin reaches 85%. This is the same table as included on page 47 of the Company's Admission Document for its IPO on the London Stock Exchange in March 2022 and which has been included in the CEOL application recently announced for Francisco Basin. With foreign companies or investors, the additional tax that companies must pay when distributing their profits and dividends overseas is 35%, in which case, the First Category Tax operates as a credit. In the study, the tax rate of 27% is used as the applicable rate on a project economics basis. Study also assumes CleanTech Lithium will establish tax arrangements in |
Table 11: Key Assumptions in Economic Analysis of Francisco Basin project
Cashflows Analysis
The Scoping Study confirms, based on the assumptions, very strong cashflows from operations from an early stage as shown in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Cashflow Forecast Summary
Economic Evaluation Results:
Base Case: Based on the post-tax cashflows shown in Table 12 above, the following economic evaluation results were obtained:
|
Post-tax NPV8 |
|
|
Post-tax NPV10 |
|
|
IRR |
43.5% |
|
Payback period |
2 years and 7 months |
Table 13: Economic Evaluation Results after taxes
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken for the three parameters with the greatest impact on the calculation of the Present Value of the project and the Internal Rate of Return. This analysis was carried out for variations of -25% and 25% regarding the Base Case, with the results being shown in Table 14 below. These sensitivities show the robust economics of the project, even in downside scenarios.
|
|
|
NPV After taxes, US$ million |
NPV, Var % |
||||
|
Variable |
|
75% |
100% |
125% |
75% |
100% |
125% |
|
CAPEX |
MM$ |
1,155 |
1,087 |
1,018 |
106% |
100% |
94% |
|
OPEX |
M$/tonne |
1,144 |
1,087 |
1,028 |
105% |
100% |
95% |
|
Price |
M$/tonne |
684 |
1,087 |
1,485 |
63% |
100% |
137% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRR After taxes, % |
IRR, Var % |
||||
|
Variable |
|
75% |
100% |
125% |
75% |
100% |
125% |
|
CAPEX |
MM$ |
54.8% |
43.5% |
36.1% |
126% |
100% |
83% |
|
OPEX |
M$/tonne |
45.0% |
43.5% |
42.0% |
103% |
100% |
97% |
|
Price |
M$/tonne |
32.4% |
43.5% |
53.4% |
75% |
100% |
123% |
Table 14: NPV and IRR sensitivities over Capex, Opex and Sales Price
It is observed for both analyses that the "Price" variable is the one that has the greatest impact on the calculation of the Present Value of the project flows, as well as on the calculation of the Internal Rate of Return, followed by Capex in the case of IRR.
Project Funding
It is recognised in the Scoping Study that to achieve the range of outcomes indicated, it is estimated that pre-production funding of approximately
· Equity and debt instruments from strategic partners or offtake partners and their associated banks
· Through access to funds that are available from the
· From ESG specialist funds and/or infrastructure funds, targeted at sustainable lithium production practices which pass ESG criteria/hurdles
· From new or existing equity investors and debt providers from the
· From various other sources, linked to the above.
CleanTech Lithium plc has formed the view that there is a reasonable basis to believe that requisite funding for development of the Francisco Basin Project would be available when required, having considered factors including the following:
• The quality of the Francisco Basin Project, in terms of the grade of the deposit and relatively low level of projected pre-production capital expenditure. The release of the Scoping Study will provide a potential platform for CleanTech Lithium to commence discussions with potential strategic or offtake partners and financiers, although the Company may wait until a pre-feasibility study has been completed on this Project before entering into substantive discussions.
• Global debt and equity finance availability for lithium extraction projects like the Francisco Basin Project is expected to remain robust, particularly given the long-term price forecasts for lithium.
• The project is in
• The Company has no existing debt.
Environmental and Social Licence Considerations
The project does not fall within a designated environmental protection area, with fauna being scarce due to the high aridity and extreme climate at the altitude of 4,150m. The study confirms that the Company is currently developing an environmental baseline study, as well as compiling information for the environmental impact assessment (EIS) which will be necessary for the production phase of the project. The Company is supported by MYMA (Minería y Medio Ambiente Ltda), which specialises in environmental studies and permitting.
For the purpose of assessing possible impacts CleanTech Lithium plans to develop close relationships with project stakeholders. The Company has recently opened an office in Copiapó and is developing an Early Engagement Plan (PACA) that aims to keep an open communication channel with relevant community bodies and organisations and allows for a continuous assessment of the social impact of the project.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Francisco Basin is classified as an immature clastic salt lake basin. The total resource for the Project is estimated at 919,346 tonnes of LCE, with 443,215 tonnes being in the Indicated resource category and 476,130 tonnes being in the Inferred resource category. The average lithium value is 207 mg/l Lithium.
Public studies of the lithium market indicate strong demand and sustained high prices during the evaluation period. The demand for electric vehicles continues to increase, and progressively more countries are declaring bans on the sale of combustion vehicles in the coming years, ensuring the elevated levels of demand for lithium.
The offer of a project with low environmental impact is in line with current regulations, so meeting the standards of environmental regulations should be a focus. At this point, it is necessary to have more information on the reinjection system and the development of a hydrogeological model that confirms the low impact on groundwater and its null impact on lake surfaces.
The operating cost, according to what is indicated in the scoping study (-15%/+35% accuracy), of
The capital cost of the project is estimated (-15%/+ 30%) at
The economic analysis of the project, after taxes, gives a Net Present Value of
The sensitivity analysis of the economic evaluation model shows that the factor that most impacts the Present Value of the project, for the same variations, is the Price factor. And with respect to IRR, both the Price and Capex are the most influential parameters.
It is recommended that a further resource drilling programme is undertaken at the project with the aim of further expanding and upgrading the current resource estimate. A plan for the location of the next stage of drillholes comprising a total of four wells is shown in Figure 9 below. This is based on three additional resource wells drilled with diamond drilling, labelled FB07 - FB09, with FB07 planned for the same site as well FB02 which was not successfully completed during the 1H 2023 drilling programme. An additional wide diameter reverse flooded well, labelled IFFB01, is recommended specifically designed for reinjection tests.
Fig 9: Francisco Basin Recommended Drillhole Locations
Based on the results of the initial explorations and the future exploration program, it is concluded that the Francisco Basin Project justifies continuing its development to determine if the lithium resource can be turned into a reserve, in terms of economic and technical aspects, and confirm the feasibility of its production on a pilot scale.
|
For further information contact: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
CleanTech Lithium PLC |
|
|
|
Aldo Boitano/Gordon Stein |
Jersey office: +44 (0) 1534 668 321 |
|
|
|
Or via Celicourt |
|
|
Celicourt Communications |
+44 (0) 20 7770 6424 |
|
|
Felicity Winkles/Philip Dennis/Ali AlQahtani
|
cleantech@celicourt.uk |
|
|
Dr. Reuter Investor Relations Dr. Eva Reuter
Porter Novelli - Ernesto Escobar
Harbor Access - Jonathan Paterson/Lisa Micali
Beaumont Cornish Limited (Nominated Adviser) Roland Cornish/Asia Szusciak
|
+49 69 1532 5857
+569 95348744 Ernesto@publicoporternovelli.cl
+1 475 477 9401
+44 (0) 207 628 3396 |
|
|
Fox-Davies Capital Limited (Joint Broker) |
+44 20 3884 8450 |
|
|
Daniel Fox-Davies
Canaccord Genuity Limited (Joint Broker) James Asensio Gordon Hamilton
|
+44 (0) 207 523 4680
|
|
Competent Persons
The following professionals act as qualified persons, as defined in the AIM Note for Mining, Oil and Gas Companies (June 2009):
· Christian Gert Feddersen Welkner: Geologist and Master of Science, major in geology (University of
· Marcelo Bravo: Chemical Engineer (Universidad Católica del Norte), has a Master's Degree in Engineering Sciences major in Mineral Processing, Universidad de Antofagasta. He currently works as a Senior Process Consulting Engineer at the Ad-Infinitum company. Mr Bravo has relevant experience in researching and developing potassium, lithium carbonate, and solar evapo-concentration design processes in
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
Cautionary Statement
The Scoping Study referred to in this AIM release has been undertaken for the purpose of initial evaluation of a potential development of the Francisco Basin Project located approximately 110 km, in a straight line, at east of Copiapó city, south of the Maricunga salt flat, Copiapó Municipality, Copiapó Province, Atacama III Region,
The Scoping Study is presented in US dollars to an accuracy level of +/- 35%. While each of the modifying factors was considered and applied, there is no certainty of eventual conversion to Ore Reserves or that the production target itself will be realised. Further exploration and evaluation and appropriate studies are required before CleanTech Lithium will be able to estimate any Ore Reserves or to provide any assurance of any economic development case. Given the uncertainties involved, investors should not make any investment decisions based solely on the results of the Scoping Study. Of the Mineral Resources scheduled for extraction in the Scoping Study production plan, approximately 68% are classified as Indicated and 32% as Inferred during the 12+-year evaluation period.
The Company has concluded that it has reasonable grounds for disclosing a production target which includes an amount of Inferred Mineral Resources. There is a low level of geological confidence associated with Inferred Mineral Resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of Indicated Mineral Resources or that the production target itself will be realised. Inferred Mineral Resources support production over the last 4 years of operation. The viability of the development scenario envisaged in the Scoping Study does not depend on the inclusion of Inferred Mineral Resources. Removing the Inferred Resources from the mine plan still provides a positive NPV and attractive IRR but reduces the production life to 8 years.
The Mineral Resources underpinning the production target in the Scoping Study have been prepared by a competent person in accordance with the requirements of the JORC Code (2012). For full details on the Mineral Resource estimate, please refer to the AIM announcement by CleanTech Lithium plc of 24 August 2023 for the Francisco Basin project.
Other than as presented in this announcement, CleanTech Lithium plc confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in previous announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimate continue to apply and have not been changed. This Scoping Study is based on the material assumptions outlined in this announcement. These include assumptions about the availability of funding. While CleanTech Lithium plc considers that all the material assumptions are based on reasonable grounds, there is no certainty that they will prove to be correct or that the range of outcomes indicated by the Scoping Study will be achieved.
To achieve the range of outcomes indicated in the Scoping Study, funding in the order of between
This announcement contains forward-looking statements. CleanTech Lithium plc has concluded that it has a reasonable basis for providing these forward-looking statements and believes it has a reasonable basis to expect it will be able to fund development of the Francisco Basin Project. However, several factors could cause actual results or expectations to differ materially from the results expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Given the uncertainties involved, investors should not make any investment decisions based solely of the results of this study.
Important Information for this Announcement
The Scoping Study has been prepared and reported in accordance with the requirements of the JORC Code (2012). The primary purpose of the Scoping Study is to establish whether or not to proceed to a Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS") and has been prepared to an accuracy level of +/- 35%, the Scoping Study results should not be considered a profit forecast or production forecast. As defined by the JORC Code, a "Scoping Study is an order of magnitude technical and economic study of the potential viability of Mineral Resources. It includes appropriate assessments of realistic assumed Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors that are necessary to demonstrate at the time of reporting that progress to a Pre-Feasibility Study can be justified."
The Modifying Factors included in the JORC Code have been assessed as part of the Scoping Study, including mining (brine extraction), processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors. The Company has received advice from appropriate experts when assessing each Modifying Factor.
Following an assessment of the results of the Scoping Study, the Company has formed the view that a PFS is justified for the Francisco Basin project, which it will commence following completion of the recommended drilling programme. The PFS will provide the Company with a more comprehensive assessment of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of the Francisco Basin project.
The Company has concluded it has a reasonable basis for providing any of the forward-looking statements included in this announcement and believes that it has a reasonable basis to expect that the Company will be able to fund its stated objective of completing a PFS for the Francisco Basin project. All material assumptions on which the forecast financial information is based are set out in this announcement.
Some of the statements appearing in this announcement may be in the nature of "forward-looking statements" which include all statements other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, those regarding the Company's financial position, business strategy, plans and objectives of management for future operations, or any statements preceded by, followed by or that include the words "targets", "believes", "expects", "aims", "intends", "will", "may", "anticipates", "would", "could" or similar expressions or negatives thereof. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors beyond the Company's control that could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Group to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions regarding the Company's present and future business strategies and the environment in which the Company will operate in the future. These forward-looking statements speak only as at the date of this document. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to disseminate any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in the Company's expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statements are based unless required to do so by applicable law or the AIM Rules.
Beaumont Cornish Limited, which is authorised and regulated in the
Notes
About CleanTech Lithium
CleanTech Lithium (AIM:CTL, Frankfurt:T2N, OTCQX:CTLHF) is an exploration and development company advancing sustainable lithium projects in
CleanTech Lithium has three 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 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 existing 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. www.ctlithium.com
**ENDS**
List of Abbreviations used in Scoping Study
|
% |
percentage |
|
|
m/d |
metres per day |
|
°C |
temperature in degrees Celsius |
|
|
mg |
milligram |
|
3D |
three dimensional |
|
|
Mg |
magnesium |
|
m.a.s.l. |
meters above sea level |
|
|
mg/L |
milligrams per litre |
|
ALS |
ALS Life Sciences Chile |
|
|
mL |
millilitre |
|
B |
boron |
|
|
mm |
millimetre |
|
BV |
bed volume |
|
|
mm/year |
millimetres per year |
|
Ca |
calcium |
|
|
US$MN |
million dollars |
|
CaCl2 |
calcium chloride |
|
|
MVR |
mechanical vapor recompression |
|
CaCO3 |
calcium carbonate |
|
|
MW |
megawatt |
|
Ca(OH)2 |
calcium hydroxide |
|
|
MWh |
megawatt hour |
|
CAPEX |
Capital Cost Estimates |
|
|
Na |
sodium |
|
CCHEN |
Chilean National Nuclear Commission |
|
|
Na2CO3 |
sodium carbonate (soda ash) |
|
CEOL |
Special Operation Contracts for Lithium |
|
|
NaCl |
halite |
|
Cl |
chlorine |
|
|
NaOH |
sodium hydroxide |
|
CODELCO |
National Copper Corporation |
|
|
NF |
nanofiltration |
|
CONAMA |
National Environment Committee |
|
|
NFB |
nanofiltration for |
|
CORFO |
Development Corporation |
|
|
No. |
number |
|
CP |
competent person |
|
|
NI |
National Instrument |
|
CPR |
competent person report |
|
|
NPV |
Net Present Value |
|
CTL |
CleanTech Lithium |
|
|
OPEX |
Operating Cost Estimates |
|
CYMA |
engineering and management company |
|
|
Pe |
effective porosity |
|
cm |
centimetre |
|
|
pH |
The measure of acidity or alkalinity |
|
cm3 |
cubic centimetres |
|
|
PPA |
power purchase agreement |
|
DGA |
General Water Directorate |
|
|
Pt |
total porosity |
|
DIA |
Environmental Impact Statement |
|
|
QA/QC |
quality assurance/quality control |
|
DLE |
direct lithium extraction |
|
|
QP |
Qualified Person |
|
DTM |
digital surface model |
|
|
RBRC |
relative brine release capacity |
|
EIA |
Environmental Impact Study |
|
|
RCA |
Environmental Qualification Resolutions |
|
ENAMI |
National Mining Company |
|
|
RO |
reverse osmosis |
|
GPS |
global positioning system |
|
|
RQD |
rock quality designator |
|
Has |
hectares |
|
|
R+D |
research and development |
|
H3BO3 |
boric acid |
|
|
SEA |
Environmental Assessment Service |
|
HCl |
hydrochloric acid |
|
|
SEIA |
Environmental Impact Assessment System |
|
ICP-OES |
inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectrometry |
|
|
SERNAGEOMIN |
National Geology and Mining Service |
|
IRD |
French Institute de Recherche pour le Development |
|
|
S-L |
solid-liquid |
|
IRR |
Internal Rate of Return |
|
|
SO4 |
sulfate |
|
IVA |
value added tax |
|
|
SRK |
SRK Consulting |
|
IX |
ion exchange |
|
|
SS |
Scoping Study |
|
JORC |
Joint Ore Reserves Committee |
|
|
Sr |
Specific retention |
|
JV |
joint venture |
|
|
SX |
solvent extraction |
|
K |
potassium |
|
|
Sy |
specific yield/drainable porosity |
|
km |
kilometre |
|
|
TEM |
transient electromagnetic |
|
km2 |
square kilometre |
|
|
t |
tonnes |
|
KV |
kilovolt |
|
|
tonne/hr |
tonnes per hour |
|
L/s |
litres per second |
|
|
t/y |
tonnes per year |
|
LCE |
lithium carbonate equivalent |
|
|
TDS |
total dissolved solids |
|
Li |
lithium |
|
|
US$ |
|
|
LiOH*H2O |
lithium hydroxide |
|
|
WBS |
work breakdown structure |
|
Li2CO3 |
lithium carbonate |
|
|
WML |
Wealth Minerals Ltd. |
|
LV |
Laguna Verde |
|
|
y |
year |
|
m |
metre |
|
|
ZOIT |
Zone of Tourist Interest |
|
m3 |
cubic metres |
|
|
|
|
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 · 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 ( · 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) · · 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. |
· The lithium carbonate production process considers six stages to minimize the water and energy requirements:
1. Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) 2. Concentration of the solution 3. Purification of the solution 4. Carbonation and Production of Li2CO3 5. Treatment of the Mother Liquor 6. Water Recovery
Lithium is selectively extracted in the DLE stage, and the brine is reinjected. In the concentration stage, water is removed from the solution to concentrate 1.2%Li, and 90% of the water is recovered. The conventional purification and carbonation stages have been optimized to maximize production and reduce contaminants, ensuring the battery-grade product is obtained.
In the mother liquor treatment stage, the solution is recovered and concentrated, which provides 6 to 7 recovery points of Lithium, and process water is recovered.
The overall recovery of lithium is 89,3%.
· The recovery of process water makes it possible to minimize the water requirement of the process, and it has been estimated that water losses will be 1.6 m3/tonne of product. |
|
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 |
RNS may use your IP address to confirm compliance with the terms and conditions, to analyse how you engage with the information contained in this communication, and to share such analysis on an anonymised basis with others as part of our commercial services. For further information about how RNS and the London Stock Exchange use the personal data you provide us, please see our Privacy Policy.