Exhibit
|
Description
|
Press Release
|
|
Piedmont Lithium Limited
|
|
(registrant)
|
|
|
Date: May 15, 2020
|
By: /s/ Keith Phillips
|
|
Name: Keith Phillips
|
|
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
|
•
|
120 kg of Dense Medium Separation (“DMS”) and flotation concentrates prepared for LiOH testwork
|
•
|
Byproduct quartz samples have received positive initial feedback from key potential customers
|
o
|
Quartz samples meet solar glass customer specifications – additional samples requested
|
o
|
Additional potential clients will receive byproduct quartz, feldspar and mica samples in Q2
|
•
|
Chemical plant Pre-Feasibility Study and updated integrated Scoping Study expected in May 2020
|
•
|
Lithium hydroxide bench scale testwork nearing conclusion with results expected in Q2 2020
|
Table 1: Results of Combined DMS + Locked Cycle Flotation Testwork Results
|
|||
Product
|
Li2O (%)
|
Fe2O3 (%)
|
Recovery (%)
|
Spodumene Concentrate
|
6.21
|
0.87
|
82.4
|
Table 2: Average of Results of Six Locked Cycle Byproduct Tests
|
||||||||||
Li2O
|
SiO2
|
Al2O3
|
K2O
|
Na2O
|
CaO
|
MgO
|
MnO
|
P2O5
|
Fe2O3
|
|
Quartz Concentrate
|
0.02
|
99.0
|
0.32
|
0.04
|
0.11
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
Feldspar Concentrate
|
0.12
|
68.0
|
19.35
|
2.45
|
9.30
|
0.17
|
0.04
|
0.01
|
0.15
|
0.05
|
Keith D. Phillips
|
Timothy McKenna
|
|
President & CEO
|
Investor and Government Relations
|
|
T: +1 973 809 0505
|
T: +1 732 331 6457
|
|
E: kphillips@piedmontlithium.com
|
E: tmckenna@piedmontlithium.com
|
•
|
Of the five spodumene collectors tested, the best spodumene flotation performance was achieved using a collector blend (FA-2
/ TP-A100) in the developed flowsheet.
|
•
|
The addition of a mica flotation stage prior to spodumene flotation was generally found to be favorable to the metallurgical
response. This aspect of design will be further examined during the DFS.
|
•
|
The use of site water in place of water sourced at SGS Lakefield showed improvement in flotation performance under the
conditions tested.
|
Product
|
Wt (%)
|
Assay (%)
|
Distribution (%)
|
||
Li2O
|
Fe2O3
|
Li2O
|
Fe2O3
|
||
DMS Concentrate
|
7.5
|
6.30
|
0.93
|
38.9
|
13.8
|
Flotation Concentrate
|
8.6
|
6.13
|
0.83
|
43.5
|
14.2
|
Combined Concentrate
|
16.1
|
6.21
|
0.87
|
82.4
|
28.0
|
Li2O
|
SiO2
|
Al2O3
|
K2O
|
Na2O
|
CaO
|
MgO
|
MnO
|
P2O5
|
Fe2O3
|
|
Quartz Concentrate
|
0.02
|
99.0
|
0.32
|
0.04
|
0.11
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
Feldspar Concentrate
|
0.12
|
68.0
|
19.35
|
2.45
|
9.30
|
0.17
|
0.04
|
0.01
|
0.15
|
0.05
|
•
|
Complete a trade-off study of mica pre-flotation to enhance spodumene concentrate grade and recovery during the definitive
feasibility study.
|
•
|
Investigate additional byproduct potential via reprocessing of DMS float product for additional quartz and feldspar
potential.
|
•
|
Produce optimized particle size distribution samples of quartz concentrate to confidential key client accounts.
|
|
|
JORC Code explanation
|
Commentary
|
|
Sampling techniques
|
>Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as downhole 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 (e.g. ‘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 (e.g.
submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
|
Metallurgical Samples: Spodumene and byproduct concentrate testwork was completed on a composited sample of Piedmont ore. The sample was a composite of ½ NQ core selected from mineralized zones from the Phase 2 and Phase 3 drill programs. Drill core samples were divided, based on lithology, into
two parts samples; one consisting of pegmatite, and the other consisting of amphibolite or ‘waste’ which is not included in the Company’s Mineral Resources. A composite sample was produced using the mineralized pegmatite. The mass of the
composite sample was approximately 1750 kg.
Specifically, the composite sample consisted of selected mineralized zones from holes 18-BD-137, 18-BD-138, 18-BD-140, 18-BD-142 through 18-BD-156
inclusive, 18-BD-159 through 18-BD-164 inclusive, 18-BD-166, 18-BD-167, 18-BD-168, 18-BD-170 through 18-BD-187 inclusive, 18-BD-190, 18-BD-192, 18-BD-193, 18-BD-195 through 18-BD-208 inclusive, 18-BD-210 through 18-BD-213 inclusive, 18-BD-215
through 18-BD-221 inclusive, 18-BD-223 through 18-BD-226 inclusive, 18-BD-228 through 18-BD-231 inclusive, 18-BD-235, 18-BD-236, 18-BD-237, 18-BD-239, 18-BD-240, 18-BD-240, 18-BD-242 through 18-BD-246 inclusive.
All samples were shipped to SGS laboratories in Lakefield, Ontario.
The composite sample has a head grade of 1.25% Li2O and 0.38% Fe2O3. Head grades have a reporting accuracy of ±0.1%.
|
Drilling techniques
|
>Drill type
(e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. 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.).
|
All diamond drill holes were collared with HQ and were transitioned to NQ once non-weathered and unoxidized bedrock was encountered. Drill core was
recovered from surface.
Oriented core was collected on all drill holes using the REFLEX ACT III tool by a qualified geologist at the drill rig. The orientation data is
currently being evaluated.
|
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.
|
The core was transported from the drill site to the logging facility in covered boxes with the utmost care. Once at the logging facility, the
following procedures were carried out on the core:
1.Re-aligning
the broken core in its original position as closely as possible.
2.The length of
recovered core was measured, and meter marks clearly placed on the core to indicate depth to the nearest centimeter.
3.The length of
core recovered was used to determine the core recovery, which is the length of core recovered divided by the interval drilled (as indicated by the footage marks which was converted to meter marks), expressed as a percentage. This data was
recorded in the database. The core was photographed wet before logged.
4.The core was
photographed again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible.
Sample recovery was consistently good except for zones within the oxidized clay and saprolite zones. These zones were generally within the top 20m
of the hole. No relationship is recognized between recovery and grade. The drill holes were designed to intersect the targeted pegmatite below the oxidized zone.
|
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.
|
Geologically, data was collected in detail, sufficient to aid in Mineral Resource estimation.
Core logging consisted of marking the core, describing lithologies, geologic features, percentage of spodumene and structural features measured to
core axis.
The core was photographed wet before logging and again immediately before sampling with the sample numbers visible.
All the core from the holes utilized in sample preparation was logged.
|
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-
>
|
Metallurgical Samples: Samples were composites of sawn ½ NQ core from select mineralized and non-mineralized zones from the Phase 3 drill program.
Metallurgical tests reported in this release were conducted on subsamples of the composite sample. The composite sample had a head grade of 1.25%
Li2O and 0.38% Fe2O3. Head grades have a reporting accuracy of ±0.1%.
The mass of the composite sample was approximately 1750 kg.
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code explanation
|
Commentary
|
>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.
|
All samples were shipped to and prepared at SGS laboratories in Lakefield, Ontario.
Composite samples were prepared with mineralized core intercepts. Non-mineralized (waste rock) was not included in the sample.
|
|
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 (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.
|
The focus of the pre-feasibility level testwork program undertaken by SGS was to prepare spodumene concentrate from Dense Medium Separation (DMS)
and Locked Cycle Flotation Tests (LCT) to support a bench-scale lithium hydroxide conversion testwork program. Byproduct investigation of quartz and feldspar concentrates was a secondary purpose of the testwork program.
SGS completed a series of Heavy Liquids Separation (HLS) tests on a 10kg subsample of the Composite Sample to determine a target Specific Gravity
(SG) for the DMS tests. Densities tested in the HLS testwork included 2.50, 2.60, 2.65, 2.70, 2.80, 2.90, 2.95, and 3.0.
Based on HLS testwork results, it was determined that the composite sample would be subjected to the following procedure:
-Samples crushed
to a -6.35mm topsize
-Wet screening
of samples to separate -1.0mm fines
-Processing in
SGS labs dense medium cyclone pilot plant
-Primary stage
DMS operated at 2.65 SG
-Secondary stage
DMS operated at 2.95 SG
-Primary stage
float material for both coarse and fine DMS was assayed and reported as rejects.
-Secondary stage
sink material for both coarse and fine DMS was assayed and reported as concentrate.
-Secondary stage
float material was collected as middlings and recrushed to -3.3mm. The -1.0mm material was then screened from this fraction. The remaining 3.3mm x 1.0mm middlings material was subjected to HLS on 2.50, 2.60, 2.65, 2.70, 2.80, 2.85, 2.90,
and 2.95 SG.
-Processing of
the middlings material in the SGS labs dense medium cyclone pilot plant. The sink 2.95 material was assayed and combined with the secondary stage sink material and reported as concentrate.
-The concentrate
products were passed through magnetic separation and the non-magnetic coarse secondary product, non-magnetic fine secondary product, and the non-magnetic re-crush HLS sink 2.95 material were reported as a final concentrate product.
Chemical Analysis
The following assays were conducted on the various sample streams:
Li2O, Fe2O3, SiO2, Al2O3, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O,
MnO, P2O5
Locked-Cycle Flotation Testwork
-1.0mm material and secondary stage fine DMS float material from the test procedure above from the composite samples were collected and subjected to
locked-cycle flotation testing. A total of 150kg of material was submitted to flotation testing.
Sample preparation for the composite LCT tests included:
-Multi-stage grinding to about P100 of 300
microns
-3 minutes of high density scrubbing
-Desliming
-10 minutes of high density scrubbing
-Desliming
Multiple batch tests were performed using 2kg or 4kg flotation feed charges to test various operational parameters and collectors in a Denver D12
flotation machine. Reagents tests in batch tests included:
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code explanation
|
Commentary
|
Criteria
|
JORC Code explanation
|
Commentary
|
>
|
Metallurgical samples – all metallurgical samples were transported to SGS laboratories in Lakefield, Ontario.
|
|||||
Audits or reviews
|
>The results
of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.
|
Metallurgical Sample: Representatives of Piedmont Lithium and multiple representatives of Primero Group have inspected the testwork.
Dr. Massoud Aghamirian of SGS directed the testwork program. Dr. Jarrett Quinn of Primero Group reviewed the testwork and provided feedback during
the course of or the program.
|
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.
|
Piedmont, through its 100% owned subsidiary, Piedmont Lithium, Inc., has entered into exclusive option agreements with local landowners, which upon
exercise, allows the Company to purchase (or long term lease) approximately 2,130 acres of surface property and the associated mineral rights from the local landowners.
There are no known historical sites, wilderness or national parks located within the Project area and there are no known impediments to obtaining a
licence to operate in this area.
|
Exploration done by other parties
|
>Acknowledgment
and appraisal of exploration by other parties.
|
The Project is focused over an area that has been explored for lithium dating back to the 1950’s where it was originally explored by Lithium
Corporation of America which was subsequently acquired by FMC Corporation. Most recently, North Arrow explored the Project in 2009 and 2010. North Arrow conducted surface sampling, field mapping, a ground magnetic survey and two diamond
drilling programs for a total of 19 holes. Piedmont Lithium, Inc. has obtained North Arrow’s exploration data.
|
Geology
|
>Deposit
type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.
|
Spodumene pegmatites, located near the litho tectonic boundary between the inner Piedmont and Kings Mountain belt. The mineralization is thought to
be concurrent and cross-cutting dike swarms extending from the Cherryville granite, as the dikes progressed further from their sources, they became increasingly enriched in incompatible elements such as Li, tin (Sn). The dikes are considered
to be unzoned.
|
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:
>easting and northing of the drill hole collar
>elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar
>dip and azimuth of the hole
>down hole length and interception depth
>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.
|
N/A
|