SUDBURY,
ON, May 31, 2023 /CNW/ - Frontier Lithium Inc.
(TSXV: FL) ("Frontier" or "the Company") is pleased to release the
strong results of a Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS") for a proposed
mine-to-lithium hydroxide chemical/hydromet plant facility
("Integrated Project") in the Great Lakes Region of North
America. The PFS assumes a hydromet plant that would convert
spodumene concentrate feedstock sourced from a vertically
integrated spodumene open-pit mining and milling facility
at the Company's PAK Lithium Project, located north of
Red Lake, Ontario. The PFS
demonstrates pre-tax NPV of US $2.59
billion discounted at 8%. The PFS confirms that the 100%
owned Project could be the continent's largest and lowest-cost
producer of lithium hydroxide able to supply the rapidly growing
electric vehicle industry in North
America.
PFS Highlights:
- Life of Project Cash Flow (unlevered) of US$8.07 billion over 24-year total project
life;
- Total initial capital expenditure estimate of US$468 million for the technical grade
concentrator and expansion capital of US$576
million for the chemical grade concentrator and chemical
plant with a contingency of 20% included.
- Sustaining Capital of US$90
million;
- Pre-tax Net Present Value at an 8% base case discount rate
("NPV8") of US$2.588
billion and Pre-Tax Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") of
28.6%;
- Post-tax NPV8 of US$1,739
million and IRR of 24.1%;
- Post-tax net "undiscounted" Cash Flow (before initial capital
expenditures) of US$5.98
billion;
- Annual Average EBITDA of US$251.3
million;
- Chemical plant producing 12,520 tonnes of battery-quality
Lithium Hydroxide Monohydrate (LiOH-H2O) per year with
an average selling price of US$22,000
per tonne and a 7,360 tonnes of battery-quality Lithium Carbonate
per year with an average selling price of US$20,500 per tonne;
- PAK and Spark deposits are open along strike and to depth;
- All-in cash costs of US$7,433 per
tonne of Lithium Carbonate Equivalent; and
- After-Tax Pay Back of Capital Expenditures is 4.9 years after
the start of commercial operations.
"Surging global demand for unique premium low-iron spodumene
concentrates and high-margin, low-cost lithium chemicals presents
an opportunity for Frontier Lithium to establish itself as a
leading producer. The outstanding PFS results further emphasize
this, underscoring the project's ability to meet the market's
needs. The project's phased approach, highlighted in the study,
ensures efficient resource utilization and minimizes upfront
capital expenditure, positioning us for long-term success in the
North American electric vehicle market." comments Trevor Walker, President and CEO of Frontier
Lithium. "Building upon the PFS results, we are committed to
further optimizing the project through definitive feasibility level
work. This crucial step allows us to unlock additional value and
fine-tune our operational plan to maximize efficiency and
profitability. We are confident that this milestone paves the way
for strategic resource development and facilitates deeper
discussions with potential offtake partners. We are dedicated to
establishing mutually beneficial collaborations and supporting
infrastructure upgrades in close cooperation with our First Nation
community partners. This commitment to sustainable and inclusive
development reflects our respect for the environment, local
communities, and our shared goal of creating a prosperous future
together."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Frontier's Project is uniquely positioned to benefit from its
highly favorable location in the Great Lakes Region of North America. Northern Ontario is endowed with exceptional
infrastructure, a deep local talent pool, low-cost and low carbon
energy, and proximity to an emerging local Electric Vehicle
manufacturing market. The PFS reflects more conservative costing
assumptions than prior studies, with recent inflationary pressures
having a substantial impact on both capital expenditures and
operating costs. These cost impacts are partially offset using
lithium pricing assumptions based on the more positive outlook
incorporated in the consensus estimates described herein. Summary
results of the PFS are shown below.
The results of the PFS (see tables 1-5 below) include a pre-tax
net present value at an 8 percent discount rate of US$2.59 billion with a pre-tax internal rate of
return of 28.6 percent and a post-tax NPV at an 8 percent discount
rate of $1.74 billion with a post-tax
IRR of 24.1 percent.
The PFS is based on an updated mineral resource estimate
completed by Todd McCracken, P.Geo,
outlined in the National Instrument 43-101 technical report update
as reported in Table 6.
Commodity Price Assumptions from the PFS are, base-case
premium technical grade lithium concentrate of 7.2% Li2O (TG_SC7.2)
price of US$3,000 per tonne, chemical
grade lithium concentrate of 6.6% Li2O (CG_SC6.0) price of
US$1,350 per tonne; lithium hydroxide
price of US$22,000 per tonne;
lithium carbonate US$20,500 per
tonne and an exchange rate of $1.30
USD/CAD.
Table 1: Project Economics Summary
ITEM
|
VALUE
|
UNITS
|
Physicals
|
Total Tonnes
Mined
|
103.4
|
Mt
|
Total Mill Feed
Processed
|
22.1
|
Mt
|
Average Mill Feed
Grade
|
1.55
|
%
Li2O
|
Technical Grade @ 7.2%
Concentrate Tonnes
|
765,000
|
tonnes
|
BG Lithium Hydroxide
Tonnes Produced
|
313,000
|
tonnes
|
BG Lithium Carbonate
Tonnes Produced
|
184,000
|
tonnes
|
LCE
|
459,000
|
tonnes
|
Financial
Analysis
|
Commodity Price
Assumptions:
|
|
|
Technical Grade
Concentrate (TG) 7.2%
|
3,000
|
US$/tonne
|
Chemical Grade
Concentrate (CG) 6%
|
1,350
|
US$/tonne
|
Battery Grade Lithium
Hydroxide
|
22,000
|
US$/tonne
|
Lithium
Carbonate
|
20,500
|
US$/tonne
|
Exchange
Rate
|
1.3
|
CAD$ : 1 US$
|
Pre-Tax NPV
8%
|
2,588
|
US$M
|
Pre-Tax IRR
|
28.6 %
|
%
|
Pre-Tax Payback, from
start of mill production
|
4.9
|
years
|
Life of
Mine
|
24
|
years
|
After-Tax NPV
8%
|
1,739
|
US$M
|
After-Tax
IRR
|
24.1 %
|
%
|
After-Tax
Payback
|
4.91
|
years
|
Pre-Tax Unlevered Free
Cash Flow
|
8,078
|
US$M
|
After-Tax Unlevered
Free Cash Flow
|
5,982
|
US$M
|
LOM Direct Income and
Mining Taxes
|
2,560
|
US$M
|
Capital
Costs
|
|
|
Initial Capital,
Direct Cost Estimate
|
301
|
US$M
|
Initial Capital
Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
167
|
US$M
|
Total Initial
Capital Costs
|
468
|
US$M
|
Expansion Capital,
Direct Cost Estimate
|
363
|
US$M
|
Expansion Capital
Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
214
|
US$M
|
Total Expansion
Capital Costs
|
576
|
US$M
|
LOM Sustaining
Capital
|
73
|
US$M
|
LOM Sustaining
Capital, Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
17
|
US$M
|
Total LOM
Sustaining Capital
|
90
|
US$M
|
Reclamation and
Closure Costs (included Salvage Value)
|
16
|
US$M
|
LOM Total
Capital
|
1,151
|
US$M
|
Operating
Costs
|
|
|
LOM Operating
Costs
|
3,392
|
US$M
|
Open Pit
Mining
|
5.60
|
US$/t mined
|
Site
Processing
|
21.29
|
US$/t milled
|
Site Support
Costs
|
20.17
|
US$/t milled
|
Chemical Plant
Processing
|
85.99
|
US$/t milled
|
Subtotal Operating
Cost
|
153.71
|
US$/t milled
|
Concentrate Transport
& Losses
|
15.03
|
US$/t milled
|
Total Operating
Cost
|
168.74
|
US$/t
milled
|
PFS Overview
1. LITHIUM CHEMICALS FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC
VEHICLE MARKET
- The PFS demonstrates the ability to annually produce 7,360
metric tonnes (m.t.) of lithium carbonate
(Li2CO3) and 12,520
m.t. of lithium hydroxide (LiOH), meeting the specific
requirements of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) operating
in the North American electric vehicle market. This ensures that
the lithium chemicals produced will be tailored to the needs of the
industry, supporting the growth of electric vehicles manufacturing
in the region.
- By satisfying the OEMs' requirements for the region, the
project provides optionality for future demand profiles. As the
electric vehicle market continues to evolve and expand, the ability
to adapt and meet changing demands becomes crucial. The flexibility
offered by this project allows for adjustments in production
capacity and product mix to align with future market trends and
customer preferences.
2. A PHASED APPROACH
- The PFS emphasizes a phased approach, starting with the
production of spodumene concentrate before establishing a lithium
chemical refinery. This phased approach allows for efficient
resource allocation and minimizes upfront capital expenditure and
project execution risk. By initially focusing on spodumene
concentrate production, the project can generate revenue while
concurrently developing the necessary infrastructure for the
subsequent establishment of a lithium chemical refinery.
- Implementing a phased approach also enables a more streamlined
and controlled project development process. It allows for a
thorough understanding of the resource base and an optimization of
the refining process in advance of refinery construction. This
approach ensures that the subsequent refinery build-up is
well-informed, efficient, and aligned with market demand.
3. GROWING REGIONAL DEMAND
- The North American electric vehicle market is experiencing
significant growth, as evidenced by commitments of over
$25 CAD billion to build Ontario battery capacity by 2030. This strong
regional demand provides a favorable market environment for the
project. By strategically locating the operations in North America, the project can capitalize on
the growing demand for electric vehicles and the need for lithium
chemicals to support battery production.
- The commitments to build Ontario battery capacity indicate a long-term
commitment to sustainable transportation and the development of the
electric vehicle ecosystem. By supplying locally produced lithium
chemicals, the project can contribute to the regional supply chain,
reduce dependence on imports, and strengthen the overall resilience
and competitiveness of the North American electric vehicle
market.
4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER UPSIDE
- The project offers opportunities for further upside through the
potential conversion of additional mineral resource to mineral
reserves. The PFS reserve calculation includes only one-third of
the identified resources. None of the 32.4 million tonne of
inferred mineral resources were included in the PFS mineral
reserves. This indicates significant exploration potential and the
possibility of scaling the project.
- Frontier has a strong track record in resource exploration and
development, suggesting that continued exploration efforts within
the PAK Lithium Project could uncover additional mineral resources.
The potential to tap into additional resources ensures the project
will be responsive to future market demands and supports long-term
sustainability.
Table 2 – Economic Assumptions and Parameters
Parameters
|
Unit
|
Value
|
Physicals
|
|
|
Convert to wet
conc.
|
%
|
1.09
|
Li Hydroxide Conc.
Yield from SC 6%
|
%
|
60 %
|
Li Carbonate Conc.
Yield from SC 6%
|
%
|
40 %
|
|
|
|
Exchange
Rate
|
|
|
Exchange
|
US$/CA$
|
0.77
|
Exchange
|
CA$/ US$
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
Discount
Rate
|
|
|
Discount
Rate
|
|
8 %
|
|
|
|
Commodity
Prices
|
|
|
Technical Grade (TG)
7.2%
|
US$/tonne
|
3,000
|
Chemical Grade (CG)
6%
|
US$/tonne
|
1,350
|
BG LiOH
|
US$/tonne
|
22,000
|
BG Li2CO3
|
US$/tonne
|
20,500
|
|
|
|
Recovery
|
|
|
TG Plant
recovery
|
%
|
76 %
|
CG Plant
recovery
|
%
|
78 %
|
Factor for Chem Conc to
Li Hydroxide
|
%
|
16.86 %
|
Lithium Hydroxide
Recovery
|
%
|
88 %
|
Factor for Chem Conc to
Li Carbonate
|
%
|
14.84 %
|
Lithium Carbonate
Recovery
|
%
|
88 %
|
|
|
|
Operating
Costs
|
|
|
TG Concentrate
transport
|
US$/t conc
|
69
|
CG Concentrate
transport
|
US$/t conc
|
69
|
Chemical Plant
Processing Costs
|
US$/t conc
|
539
|
Table 3 – Project Economics
Pre-Tax
NPV
|
|
|
Discount
Rate
|
CA$M
|
US$M
|
0 %
|
10,501
|
8,078
|
5 %
|
5,057
|
3,890
|
8 %
|
3,365
|
2,588
|
10 %
|
2,582
|
1,986
|
15 %
|
1,326
|
1,020
|
PRE-TAX
IRR
|
28.6 %
|
|
Payback Period
(yrs.)
|
4.9
|
|
Post-Tax
NPV
|
|
|
Discount
Rate
|
CA$M
|
US$M
|
0 %
|
7,776
|
5,982
|
5 %
|
3,438
|
2,645
|
8 %
|
2,261
|
1,739
|
10 %
|
1,712
|
1,317
|
15 %
|
821
|
632
|
POST-TAX
IRR
|
24.1 %
|
|
Payback Period
(yrs.)
|
4.9
|
|
Table 4 – Capital Requirement Summary
Capital
Costs
|
CA$M
|
US$M
|
Initial Capital, Direct
Cost Estimate
|
392
|
301
|
Initial Capital
Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
217
|
167
|
Total Initial
Capital Costs
|
608
|
468
|
Expansion Capital,
Direct Cost Estimate
|
472
|
363
|
Expansion Capital
Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
278
|
214
|
Total Expansion
Capital Costs
|
749
|
576
|
LOM Sustaining
Capital
|
95
|
73
|
LOM Sustaining Capital,
Indirect Costs and Contingency
|
23
|
17
|
Total LOM Sustaining
Capital
|
117
|
90
|
Reclamation and Closure
Costs
|
21
|
16
|
LOM Total
Capital
|
1,496
|
1,151
|
Capital
Requirements
|
Initial Capital
(CA$M)
|
Expansion
Capital (CA$M)
|
Initial Capital
(US$M)
|
Expansion
Capital
(US$M)
|
PAK - Infrastructure
|
0.38
|
-
|
0.29
|
-
|
PAK - Mobile
Fleet
|
18.58
|
-
|
14.29
|
-
|
Spark - Infrastructure
|
-
|
0.34
|
-
|
0.26
|
SC 7.2
Concentrator
|
157.92
|
-
|
121.48
|
-
|
SC 6.0
Concentrator
|
-
|
74.27
|
-
|
57.13
|
Tailings Material
Handling Pipeline
|
1.20
|
-
|
0.92
|
-
|
Tailings Management
Facility
|
21.97
|
-
|
16.90
|
-
|
Site Preparation -
Civil Work Mine & Mill
|
34.90
|
-
|
26.85
|
-
|
Site Roads and
Permanent Access Road
|
33.83
|
-
|
26.02
|
-
|
Water Treatment
Plant
|
21.52
|
-
|
16.56
|
-
|
Utilities
|
22.47
|
-
|
17.29
|
-
|
Electrical Power -
Substation & Distribution
|
22.22
|
-
|
17.09
|
-
|
Building
Facilities
|
48.24
|
17.82
|
37.10
|
13.71
|
Airstrip
|
0.28
|
-
|
0.22
|
-
|
Site - Mobile
Fleet
|
0.61
|
-
|
0.47
|
-
|
Industrial Control
Systems
|
2.13
|
-
|
1.64
|
-
|
Insurance
|
5.45
|
-
|
4.19
|
-
|
Chemical
Plant/Erection/Commissioning
|
-
|
379.23
|
-
|
291.72
|
Mine and Site
Indirect Costs
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Owners Costs
|
18.27
|
-
|
14.05
|
-
|
EPCM
|
27.40
|
-
|
21.08
|
-
|
Other associated
indirect costs
|
17.22
|
-
|
13.24
|
-
|
Mill Indirect
Costs
|
|
|
-
|
-
|
SC 7.2
Concentrator
|
53.17
|
-
|
40.90
|
-
|
SC 6.0
Concentrator
|
-
|
30.38
|
-
|
23.37
|
Chemical
Plant
|
-
|
125.37
|
-
|
96.44
|
SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL
COSTS
|
507.74
|
627.42
|
390.57
|
482.63
|
Contingency
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Mine and
Site
|
58.24
|
-
|
44.80
|
-
|
SC 7.2
Concentrator
|
42.22
|
-
|
32.48
|
-
|
SC 6.0
Concentrator
|
-
|
20.93
|
-
|
16.10
|
Chemical
Plant
|
-
|
100.92
|
-
|
77.63
|
TOTAL CAPITAL
COSTS
|
608.20
|
749.27
|
467.85
|
576.36
|
Table 5 –Operating Costs/Tonne LCE
Operating
Costs
|
CA$/LCE
|
US$/LCE
|
Total Chemical
Operating Cost
|
9,663
|
7,433
|
Table 6 - 2023 PAK Mineral Resource Statement (Open Pit)
Cut-
off
|
Resource
Category
|
Commodity
|
Geologic
Zone
|
Tonnes
(t)
|
Li2O
(%)
|
Ta2O5 (ppm)
|
Cs2O
(%)
|
Rb2O
(%)
|
0.6%
Li2O
|
Measured
|
Lithium
|
Upper Intermediate Zone
(UIZ)
|
325,200
|
3.43
|
59
|
0.03
|
0.14
|
Lithium
|
Lower Intermediate Zone
(LIZ)
|
1,019,400
|
1.73
|
105
|
0.04
|
0.29
|
Lithium
|
Total Lithium
Zone
|
1,344,600
|
2.14
|
94
|
0.04
|
0.25
|
Lithium / Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Bulk
Pegmatite
|
1,344,600
|
2.14
|
94
|
0.04
|
0.25
|
0.6%
Li2O
|
Indicated
|
Lithium
|
Upper Intermediate Zone
(UIZ)
|
255,400
|
2.91
|
75
|
0.04
|
0.21
|
Lithium
|
Lower Intermediate Zone
(LIZ)
|
3,819,900
|
1.88
|
99
|
0.04
|
0.30
|
Lithium
|
Total Lithium
Zone
|
4,075,300
|
1.94
|
97
|
0.04
|
0.29
|
Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Central Intermediate
Zone (CIZ)
|
544,100
|
1.11
|
113
|
0.08
|
0.63
|
Lithium / Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Bulk
Pegmatite
|
4,619,400
|
1.72
|
99
|
0.04
|
0.33
|
0.6%
Li2O
|
Measured +
Indicated
|
Lithium
|
Upper Intermediate Zone
(UIZ)
|
580,600
|
3.20
|
65
|
0.03
|
0.17
|
Lithium
|
Lower Intermediate Zone
(LIZ)
|
4,839,300
|
1.85
|
100
|
0.04
|
0.30
|
Lithium
|
Total Lithium
Zone
|
5,419,900
|
1.99
|
96
|
0.04
|
0.29
|
Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Central Intermediate
Zone (CIZ)
|
544,100
|
1.11
|
113
|
0.08
|
0.63
|
Lithium / Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Bulk
Pegmatite
|
5,964,000
|
1.81
|
98
|
0.04
|
0.32
|
0.6%
Li2O
|
Inferred
|
Lithium
|
Upper Intermediate Zone
(UIZ)
|
74,200
|
2.77
|
96
|
0.04
|
0.25
|
Lithium
|
Lower Intermediate Zone
(LIZ)
|
528,900
|
1.86
|
79
|
0.02
|
0.23
|
Lithium
|
Total Lithium
Zone
|
603,100
|
1.97
|
81
|
0.02
|
0.23
|
Tantalum
/Rubidium
|
Central Intermediate
Zone (CIZ)
|
77,400
|
1.21
|
153
|
0.08
|
0.51
|
Lithium / Tantalum /
Rubidium
|
Bulk
Pegmatite
|
680,500
|
1.75
|
89
|
0.03
|
0.26
|
Table 7 - 2023 Spark Mineral Resource Statement (Open Pit)
Cut-Off
|
Resource
|
Tonnes
(t)
|
Li2O
(%)
|
Ta2O5
(ppm)
|
Cs2O
(%)
|
Rb2O
(%)
|
Nb2O5
(ppm)
|
SnO2
(ppm)
|
Classification
|
0.65%
Li2O
|
Indicated
|
18,828,000
|
1.52
|
112
|
0.02
|
0.26
|
84
|
61
|
Inferred
|
29,746,000
|
1.34
|
116
|
0.03
|
0.26
|
77
|
74
|
Mineral Resource
Estimate Notes
|
1.
|
Mineral Resources
were prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and the CIM Definition
Standards (2014). Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves
do not have demonstrated economic viability. This estimate of
mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental,
permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or
other relevant issues.
|
2.
|
Mineral Resources
are reported at various cut-off grades based on mining method and a
6.0% spodumene concentrate prices of US$1,350 /tonne and
an exchange rate of 1.3.
|
3.
|
Appropriate mining
costs, processing costs, metal recoveries, and inter ramp pit slope
angles were used by BBA to generate the pit shell.
|
4.
|
Rounding may result
in apparent summation differences between tonnes, grade, and
contained metal content.
|
5.
|
Tonnage and grade
measurements are in metric units.
|
6.
|
A bulk density
factor of 2.74 was applied to the pegmatite and 2.70 was applied to
the aplite.
|
Table 8 – Mineral Reserve Summary
Category
|
Area
|
Li2O
Cut-off Grade
%
|
Diluted
Tonnage
(t)
|
Diluted
Li2O Grade
%
|
Probable Mineral
Reserve
|
PAK
|
0.65
|
4,041,000
|
1.79
|
Probable Mineral
Reserve
|
Spark
|
0.65
|
18,028,000
|
1.50
|
Probable Mineral
Reserve
|
Overall
Total
|
0.65
|
22,069,000
|
1.55
|
- The effective date of the mineral reserves estimate is
February 28, 2023.
- The mineral reserve estimate is based on constant metallurgical
recovery assumptions: 76% for technical grade concentrate, 78% for
chemical grade concentrate, 88% for Li Hydroxide
- The mineral reserve estimate is based on commodity prices
assumptions of 3,000 US$/t for 7.2%
Li2O technical grade concentrate, 1,350 US$/t for 6.0% Li2O chemical
grade concentrate, and 22,000 US$/t
produced of battery grade lithium hydroxide.
- The mineral reserve was derived from a pit limit analysis and
detailed pit design using measured and indicated resources and a
cut-off grade of 0.65% Li2O.
- For PAK, the mineral reserve estimate incorporates mining
dilution and mining loss assumptions through reblocking to a block
size of 3 m x 3 m x 5 m.
Approximately 6.3% dilution at 0.24% Li2O and 5.9%
mining loss were incorporated.
- For Spark, the mineral reserve estimate incorporates mining
dilution and mining loss assumptions through regularizing to a
block size of 5 m x 5 m x 5 m.
Approximately 2.4% dilution at 0.35% Li2O and 3.1%
mining loss were incorporated.
- PAK mineral reserves are based on a pit design with a 6.1
stripping ratio
- Spark mineral reserves are based on a pit design with a 3.2
stripping ratio
Conclusions and Next Steps
The PFS results demonstrate the potential for Frontier Lithium
to become a major North American lithium chemicals producer on a
fully integrated spodumene mine to lithium hydroxide and carbonate
chemical plant basis. The Company will now concentrate on the
following initiatives to drive the Project forward:
- Complete a Definitive Feasibility Study Phase 1.
- Continue environmental baseline studies to enable and advance
permitting.
- Selection of a site for commercial chemical plant.
- Complete and finalize community partnership agreements.
- Complete formal submission of announced federal and provincial
critical minerals grants and tax breaks.
- Continue to evaluate opportunities to increase the Company's
resources for the scaling of future operations.
- Evaluate strategic partnership options and offtake
agreements.
Due Diligence
All scientific and technical information in this release has
been reviewed and approved by Todd
McCracken , P.Geo., Director – Mining & Geology –
Central Canada , BBA E&C Inc.,
the qualified person (QP) and Garth
Drever , P.Geo., VP Exploration for Frontier Lithium Inc.
the qualified person (QP) under the definitions established by
National Instrument 43-101. Under Frontier's QA/QC procedures, all
drilling was completed by Chenier Drilling Ltd. of Val Caron, ON using thin-walled BTW drill rods
(4.2 cm core diameter) and a Reflex ACT III oriented core system.
Using the Reflex system, the drill core was oriented and marked as
it was retrieved at the drill. The core was boxed and delivered to
the Frontier core shack where it was examined, geologically logged
and marked for sampling. The core was photographed prior to
sampling. Using a rock saw, the marked sample intervals were halved
with one halve bagged for analysis. Sample blanks along with
lithium, rubidium and cesium certified reference material was
routinely inserted into the sample stream in accordance with
industry recommended practices. Field duplicate samples were also
taken in accordance with industry recommended practices. The
samples were placed in poly sample bags and transported to
Red Lake by Frontier employees and
then shipped to AGAT Laboratories Ltd. (AGAT) in Mississauga, ON for quantitative multi-element
analysis. AGAT is an ISO accredited laboratory. The core is stored
on site at the Pakeagama Lake exploration camp.
Qualified Persons and 43-101 Disclosure
The following Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101 have
been involved in the preparation of the study and have approved
this press release:
Garth Drever, Graeme Goodall for Frontier Lithium Inc.
Todd McCracken, P. Geo.,
Shane Ghouralal, P. Eng.,
Joanne Robinson, P. Eng.,
David Willock, P. Eng., and
Bahareh Asi, P. Eng. for BBA
E&C
Andy Holloway, P. Eng. for
Halyard Engineering Inc.,
Ian Ward, P. Eng. for
Ian Ward consulting Services
Inc.,
Ron DeGagne, P. Geo. for
Environmental Application Group.,
Darlene Nelson, P. Eng. for WSP
Canada Inc.
About Frontier Lithium Inc.
Frontier Lithium is a preproduction business with an objective
to become a strategic domestic supplier of spodumene concentrates
for industrial users as well as battery-grade lithium hydroxide and
other chemicals to the growing electric vehicle and energy storage
markets in North America. The
Company maintains the largest land position and resource in a
premium lithium mineral district located in Ontario's Great Lakes region.
About PAK Lithium Project
The PAK lithium project contains North
America's highest-grade lithium resource and is the second
largest in North America by size.
The project encompasses close to 27,000 hectares and remains
largely unexplored; however, since 2013, the company has delineated
two premium spodumene-bearing lithium deposits (PAK and Spark),
located 2.3 kilometres apart. Exploration is continuing on the
project through two other spodumene- bearing discoveries: the Bolt
pegmatite (located between the PAK and Spark deposits), as well as
the Pennock pegmatite (25 kilometres northwest of PAK deposit
within the project claims). A 2023 Mineral Resource Estimate
titled "National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for the PAK
Lithium Project" by BBA E&C Inc., with an effective date of
February 28, 2023, was filed on
Sedar.com.
Forward-looking Statements
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services
Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX
Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or
accuracy of this news release. This news release includes certain
statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All
statements in this release, other than statements of historical
fact constitute forward-looking statements. Forward looking
statements contained in this news release include, but are not
limited to, statements with respect to: estimated mineral
resources, estimated capital costs to construct mine facilities,
estimated operating costs, the duration of payback periods,
estimated amounts of future production, estimated cash flows, net
present value (NPV) , and statements that address future
production, reserve potential, exploration drilling, exploitation
activities and events or developments that the Company expects.
Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such
forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions,
such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual
results may differ materially from those expressed in the
forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and
uncertainties. Risk factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those in forward looking statements include:
market prices for commodities, increases in capital or operating
costs, construction risks, availability of infrastructure including
roads, regulatory and permitting risks, exploitation and
exploration successes, continued availability of capital and
financing, financing costs, and general economic, market or
business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such
statements are not guarantees of future performance and those
actual results or developments may differ materially from those
projected in the forward-looking statements. For more information
on the Company, Investors should review the Company's registered
filings available at sedar.com.
SOURCE Frontier Lithium Inc.