Pre-Feasibility Study with Maiden Ore Reserve Confirms Low ... · phased ramp-up development...

ASX Release

www.kaliumlakes.com.au of 12

Tuesday 3 October 2017

Pre-Feasibility Study with Maiden Ore Reserve Confirms Low Cost, Long Life and High Margin

Beyondie SOP Project

Kalium Lakes Limited (“Kalium Lakes” or “Company”) (ASX:KLL) is pleased to announce the completion of the Pre-Feasibility Study and a maiden Ore Reserve for the 100% owned, Beyondie Sulphate Of Potash Project (BSOPP) in Western Australia. A summary of the highlights of the Pre-Feasibility Study is detailed below. For further information refer to the attached, JORC (2012) and NI 43-101 Technical Report, compiled by German Potash Experts and Competent Persons, K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies (K-UTEC). Highlights

• Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) confirms that Kalium Lakes’ 100% Owned, Beyondie Sulphate Of Potash (SOP) Project, is technically and financially robust.

• Indicated Resource of 4.37 Mt @ 14,000 mg/l SOP at a cut-off grade of 3,500mg/l K and an Inferred Resource of 13.74 Mt @ 12,788 mg/l SOP at a cut-off grade of 3,500mg/l K.

• Maiden Probable Reserve of 2.66 Mt @ 14,210 mg/l SOP at a cut-off grade of 3,500mg/l K based solely within the Stage 1 Approval Footprint, which represents ~21% of total lake surface area within the tenement package1.

• Development base case of 150 ktpa SOP, with the option to incrementally phase the project, through a ramp up from 75 ktpa to 150 ktpa SOP, to minimise operational and financial risks.

• Development base case pre-tax NPV10 of A$388M, IRR of 28.7%, average EBITDA of A$83 Mpa, EBITDA margin of 62%, a payback period of 3.7 years and Life of Mine (LOM) free cash flows of more than +$1B, based on an initial 21 year LOM and a US$500/t SOP sales price @ $A/$US exchange rate of 0.752.

• Estimated LOM Operating Cash Cost of A$244-253/t SOP FOB Geraldton or Fremantle

Port. This places the BSOPP in the lowest quartile cost of global SOP production3.

• Pre-production Capital Cost of A$220 million including a 78 kilometre gas pipeline for the base case or A$124 million for the phased ramp-up scenario.

• Significant potential upside to increase production levels or extend the LOM.

• Potential additional revenue associated with recovery of magnesium by-products which have not been included in the current financial outcomes.

1 Refer to JORC Table 1 in the technical report titled "JORC (2012) and NI 43-101 Technical Report” for further details. 2 Refer to Table 2 and the technical report titled "JORC (2012) and NI 43-101 Technical Report". 3 Operating Cash Costs FOB includes all mining, processing, site administration, product haulage to port and ports costs, but excludes head office corporate costs, sustaining costs and royalties.

http://www.kaliumlakes.com.au/


• Approvals are well advanced and the Company intends to make submissions to the relevant

authorities during the next quarter.

• Offtake discussions are progressing and the Company has entered into two non-binding off-take MOUs, as announced on the ASX.

• An independent review by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Pty Ltd (Snowden) considered that the PFS content meets or exceeds the appropriate standard to support the estimation of Ore Reserves.

• Kalium Lakes’ Board, which previously approved the undertaking of Pilot Scale Works, has now endorsed the commencement of a Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS).

Managing Director, Brett Hazelden, commented: “The Pre-Feasibility Study and Maiden Ore Reserve present a set of compelling technical and economic outcomes. “The Project, hosting Australia’s highest grade potash Brine Resource, has the potential to be a low cost, long life and high margin producer based on the industry’s lowest assumed forward looking SOP price among current project developers. “Kalium Lakes is particularly proud to be the first potash developer to announce a Pre-Feasibility Study and Maiden Ore Reserve for an Australian deposit which allows for an initial mine life of more than 20 years,” he said. “Further possible project growth is also available through either extended mine life or increased production from the wider tenement area, as well as the potential incorporation of magnesium products for which pilot scale trials will be undertaken during the coming months. “The Company has already commenced the critical path activities associated with the Bankable Feasibility Study (BFS), most notably being the pilot scale evaporation ponds and purification works. “On behalf of Kalium Lakes I wish to thank our key consultants and employees for the quality work undertaken to date. We look forward to announcing the results of the pilot scale works, project approvals, BFS outcomes and project financing in due course,” Mr Hazelden said.

Cautionary Statement The Company advises that while the PFS is predominantly based on Ore Reserves (57%) and Indicated Mineral Resources (12%), it partly based on Inferred Mineral Resources (31%). No Exploration Target material has been included in the economic valuation or production target of the BSOPP. There is a lower 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 Inferred Mineral Resources will add to the economics of the BSOPP. However, in preparation of the production target and associated NPV each of the modifying factors was considered and has therefore passed the economics test.



PFS Background The PFS has been prepared by KLL in conjunction with leading industry specialists including K-UTEC, DRA Global, Shawmac, Wyntak and Preston Consulting as the principal technical consultants, as well as RSM, DLA Piper Australia, Hunt & Humphry (now part of HopgoodGanim Lawyers) and BurnVoir Corporate Finance as accounting, legal, commercial and financial advisors. The PFS has also been independently reviewed by Snowden to confirm compliance with PFS standards and the JORC 2012 Code. Kalium Lakes also adheres to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Brines (CIM Guidelines). In addition, the Company is part of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) Potash Working Group which has developed guidelines to define a brine Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve, in order to increase the certainty, clarity and transparency in reporting of these resources. Kalium Lakes undertakes a gated project investment evaluation process that is accepted as industry best practice as illustrated in Figure 1. The PFS has reviewed several potential production scenarios (Cases) between 50ktpa through to 300ktpa SOP and aims to present information at the necessary level of definition and accuracy in accordance with the JORC Code and the AACE International® guidelines for developing a Class 4 (PFS) estimate. Figure 1 – Kalium Lakes Gated Investment Evaluation Process

Beyondie Sulphate Of Potash Project Production Process Sulphate of Potash (SOP) is a widely-used agricultural fertiliser with annual global consumption of 6Mtpa. Australia imports 100% of its potash requirements from overseas producers. SOP can be produced by extracting brine (hypersaline water) from underground, then evaporating the water to precipitate mixed potassium salts which are, in turn, purified to produce the SOP fertiliser, as illustrated in Figure 2: (a) Brine Pumping: brine is extracted from basal sands (or the lower aquifer) using submersible

bores, as well as pumping of trenches from the upper aquifer;

(b) Brine Solar Evaporation: brine is pumped to solar evaporation ponds where it sequentially precipitates calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium mixed salts in separate ponds;



(c) Salt Harvesting: the mixed potassium salts that have crystallized from the solar evaporation ponds are mechanically harvested and stockpiled;

(d) Purification Processing: the mixed potassium salts are fed into a purification plant facility where the potassium salts are separated from halite via flotation, then converted into schoenite through a conversion and recycling process. The resultant schoenite slurry undergoes thermal decomposition into SOP; and

(e) SOP Fertiliser: after drying and compaction in a purification plant, the SOP is ready to be used and sold as a final product.

Figure 2 – SOP Production Process

Key Parameters, Assumptions and Statistics The base case outcome of the PFS for the BSOPP is a 150ktpa SOP operation. After taking into consideration operational, SOP market and financing risk management perspectives, the Company has also reviewed a phased ramp-up development scenario, starting with a demonstration scale 75ktpa SOP operation before expanding to a full scale 150ktpa SOP operation. The Company has considered each of the modifying factors in arriving at the preferred base case and phased ramp-up development scenario including an assessment of project economics, weighed against the ability to finance the project at various scales, as well as the technical risks and resulting market supply and demand impact. The BSOPP project location and tenements are shown in Figures 3 and 4 as well as existing transport infrastructure, access road, the Goldfields Gas Pipeline (GGP) and the Kumarina Roadhouse located on the Great Northern Highway. Figure 5 depicts the initial Stage 1 Approval Footprint for which the company intends to make submissions to the relevant authorities during the next quarter. A summary of the key parameters, assumptions and statistics is presented in Table 1.



Table 1 - Key Parameters, Assumptions and Statistics

Facility Key Area / Characteristic Details/Comments Location Mine Beyondie Paleo Valley, 78 km East of Kumarina Road House (refer Figure 3 & 4)

Tenements E69/3306, E69/3309, E69/3339, E69/3340, E69/3341, E69/3342, E6/3343, E69/3344, E69/3345, E69/3346, E69/3347, E69/3348, E69/3349, E69/3351, E69/3352

Tenement Area >2,400 km2 granted tenements

Marketing Product Sales K2SO4 Targeting Australian Potash market initially

No Australian production of Potash

Mix of standard and granular SOP product – 50:50 split Initial Export and Expansion into Asian Markets

Resource & Reserve

Low Na:K Ratio 8.8 : 1

Cut Off Grade 3,500mg/l K

K2SO4 Mineral Resource (JORC/CIM)

Indicated 4.37 Mt SOP @ 6,278 mg/L K, 14.0 kg/m3 K2SO4

Inferred 13.74 Mt SOP @ 5,735 mg/L K, 12.8 kg/m3 K2SO4

Total 18.1 Mt SOP @ 5,865 mg/L K, 13.1 kg/m3 K2SO4

Exploration Target 3.7 to 18.0 Mt K, 19.8 to 34.6 Mt SOP Non-CIM Mineral Resource

(For Comparative Purposes Only) Total Stored Brine Estimate

196.5 Mt SOP

Mg Mineral Resource (JORC/CIM)

Indicated 1.68 Mt Mg @ 5,396 mg/L Mg Inferred 6.62 Mt Mg @ 6,158 mg/L Mg Total 8.30 Mt Mg @ 6,003 mg/L Mg Exploration Target 1.9 to 8.9 Mt Mg K2SO4 Ore Reserve (JORC/CIM) Probable 2.66 Mt SOP @ 6,373 mg/L K, 14.2 kg/m3 K2SO4

Stage 1 Approval Footprint Only

Pumping

Equipment Diesel/Solar Powered Brine Extraction Pumps and Piping

Stage 1 Extraction Bores 30-40 Bores (refer Figure 5)

Stage 1 Extraction Trenches ~45 km trenches and 8 extraction pump stations (refer Figure 5)

Communications Bore and Pump Station telemetry

Stage 1 Approval Footprint Assumes Beyondie, 10 Mile and Sunshine Only (refer Figure 4)

Evaporation

Evaporation ponds 762 ha located off the lake surface to minimise pond leakage (refer Figure 5)

Pond Seal 1mm HDPE liner

Equipment Trucks, harvesting equipment, pipes, pumps and telemetry

Potassium Recovery 87%

Operating hours 8,760 hours per year

Excess Salt Stockpile Stockpiled on lake and/or sold as a product (refer Figure 5)

Processing SOP Plant Summary Front end loader (FEL) reclaim from raw salt stockpile, crushing, flotation, conversion, crystallisation, compaction, product stockpiling and packaging

Production Level 150ktpa SOP – ability to phase the project with a ramp up of 75 to150ktpa SOP

Potassium Recovery 70-85%

Operating hours 7,200 hours per year, 85% asset utilisation

Product Packaging 1-2 tonne Bulk Bags and/or Container Bulk and/or Bulk Product

Infrastructure General Buildings & workshop facilities to support construction, processing, road haulage, port and maintenance operations

Support Infrastructure Cooling towers, chillers, condensers and steam production

Communications Satellite & microwave data plus mobile data communications

Water Supply 4 supply areas, water bores, pipeline and water treatment plants

Waste Water Treatment (WWT) WWT plant located at village. Septic tanks at all other locations

Operations Accommodation 55 permanent ensuited rooms inclusive of shut down & visitor allowance

Gas Supply 78km connection to Goldfields Gas Pipeline or Gas Bullets supplied by truck

Power Generation Gas or Diesel Installed capacity of 6,780kW

Diesel Storage 4 off 110kl self-bunded tanks



Facility Key Area / Characteristic Details/Comments

Access Road & Product Haulage

Access Road 78km Unsealed road from the sealed Great Northern Hwy. Turn off located near Kumarina Roadhouse (refer Figure 4)

Distance to Distribution Locations (refer Figure 3)

Geraldton 862 km

Port Hedland 700 km

Perth / Fremantle 1,088 km

Fleet Details Triple or quad trailer road trains

Owner Operated road trains

Backhaul contractors returning from Newman to Perth

Port Port Location Geraldton and/or Fremantle (refer Figure 3)

Product Delivery Break Bulk (i.e. 1-2 tonne Bulk Bags) / Container Bulk / Bulk

Storage Single shed at Geraldton Port and/or Perth

Shipping Sea Container, Break Bulk Cargo, Bulk Cargo Facility

Memorandum of Understanding Signed with the Mid-West Port Authority (MWPA)

Operating Personnel

Roster 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off (family friendly)

Airport Newman scheduled domestic flights

Work Force ~100 employees

Climate Rainfall Average annual mean rainfall of 238 mm

Temperature Average annual mean minimum temperature is 15˚C

Average annual mean maximum temperature is 31˚C

Evaporation Average annual evaporation is estimated to be 3,500 to 4,100 mm

Relative humidity 15% to 40%

Winds Predominantly Easterlies

PFS Accuracy Capex Accuracy +/- 25% Class 4 (AACE)

Opex Accuracy +/- 25%

Financial Assumptions and Evaluation Key economic assumptions include an exchange rate of A$1.00/US$0.75 and a SOP price of US$500 per tonne of standard grade SOP, plus a 10% premium for granular SOP. It is envisaged that the BSOPP will produce 50% granular SOP resulting in an average realised SOP price of US$525/t FOB Perth/Geraldton. The assumed base SOP price is considered conservative when compared against the current SOP market price range of between US$480-630/t FOB China/NW Europe/USA (ie excluding freight to Australia) and assumptions used by other potential SOP developers. A summary of the financial evaluation is presented in Table 2. The base case yields a pre-tax NPV of A$388M (or A$248M post-tax NPV), with a pre-tax IRR of 28.7% (post-tax IRR of 22.5%) and pre-tax payback period of 3.7 years (post-tax 4.8 years). Under the phased ramp-up scenario, the pre-tax NPV is A$319M (post-tax A$205M), with a corresponding pre-tax IRR above 25% (20.9% post-tax). The low LOM Operating Cash Cost of A$244-253/t SOP FOB Geraldton or Fremantle Port yields a robust EBITDA margin level of more than 60% and a +$1B life of Mine (LOM) free cash flow for both scenarios, providing protection from any weakness in SOP pricing. A constant rate production scenario of 75ktpa SOP would also have attractive project economics supporting the bankability of the phased ramp-up scenario, whilst reducing initial capital cost requirements to A$124 million. Preliminary investigations into production of magnesium by-products including Epsomite, Magnesium Hydroxide, Bischofite and Hydrated Magnesium Carbonate reveal the potential for significant value uplift to a standalone SOP project. It is recommended that investigations into the addition of magnesium by-product capability be progressed further to a level sufficient for incorporation into the BFS.



Table 2 – Financial Evaluation Summary

Production Scenario Base Case Phased Ramp Up Constant Rate

Description Unit 150 ktpa SOP 75 - 150 ktpa SOP 75 ktpa SOP

Sales Price4 US$/t SOP 500 500 500

Exchange Rate A$:US$ 0.75 0.75 0.75

Assumed Life of Mine5 years 21.0 23.0 40.0

Project NPV10 (Pre-tax, nom)6 A$M 388 319 205

Project NPV10 (Post-tax, nom)7 A$M 248 205 126

IRR (Pre-tax) % 28.7% 25.8% 23.5%

IRR (Post-tax) % 22.5% 20.9% 18.6%

LOM Revenue A$M 2,776 2,892 3,322

LOM OPEX Cash Cost FOB8 A$M/t SOP 244 253 285

LOM OPEX A$M 969 1,024 1,349

Initial CAPEX A$M 220 124 124

LOM CAPEX (incl. Sustaining) A$M 328 341 278

LOM Royalties A$M 75 78 89

LOM Corporate Tax A$M 382 389 431

LOM Free Cash Flow (pre-tax) A$M 1,404 1,450 1,606

Free Cash Flow (pre-tax) A$M p.a. 80 78 45

LOM Free Cash Flow (post tax) A$M 1,022 1,061 1,174

Free Cash Flow (post tax) A$M p.a. 62 60 34

LOM EBITDA A$M 1,721 1,779 1,876

EBITDA (average) A$M p.a. 83 83 47

EBITDA Margin % 62.0% 61.5% 56.5%

CAPEX / EBITDA (average p.a.) x 0.19 0.19 0.14

Payback Period (pre-tax)9 Years 3.7 4.8 4.8

Payback Period (post-tax)10 Years 4.8 6.0 6.0

Expansion Payback (pre-tax)11 Years N/A 2.5 N/A

Expansion Payback (post-tax)12 Years N/A 3.3 N/A

4 US$500/t SOP, with a 10% premium for granular SOP. Granular SOP will comprise 50% of production. 5 The mine plan comprises 57% of Probable Reserve brine, 12% as Indicated Resource brine and 31% as Inferred Mineral Resource brine. No Exploration Target brine has been included in the assumed life of mine or economic evaluation of the project. Refer to the cautionary statement in page 2 of this announcement. 6 NPV as at construction start, Q3 CY2018 7 See Note 6. 8 Cash Cost FOB includes all mining, processing, site administration, product haulage to port and ports costs, but excludes head office corporate costs, sustaining costs and royalties 9 Calculated from First Production date. For the phased expansion, the payback periods shown are for the initial operations only. 10 See Note 9. 11 Calculated from first expanded production date. 12 See Note 11.



Figure 3 – Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project Location – Western Australia



Figure 4 – Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project Location & Tenements

Figure 5 – Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project Stage 1 Approval Footprint



Next Steps Following the completion of PFS, Kalium Lakes’ Board has now endorsed the commencement of the BFS. The BFS program will run in conjunction with the previously approved Pilot Scale Works plus ongoing submissions for the various regulatory approvals required to develop the Project. The key next steps are: • Continue the ongoing pilot pond evaporation program to provide bulk salts for the pilot scale

purification works and confirm operational and scale up parameters

• Undertake bulk salts sample processing at K-UTEC’s facilities in Germany for the purification plant pilot works to confirm recovery and design parameters

• Further Resource and Reserve drilling to meet BFS requirements

• Ongoing test pumping of bores and trenches

• Update the Hydrogeological Numerical Modelling and associated Mine Plan

• Engineering and design activities to allow tendered construction prices to be received

• Project Approval submissions to the relevant authorities commencing in the coming quarter

• Finalisation of the second Native Title Mining Agreement

• Advance product sales discussions with the objective of securing Binding Offtake Agreements

• Undertake detailed investigations of magnesium by-product recoveries to a level sufficient for incorporation into the BFS

• Pilot trial recovery of Hydrated Magnesium Carbonate in parallel to ongoing pilot ponds

• Advance discussions with various lenders and strategic investors, with the objective of securing binding funding proposals prior to FID



Competent Persons Statement The information in this ASX announcement and the accompanying Report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves is based on information compiled by Thomas Schicht, a Competent Person who is a Member of a 'Recognised Professional Organisation' (RPO), the European Federation of Geologists, and a registered "European Geologist" (Registration Number 1077) and Anke Penndorf, a Competent Person who is a Member of a RPO, the European Federation of Geologists, and a registered "European Geologist" (Registration Number 1152). Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf are full-term employees of K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies (K-UTEC). K-UTEC, Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf are not associates or affiliates of Kalium Lakes or any of its affiliates. K-UTEC will receive a fee for the preparation of the Report in accordance with normal professional consulting practices. This fee is not contingent on the conclusions of the Report and K-UTEC, Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf will receive no other benefit for the preparation of the Report. Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf do not have any pecuniary or other interests that could reasonably be regarded as capable of affecting their ability to provide an unbiased opinion in relation to the Beyondie Potash Project. K-UTEC does not have, at the date of the Report, and has not had within the previous years, any shareholding in or other relationship with Kalium Lakes or the Beyondie Potash Project and consequently considers itself to be independent of Kalium Lakes. Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the JORC 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf consent to the inclusion in the Report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears. Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information Statements regarding plans with respect to the Company’s mineral properties may contain forward looking statements. Statements in relation to future matters can only be made where the Company has a reasonable basis for making those statements. This announcement has been prepared in compliance with the current JORC Code 2012 Edition and the current ASX Listing Rules. The Company believes it has a reasonable basis for making the forward-looking statements in this announcement, including any production targets, based on the information contained in this announcement and in particular the JORC 2012 and NI 43-101 Technical Report. All statements, trend analysis and other information contained in this document relative to markets for Kalium Lakes, trends in resources, recoveries, production and anticipated expense levels, as well as other statements about anticipated future events or results constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “seek”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “plan”, “estimate”, “expect” and “intend” and statements that an event or result “may”, “will”, “should”, “could” or “might” occur or be achieved and other similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are subject to business and economic risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results of operations to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on estimates and opinions of management at the date the statements are made. Kalium Lakes does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements even if circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions should change. Investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. *** ENDS***



Corporate Profile (as at 3 October 2017)

Kalium Lakes Limited is an exploration and development company, focused on developing the Beyondie Sulphate Of Potash Project in Western Australia with the aim of producing Sulphate of Potash (SOP) for the domestic and international markets. The Beyondie SOP Project comprises 15 granted exploration licences and a miscellaneous licence covering an area of approximately 2,400 square kilometres. This sub-surface brine deposit will supply an evaporation and processing operation located 160 kilometres south east of Newman. The Company is also a Joint Venture partner with BC Iron Limited (BCI) in the Carnegie Potash Project, a potash exploration project located approximately 220 kilometres north-east of Wiluna. Carnegie comprises one granted exploration licence and two exploration licence applications covering a total area of approximately 1,700 square kilometres. Kalium Lakes Limited ABN: 98 613 656 643 ASX: KLL Ordinary Shares on Issue: 135,030,035 Board of Directors: Company Secretary: Mal Randall Non-Executive Chairman Gareth Widger Brett Hazelden Managing Director Rudolph van Niekerk Executive Director Brendan O’Hara Non-Executive Director Contact Details: Unit 1, 152 Balcatta Road Balcatta, Western Australia 6021 PO Box 610 Balcatta, WA 6914 T: +61 (0)8 9240 3200 E: [email protected] W: www.kaliumlakes.com.au Share Registry: Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd Level 11, 172 St Georges Terrace Perth, WA 6000 Telephone (within Australia): 1300 850 505 Telephone (outside Australia): +61 3 9415 4000


mailto:[email protected]


U7‘c EbSALT TECHNOLOGIES L i50 J73 100 1022..

TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE

BEYONDIE SULPHATE OF POTASH PROJECT, AUSTRALIA

JORC (2012) and NI 43-101 Technical Report

Client: Kalium Lakes Limited

Unit 1, 152 Balcatta Road

Baicatta WA 6021

Contractor: K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies

Am Petersenschacht 7

99706 Sondershausen

Person in Charge: EurGeol Thomas Schicht

EurGeol Anke Penndorf

K-UTEC Project Team (Geology, Resources, Geophysics)

EurGeol Thomas Schicht, Qualified Geophysicist

EurGeol Anke Penndorf, Qualified Geologist

Sondershausen, 29. September2017

1 E‘Dr. Volk r\Asemann Thomas Schicht Anke Penndorf

CEO European Geologist (EurGeol) European Geologist (EurGeol)

THIS DOCUMEN DON IS SURJECT OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION PUBLiCATION REPRODUCT(ON ARD SALE (EVEN (N PARTS) REQUIRE THEAGREEMENT OF THEPUBLISHER SQL Y DUR DRIGINALY S!GNED DOCUMENTS ARE OBLIGING OTHER TRANSCRIPTS OF DUR DOCUMENTS THEN THE OR!G(NAL ONES ARE N ANY TYPE(COPY HLE DR MILAR) ASSISTENT MEANS WHICH ARE NO MORE SUAJECJ OF OUR CONTROLLING AFTER LEAVING OUR RANGE OF DUR RESPQNSIBILITYTHUREFORE. WE CANNOT rARE DR ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR rp rRANSCRIPTS

Beyondie Lakes Potash JORC (2012) and Project NI 43-101 Technical Report - 2017

NI43_101 Technical Report_Final_20170929 2

List of Content

List of Figures 3 List of Tables 4 List of Appendices 4 Abbreviations 5 Short Glossary 6 0 Summary ...................................................................................................... 11

1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 13

2 Reliance on other Experts ........................................................................... 13

3 Location and Property Description ............................................................ 14 3.1 Coordinate System ................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Property Description ............................................................................................... 14 3.3 Permits to Conduct Work ........................................................................................ 15

4 Accessibility, Climate, Physiography, Local Resources & Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Accessibility ............................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Climate ................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Physiography and Vegetation ................................................................................. 20 4.4 Local Resources and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 20

5 History .......................................................................................................... 21

6 Site Setting and Mineralisation ................................................................... 22 6.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Geological Setting .................................................................................................. 24 6.3 Geological Structure ............................................................................................... 28 6.3.1 Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................... 29 6.4 Aquifer Conditions .................................................................................................. 30

7 Deposit Type and Mineralisation ................................................................ 31

8 Exploration ................................................................................................... 32 8.1 Drilling .................................................................................................................... 32 8.2 Augering ................................................................................................................. 35 8.3 Trenching ............................................................................................................... 37 8.4 Aquifer Tests .......................................................................................................... 38 8.5 Sampling ................................................................................................................ 39 8.6 Geophysical Surface Exploration ............................................................................ 39

9 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security ............................................. 42

10 Data Verification .......................................................................................... 42

11 Metallurgical Testing ................................................................................... 43

12 Mineral Resource Estimates ....................................................................... 46 12.1 Resource Estimation Methodology ......................................................................... 47 12.2 Measured Mineral Resource ................................................................................... 53 12.3 Indicated Mineral Resource .................................................................................... 53 12.4 Inferred Mineral Resource ...................................................................................... 53 12.5 Exploration Target .................................................................................................. 53 12.6 Total Brine Volume ................................................................................................. 55

13 Ore Reserve Estimation .............................................................................. 55 13.1 Ore Reserve Methodology ...................................................................................... 56



13.2 Probable Ore Reserve ............................................................................................ 56

14 Mining Methods ........................................................................................... 57

15 Recovery Methods ....................................................................................... 59

16 Project Infrastructure .................................................................................. 62 16.1 Supporting Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 62 16.2 Site Access and Product Haulage........................................................................... 62 16.3 Port ......................................................................................................................... 62

17 Market Studies and Contracts .................................................................... 63

18 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact ..... 63 18.1 Environmental Studies ............................................................................................ 63 18.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 65 18.3 Native Title and Heritage ........................................................................................ 66 18.4 Permitting and Approvals ........................................................................................ 67

19 Capital and Operating Costs ....................................................................... 69 19.1 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................... 69 19.2 Operating Costs ...................................................................................................... 70

20 Economic Analysis ...................................................................................... 71

21 Adjacent Properties ..................................................................................... 74

22 Other Relevant Data and Information ......................................................... 74

23 Interpretation and Conclusions .................................................................. 74

24 Recommendations....................................................................................... 76

25 References ................................................................................................... 78

List of Figures

Figure 1: BSOPP Tenement Outline and Project Footprint [17] ............................................. 15

Figure 2: Project Location [17] ............................................................................................... 16

Figure 3: Australian Continental Evaporation [3] .................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Australian Continental Humidity [3] ......................................................................... 18

Figure 5: Wind Roses from Three Rivers Station (BOM) at 3:00 PM and 9:00 AM [3] ............ 19

Figure 6: Solar Exposure [4] .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 7: Access Track to the Beyondie Site [3] (L52/162) .................................................... 21

Figure 8: Catchment Delineation ........................................................................................... 22

Figure 9: Tectonic Elements of the Capricorn Orogen ........................................................... 25

Figure 10: Beyondie Project Area Tectonic and Orogenic Regions .......................................... 27

Figure 11: Interpreted Bedrock Geology .................................................................................. 27

Figure 12: Extent of Cenozoic Geology ................................................................................... 28

Figure 13: Interpreted Bedrock Geology .................................................................................. 31



Figure 14: Drillhole locations at 10 Mile and Beyondie ............................................................. 34

Figure 15: Drillhole Locations at Lake Sunshine ...................................................................... 34

Figure 16: Hand Held Auger Drilling ........................................................................................ 35

Figure 17: Initial Auger Holes .................................................................................................. 36

Figure 18: Most Recent Auger Holes ....................................................................................... 36

Figure 19: Trench SST02 in construction ................................................................................. 37

Figure 20: Gypsum crystals in a 2m long trench profile at SST01 (left) and 2 to 4 cm sized

gypsum (left) ........................................................................................................... 38

Figure 21: Gravity and Passive Seismic traverses, Western Area ........................................... 40

Figure 22: Gravity traverses, Eastern Area .............................................................................. 41

Figure 23: Integrated bedrock topography ............................................................................... 41

Figure 24: Small Scale Pilot Evaporation Ponds ...................................................................... 43

Figure 25: K-UTEC Facilities in Sondershausen, Germany ..................................................... 44

Figure 26: Brine Concentration Path as a Function of % Mg .................................................... 45

Figure 27: David Butts Brine Concentration Path ..................................................................... 46

Figure 28: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: 10 Mile Surficial Aquifer

(taken from [21]) ..................................................................................................... 49

Figure 29: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment:10 Mile Deep Aquifer (taken

from [21]) ................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 30: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Sunshine Surficial Aquifer

(taken from [21]) ..................................................................................................... 50

Figure 31: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment Sunshine Deep Aquifer

(taken from [21]) ..................................................................................................... 50

Figure 32: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Western Area Indicated

(taken from [21]) ..................................................................................................... 51

Figure 33: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Eastern Area Indicated

(taken from [21]) ..................................................................................................... 51

Figure 34: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Western Area Inferred and

Exploration Target (taken from [21]) ....................................................................... 52

Figure 35: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Eastern Area Inferred and

Exploration Target (taken from [21]) ....................................................................... 52



Figure 36: 150ktpa SOP Mine Plan (PFS Base Case) ............................................................. 58

Figure 37: 75ktpa to 150ktpa SOP Mine Plan (Alternative Case) ............................................. 58

Figure 38: 75ktpa SOP Mine Plan (Alternative Case) .............................................................. 58

Figure 39: Simplified Process Scheme for Comprehensive Utilisation of Beyondie Brine ........ 60

Figure 40: SOP Operating Cost Comparison ........................................................................... 71

Figure 41: Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 73

List of Tables

Table 1: Mineral Resources Summary .................................................................................. 12

Table 2: Ore Reserves Summary ......................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Summary Meteorological Conditions for Three Rivers Station (Latitude: 25.13°S •

Longitude: 119.15°E • Elevation 520 m) reported by BOM [4] ................................. 17

Table 4: Basic catchment parameters ........................................................................................... 23

Table 5: Estimated surface water runoff volume and lake depth for 24 & 48 hour duration flood events

............................................................................................................................... 24

Table 6: Trench Details ................................................................................................................. 37

Table 7: Indicated Mineral Resources .................................................................................. 54

Table 8: Inferred Mineral Resources..................................................................................... 54

Table 9: Exploration Target .................................................................................................. 54

Table 10: Resources Summary .............................................................................................. 55

Table 11: Probable Ore Reserves .......................................................................................... 56

Table 12: Major Equipment List .............................................................................................. 61

Table 13: Survey Program Undertaken to Date ...................................................................... 64

Table 14: List of Approvals ..................................................................................................... 68

Table 15: Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................................... 69

Table 16: Operating Cost Estimates ....................................................................................... 70

Table 17: Financial Summary ................................................................................................. 72

Table 18: Variable Price and Exchange Rate Scenario Analysis (Base Case 150ktpa) .......... 73

List of Appendices



Appendix 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – JORC Table 1 Appendix 2 Drill Hole Assays and Details Appendix 3 Auger Hole Assays and Details Appendix 4 Test Pumping Assays and Details Appendix 5 Test Pumping Results and Summaries

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full description Abbreviation Full description % Percent m2 Square metre °C Degree Celsius m3 Cubic metre Ag Silver Ma Million years Al Aluminium Mg Magnesium As Arsenic MGA94 Map Grid of Australia (1994) asl Above Sea Level MgCl2 Magnesium Chloride Au Gold mg/l Milligrams per litre AUD Australian Dollar, Unit of Australian currency Mn Manganese B Boron Mo Molybdenum Ba Barium Na Sodium Be Beryllium NaCl Sodium Chloride Bi Bismuth Nb Niobium BOM Bureau of Meteorology Ni Nickel Br Bromine NI National Instrument Ca Calcium P Phosphorus CaSO4 Gypsum, Calcium Sulphate Pb Lead Cd Cadmium Pd Palladium Ce Cerium ppb Parts per billion Co Cobalt ppm Parts per million Cr Chromium Pr Praseodymium Cs Caesium Pt Platinum Cu Copper Rd Rubidium CIM Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and

Petroleum Re Rhenium

Cl Chloride S Sulphur Er Erbium Sb Antimony Eu Europium Sn Tin EurGeol European Geologist Si Silicon Fe Iron Sm Samarium Ga Gallium SO4 Sulphate Gd Gadolinium SOP Sulphate of Potash Ge Germanium Sr Strontium Hf Hafnium Sy Specific Yield Hg Mercury t tonnes Ho Holmium Ta Tantalum In Indium Tb Terbium JORC Joint Ore Reserves Committee Te Tellurium K Potassium Th Thorium K2SO4 Potassium Sulphate (or SOP) Ti Titanium KCl Potassium Chloride Tl Tallium kg Kilogram Tm Thulium km Kilometre U Uranium km2 Square kilometre V Vanadium ktpa Kilotonnes per annum W Tungsten La Lanthanum Y Yttrium Li Lithium Yb Ytterbium



Abbreviation Full description Abbreviation Full description LOM Life of Mine Zn Zinc Lu Lutetium Zr Zirconium m Metre

Short Glossary

Term Full description Assessment work The amount of work specified under mining law that must be performed each year

in order to retain legal control of mining and exploration claims.

Competent Person A ‘Competent Person’ is a minerals industry professional who is a Member or Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, or of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, or of a ‘Recognised Professional Organisation’ (RPO), as included in a list available on the JORC and ASX websites. These organisations have enforceable disciplinary processes including the powers to suspend or expel a member. A Competent Person must have a minimum of five years relevant experience in the style of mineralisation or type of deposit under consideration and in the activity which that person is undertaking.

Conceptual Study A Conceptual or Concept Study stands at the very early stage of a greenfield project to identify all possibilities and conditions to develop this project.

CIM CIM Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines - A professional code of practice established by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, which is a guideline for Public Reporting of minerals Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves especially for brines,

Deposit Body of rock or Brine containing a concentration of minerals.

Exploration Target (JORC) An “Exploration Target” is a statement or estimate of the exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a defined geological setting where the statement or estimate, quoted as a range of tonnes and a range of grade (or Quality), relates to mineralisation for which there has been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource.

Feasibility Study (JORC / CIM) A Feasibility Study is a comprehensive technical and economic study of the selected development option for a mineral project that includes appropriately detailed assessments of applicable Modifying Factors together with any other relevant operational factors and detailed financial analysis that are necessary to demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that extraction is reasonably justified (economically mineable). The results of the study may reasonably serve as the basis for a final decision by a proponent or financial institution to proceed with, or finance, the development of the project.

High grade Rich concentration of the mineral in the deposit.

Indicated Resource (CIM) An Indicated Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics can be estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Indicated Resource (JORC) An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or quality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes and is sufficient to assume geological and grade (or quality) continuity between points of observation where data and samples are gathered. An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Ore Reserve.

Inferred Resource (CIM) An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological



Term Full description evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

Inferred Resource (JORC) An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade (or quality) are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade (or quality) continuity. It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to an Ore Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration.

JORC Code (2012) A professional code of practice established by the Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee. That sets minimum standards for Public Reporting of minerals Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves.

Measured Resource (CIM) That part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit.

Measured Resource (JORC) A ‘Measured Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade (or quality), densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the application of Modifying Factors to support detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. Geological evidence is derived from detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade (or quality) continuity between points of observation where data and samples are gathered. A Measured Mineral Resource has a higher level of confidence than that applying to either an Indicated Mineral Resource or an Inferred Mineral Resource. It may be converted to a Proved Ore Reserve or under certain circumstances, to a Probable Ore Reserve.

Mineral Reserve (CIM) A Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a Measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted and is defined by studies at Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility level as appropriate that include application of Modifying Factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified. The reference point at which Mineral Reserves are defined, usually the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant, must be stated. It is important that, in all situations where the reference point is different, such as for a saleable product, a clarifying statement is included to ensure that the reader is fully informed as to what is being reported. The public disclosure of a Mineral Reserve must be demonstrated by a Pre-Feasibility Study or Feasibility Study.

Mineral Resource (JORC) A ‘Mineral Resource’ is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade (or quality), continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling. Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories.

Modifying Factors ‘Modifying Factors’ are considerations used to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. These include, but are not restricted to, mining, processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors.

National Instrument 43-101 Canadian rule that governs how issuers disclose scientific and technical information about mineral projects to the public.



Term Full description Ore Reserve (JORC) An ‘Ore Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured and/or

Indicated Mineral Resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted and is defined by studies at Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility level as appropriate that include application of Modifying Factors. Such studies demonstrate that, at the time of reporting, extraction could reasonably be justified. The reference point at which Reserves are defined, usually the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant, must be stated. It is important that, in all situations where the reference point is different, such as for a saleable product, a clarifying statement is included to ensure that the reader is fully informed as to what is being reported.

Potash Potassium bearing mineral salt deposits; here as brine.

Pre-Feasibility Study (JORC / CIM)

A Pre-Feasibility Study is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method is established and an effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on reasonable assumptions on the Modifying Factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors which are sufficient for a Qualified Person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the Mineral Resource may be converted to a Mineral Reserve at the time of reporting.

Probable Reserve (JORC) A ‘Probable Ore Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of an Indicated, and in some circumstances, a Measured Mineral Resource. The confidence in the Modifying Factors applying to a Probable Ore Reserve is lower than that applying to a Proved Ore Reserve.

Proved Reserve (JORC) A ‘Proved Ore Reserve’ is the economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource. A Proved Ore Reserve implies a high degree of confidence in the Modifying Factors.

Proven Reserve (CIM) The economically mineable part of a Measured Mineral Resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is justified.

I[— (_iiI 1 EC Beyondie Lakes Potash JORC (2012) and Project NI 43-101 Technica Report -2017

SALT TECHNOLOGIES

Compliance Statement

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral

Resources or Ore Reserves is based an information compiled by Thomas Schicht, a Competent

Person who is a Member of a ‘Recognised Professional Organisation‘ (RPO), the European

Federation of Geologists and a registered “European Geologist“ (Registration Number 1077) and

Anke Penndorf, a Competent Person who is a Member of a RPO, the European Federation of

Geologists, and a registered “European Geologist“ (Registration Number 1152).

Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf are full-term employees of K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies

(K-UTEC).

K-UTEC, Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf are not associates or affiliates of KLL or any of its

affihiates. K-UTEC received a fee for the preparation of the Report in accordance with normal

professional consulting practices. This fee is not contingent an the conclusions of the Report and

K-UTEC, Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf will receive na other benefit for the preparation of

the Report. Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf da not have any pecuniary or other interests that

could reasonably be regarded as capable of affecting their ability to provide an unbiased opinion in

relation to the Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project (BSOPP).

K-UTEC does not have, at the date of the Report, and has not had within the previous years, any

shareholding in or other relationship with KLL or the BSOPP and consequently considers itself to

be independent of KLL.

Thomas Schicht and Anke Penndorf have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of

mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to

qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the JORC ‘Australasian Code for

Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves‘. Thomas Schicht and

Anke Penndorf consent to the inclusion in the Report of the matters based an their Information in

the form and context in which it appears.

Sondershausen, 29.09.2017

Thomas Schicht Anke PenndorfEuropean Geolog ist (EurGeol) European Geologist (EurGeol)

Nl431 01 Techncal Report Final 20 170929 10



0 Summary

Kalium Lakes Limited (Kalium Lakes or KLL) is a public company listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX) with ~ 2,400 km2 of granted tenements at the eastern margin of the East Pilbara

region of Western Australia. KLL is looking to develop a sub-surface brine deposit to produce 150

ktpa of Sulphate of Potash (K2SO4 or SOP) product via evaporation and processing of brine extracted

from aquifers within the Beyondie, 10 Mile and Sunshine tenement holdings, which form part of the

Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project (BSOPP).

KLL entered into an agreement with K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies to prepare a Technical Report

according to the guidelines of the JORC Code 2012 [1] with reference to the CIM Best Practice

Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines [2].

The description of the regional geology, local geology and hydrogeology was determined in KLL’s

Concept Study [3] and Pre-Feasibility Study [17] and specified by study reports of Advisian [21].

The BSOPP deposit is a brine, containing the target potassium and sulphate ions required to form a

potassium sulphate salt. The brine is contained within saturated sediments in at least two separate

horizons below the lake surface and in sediments adjacent to the lake. The lakes are located within

the broader IIgarari palaeochannel system that extends over hundreds of kilometres.

The alluvial sediments in the upper aquifer host the first brine horizon. The second brine horizon is

connected to the lower aquifer within the sediments at the base of the palaeochannel, the basal

sands. There is a possibility that discrete clay lenses are present, which can separate this aquifer

into several sections, but generally it can be treated as more or less a uniform and contiguous

aquifer.

Drilling test pumping and augering programs including sampling of brine and soil material,

geophysical fieldwork, laboratory analysis and pumping tests have occurred at the project area.

Based on data from the fieldwork and laboratory analyses, an assessment of the Mineral Resource

and Ore Reserve has been undertaken. The Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves for SOP are

stated below (see Table 1 and Table 2). The Indicated Resources are inclusive of those Mineral

Resources modified to produce the Probable Reserve.



Table 1: Mineral Resources Summary

Level Drainable Brine Volume (106 m3)

K Grade (mg/l)

K (106 tonnes)

SO4 (106 tonnes)

SOP (106 tonnes)

Indicated Mineral Resource

311.88 6,278 1.96 5.56 4.37

Inferred Mineral Resource

1,074.48 5,735 6.16 18.37 13.74

Mineral Exploration

Target

934 – 1,894 1,803 – 4,277 1.68 – 8.09 5.10 – 22.26 3.74 – 18.05

Table 2: Ore Reserves Summary

Level Drainable Brine Volume (106 m3)

K Grade (mg/l)

K (106 tonnes)

SO4 (106 tonnes)

SOP (106 tonnes)

Probable Ore Reserve

187.06 6,373 1.19 3.34 2.66

At the publication date of this Technical Report, a number of exploration programs have been carried

out. The exploration results reveal variations in chemical composition of the brine at different well

depths as well as lateral variations. The results of the chemical analysis of the brine, the long lasting

constant rate pumping tests, grain size analysis, borehole tests, and geophysical investigations,

have led to values for Indicated and Inferred Resource classification and values for Probable

Reserve Classification. Furthermore, values for an additional exploration target have been

extrapolated from the existing data and knowledge of the lake system within the underlying

palaeochannel. As exploration work continues, the database as well as the classification of the

resources and size of the resource may be increased.

The two possible mining methods, bores and trenching, will allow abstraction of the sub-surface

brine. K-UTEC has developed a recovery method unique to the Beyondie brine, which allows a

production route for SOP. Based on the composition of the deposit brine, the present conceptual

process flow sheet considers recovery of SOP as the primary product, with the potential to produce

the following by-products: Magnesium Carbonate, Epsomite, Magnesium Hydroxide, Bischofite and

Calcium Chloride.



1 Introduction

Kalium Lakes Limited (Kalium Lakes or KLL) is a public company, listed on the Australian Stock

Exchange (ASX), with ~ 2,400 km2 of granted tenements at the eastern margin of the East Pilbara

region of Western Australia. KLL is looking to develop a sub-surface brine deposit to produce 150

ktpa of Sulphate of Potash (SOP) product via evaporation and processing within the Beyondie,

10 Mile and Sunshine tenement holdings, comprising part of the tenements Beyondie Sulphate of

Potash Project (BSOPP).

KLL entered into an agreement with K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies to prepare a Technical Report

according to the accepted JORC Code 2012 [1] with reference to the CIM Best Practice Guidelines

for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines [2].

The purpose of the report is to provide KLL with a Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimate that

complies with the guidelines of NI 43-101 and JORC (2012). The scope of the report covers the

activities undertaken at the BSOPP area, the results and review of the results by the Qualified

Persons/Competent Persons.

The sources of information and data in this report are varied, and can be found in Section 25:

References.

The K-UTEC Competent Persons visited the exploration area in August 2015 and June 2017 [13],

[20] and could inspect: The deposit (overview from helicopter and several stops at some of the lakes),

current drilling sites, geophysical fieldwork, core storage, trial solar evaporation ponds, several

boreholes, the drilling contractors, a helicopter drill rig and the auger drilling team. The K-UTEC

competent persons were also able to meet and engage with KLL’s Perth-based consulting

hydrogeologists Advisian, part of the Worley Parsons Group.

2 Reliance on other Experts

In preparing this report, the authors have had to rely on reports not prepared under their supervision.

These reports will be hereinafter identified as being third-party reports. This report includes the

contents of the:

• KLL Concept Study (April 2015 [3]), a study compiled by KLL and its consultants

• KLL Pre-Feasibility Study (September 2017 [17]), a study completed by KLL and its

consultants

• Various reports by Advisian [21]. Advisian is part of the Worley Parsons Group and has

extensive experience with water supply projects in hypersaline palaeochannels in Western

Australia and as such meets the Competent Person Requirements for the assessment of a

brine resource.



• DRA Global [27] report on the BSOPP supporting infrastructure. DRA Global is a leader in

delivering process plant design, infrastructure and engineering projects

K-UTEC have been independently engaged to provide specialist knowledge on the development of

potash brine deposits around the world, specifically the Competent Person role related to brine

processing.

During the PFS phase of the project, K-UTEC provided guidance on the fieldwork and data

acquisition related to the geology, hydrogeology, geophysics, chemical analysis and processing. The

K-UTEC experts have sufficient experience in the exploration of potash and resource estimation for

potash deposits as required by the CIM Standards and the JORC Code 2012 [1].

3 Location and Property Description

The BSOPP is located in Western Australia, east of the Great Northern Highway and extending into

the Little Sandy Desert, and covers approximately 2,400 km2 of granted tenements. Proposed brine

extraction and processing areas are located within the Little Sandy Desert catchment, which flows

in an easterly direction towards inland lakes. There is no flow path to the ocean and as such it is a

contained system.

3.1 Coordinate System

The grid system used is the MGA94, Zone 51 coordinate system. All coordinates for tenement areas,

boreholes, auger holes and geophysical traverses were given in this system. All overview maps and

thematic maps, which have been generated by KLL, KLL consultants or K-UTEC, used this

coordinate system. For reference, the Eastern Beyondie Lake is located at 227,000 E, 7,260,000 N.

3.2 Property Description

Kalium Lakes has been granted the following Exploration Licences: E69/3306, E69/3309, E69/3339,

E69/3340, E69/3341¸ E69/3342, E69/3343, E69/3344, E69/3345, E69/3346, E69/3347, E69/3348,

E69/3349, E69/3351 and E69/3352. Additionally, KLL has been granted the Exploration Licence

E38/2995 for the Carnegie East tenement. KLL has also been granted Miscellaneous Licence

L52/162 for various activities including the Beyondie site access road from the Great Northern

Highway, as well as access for gas pipeline, telecommunications and water supply infrastructure.

Figure 1 shows the general location of the KLL exploration tenements and the tenement boundaries

of the BSOPP.



Figure 1: BSOPP Tenement Outline and Project Footprint [17]

3.3 Permits to Conduct Work

KLL the following permits and approvals:

• Several granted Programmes of Work (POW) from the Department of Mines and Petroleum

permitting KLL to undertake exploration activities on the granted tenements.

• A number of 26D well construction licences from the Department of Water (DoW) that

permit KLL to construct the current production bores on tenements E69/3309, E69/3347,

E69/3351 and E69/3346 since June 2015, with a current 26D licence on E69/3346 and

E69/3351 valid until November 2017.

• A 5C Licence from the DoW to take up to 1.5GL of water on tenements E69/3309 and

E69/3347 from 25 August 2016 until 22 August 2026.

• Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) Works Approvals to construct and operate

a large-scale pilot pond facility for solar salt production of up to 25 ktpa.



4 Accessibility, Climate, Physiography, Local Resources & Infrastructure

4.1 Accessibility

The BSOPP site is located 160 km south, southeast of the iron ore producing town of Newman and

200 km north of the base metals and gold mining areas of Wiluna (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Project Location [17] Existing nearby infrastructure for site access, transit of personnel and product delivery includes the

Great Northern Highway (GNH), Goldfields Gas Pipeline (GGP) and the Newman Airport.



The BSOPP is about 78 km east of the GNH and requires an upgrade of the existing access road

that will connect the site with the GNH near the Kumarina Roadhouse. The upgrade will fall under

the granted miscellaneous licence L52/162.

The BSOPP site access road follows a western alignment from the mine site over mostly flat country

which contains good road base material, until it intersects with the GNH. Only minor non-perennial

water courses need to be crossed by the access road.

4.2 Climate

The BSOPP area falls within the arid desert climate zone. The regional climate is characterised by

hot summers and warm to cold winters with low annual rainfall. Most of the strongly seasonal rainfall

occurs in the period between December and June. A large percentage of the annual total

precipitation occurs over short periods, associated with thunderstorm activity and cyclonic lows.

The closest weather station to the project area is at Three Rivers, approximately 127 km east-

southeast of the site. Table 3 outlines the meteorological conditions for Three Rivers as reported by

the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM, [4]).

The maximum daily temperature (average) at the mine site rises to 39°C in January; the minimum

average temperature is measured at 5°C with extremes to -5°C during June. Mean annual rainfall

is 238 mm.

Table 3: Summary Meteorological Conditions for Three Rivers Station (Latitude: 25.13°S • Longitude: 119.15°E • Elevation 520 m) reported by BOM [4]

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean max temp (°C) 39.3 36.8 35.4 30.3 25.3 21.1 21.0 23.4 27.8 31.9 35.2 38.0 30.5

Mean min temp (°C) 24.1 22.9 20.6 15.7 10.1 6.6 4.8 6.6 9.7 14.0 18.1 22.0 14.6

Mean rainfall (mm) 34.9 43.5 36.1 21.2 22.8 23.5 11.4 7.3 2.1 5.7 10.0 18.7 238.4

Mean monthly evaporation

(mm) 547 473 430 304 186 144 15

7 203 271 397 451 537 4,100.0

Detailed regional meteorological data is currently being collected at the project site with a weather

station, established in February 2015.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the Australian Continental Evaporation and Humidity maps with the

location of the BSOPP. These figures illustrate the BSOPP is located in an area expected to

experience some of the lowest humidity and highest evaporation rates in the country.



Figure 3: Australian Continental Evaporation [3]

Figure 4: Australian Continental Humidity [3]

BSOPP

BSOPP



The wind data from Three Rivers Station shows a predominately eastern direction (see Figure 5 [3]).

Figure 5: Wind Roses from Three Rivers Station (BOM) at 3:00 PM and 9:00 AM [3]



The annual solar exposure for the period of one year from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2017

was between 20 and 22 MJ/m2 as shown in Figure 6. Due to the climate, the operations will be

continuous with solar evaporation occurring all year and the process plant operating full time apart

from allowance for maintenance.

Figure 6: Solar Exposure [4]

4.3 Physiography and Vegetation

The landscape around the BSOPP is dominated by extensive sand dunes and flat plains. Several

salt lakes lie within a palaeochannel system which is bordered by hills (bedrock). The altitude above

sea level ranges between approximately 475 m (Lake Aerodrome) and 560 m (bedrock area north

of Beyondie East Lake). The vegetation in the working area is characterised by scant plant cover

and small bushes. The lakes are mostly free of vegetation, except at borders or on islands.

4.4 Local Resources and Infrastructure

The BSOPP is not inhabited. It is located 78 km to the east of the Great Northern Highway and is

currently accessible via an existing access track (see Figure 7 [3]), with the turnoff located near the

Kumarina Roadhouse.

BSOPP



Figure 7: Access Track to the Beyondie Site [3] (L52/162)

The BSOPP will concentrate supporting infrastructure mainly at the evaporation and processing area

(project area) and will include offices, ancillary buildings, maintenance facilities, accommodation,

diesel fuel, water, power, communications and Information Technology (IT) systems. Infrastructure

will be progressively built and expanded throughout the phased development of the BSOPP.

Fuel for power generation can be sourced from diesel supplied by road train, gas supplied from

within 78 km via a gas spur from the GGP located next to the GNH or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

supplied by road train.

Accommodation facilities will be required to house people inclusive of shutdown rooms at the project

area. When in operation the site will be operated by a Fly-In Fly-Out (FIFO) workforce with most

employees likely to be based in Perth and Geraldton. This is common with mining projects in Western

Australia.

It is planned to construct onsite administration buildings, a maintenance workshop and a product

warehouse. In addition to this, a certified contractor or certified staff will operate an onsite laboratory.

Communications will be supplied for pilot scale works via satellite and then through a microwave

connection originating near the Kumarina Roadhouse and extending 78 km to the project area along

the alignment of the access road (L52/162). Mobile phone and communications towers will be

installed as required for the initial development and expanded as necessary.

5 History

There has been no previous exploration on the tenements comprising the BSOPP. Prior ownerships

of the property and ownership changes are unknown.



6 Site Setting and Mineralisation

6.1 Hydrology

The project area comprises numerous ephemeral salt lakes that have individual catchments that sit

in the upper reaches of a much greater catchment, which in the geological past used to be linked by

a large palaeo-drainage system.

The lakes in the present landscape are a function of the low rainfall and high evaporation the region

is currently subject to. Beyondie, 10 Mile and Sunshine lakes are the western most catchment lakes

in a chain that stretches for some 220 km west to east. The catchments of the lakes within the Pre-

Feasibility Study area are presented in Figure 8.

Surface water is present on the lakes for periods of time following heavy rainfall events; the locations

of the lakes within the catchment, their size and catchment run off characteristics determine the

individual lake surface water regime. It is important to understand these characteristics of the lakes

so the magnitude of events impacting on these lakes can be quantified in response to annual and

infrequent rainfall events.

Figure 8: Catchment Delineation



A summary of the basic catchment parameters of Beyondie, 10 Mile and Sunshine lakes is presented

in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Basic catchment parameters

Characteristic Description

Description Ephemeral lake Dry salt lakes, extensive sand dunes

and flat plains

Hydrological zone North West / Arid interior

Estimated lake surface area (storage)

26 km2

155 km2

200 km2

Beyondie

10 Mile

Sunshine

Combined catchment areas from surrounding creek runoff

1,520 km2

1,650 km2

775 km2

Beyondie

10 Mile

Sunshine

Total surface runoff catchment area

1,560 km2

1,835 km2

975 km2

Beyondie and 10 Mile are likely to

become one larger catchment during

larger flood events due to overtopping

nature of Beyondie Lakes into 10 Mile

and connection via palaeochannel.

A simplistic method of multiplying a general estimated runoff coefficient (RC = 0.40) to the total

surface runoff catchment area (AT) and the design rainfall depth (DAEP(t)) following evaporation

losses was adopted to estimate the potential volume of water discharged into Beyondie, 10 Mile

and Sunshine Lakes.

𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 = 𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝑇𝑇 × 𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴(𝑡𝑡)



The volume and depth estimation results for 24 hour and 48 hour durations are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated surface water runoff volume and lake depth for 24 & 48 hour duration flood events

Estimated Surface Water Runoff Volume (x106 m3)*

Duration Beyondie 10 Mile Sunshine

24 hour 7.4 25.7 11.8

Depth^ 285mm 165 mm 60 mm

48 hour 8.6 29.9 13.8

Depth^ 330mm 190 mm 70 mm

*based on the most probable annual occurrence rate of 63% ^Depth after evaporation and catchment losses

6.2 Geological Setting

The Project area is located within the Collier, Salvation, Scorpion, and NW Officer Basins (Figure 9

and Figure 10), which post-date the main regional tectonic event, the Capricorn Orogeny. The

Capricorn Orogeny marks the convergence and collision of the Archaean Pilbara and Yilgarn

Cratons, and was responsible for widespread granite magmatism, deformation and metamorphism.

The Marymia Dome, located to the southwest of the project, is the only feature associated with this

event in the project area.

The Marymia Dome (aged >2660 Ma) is located on the northeast fringe of the Yilgarn Craton and

comprises Archaean greenstone belts intruded by granites, and notably monzogranitic rocks.

Monzogranites are characterised as potassium rich and composed mostly of quartz and potassium

feldspar (alkali-feldspar); their proximity to the BSOPP area, along with other granitic inliers, makes

them a suspected source of the potassium enrichment in the region’s sub-surface brine deposits.



Figure 9: Tectonic Elements of the Capricorn Orogen Note: Craton abbreviations as follows: PC – Pilbara Craton, WAC – West Australian Craton, KC – Kimberley Craton, NAC – South Australian Craton, YC – Yilgarn Craton. Extracted from GSWA, Johnson, 2013. “Birth of Supercontinents and the Proterozoic Assembly of WA..”

Intra-cratonic basin sediments including the Scorpion, Collier, and Salvation Basins developed

during a period of relative stability following the Capricorn Orogeny, and were filled with sediments

comprising the Bangemall Sub-group and Tooloo Group rocks (Figure 11). These sedimentary

sequences were subsequently subject to low grade metamorphism, faulting and folding by the

Edmundian Orogeny (c. 1030 – 955 Ma) (Figure 10).

Deposited after this event, and representing the youngest basement units within the BSOPP, were

units of the NW Officer Basin, the Sunbeam Group (c. 1000 – 720 Ma).

Mafic intrusions, belonging to the Warakurna Large Igneous Province, c.1078 – 1070 Ma, (Wingate,

et al. 2004), outcrop sporadically across the BSOPP area (Figure 10 and Figure 11), and contribute

to a growing stratigraphic complexity. Identified as dolerites, they are interpreted as being members

of the Kulkatharra Dolerite suite in the western Salvation Basin area, while in the east, they are

identified as the Prenti Dolerite.

While most of the current BSOPP basement stratigraphy is greater than c. 700 Ma, the majority of

the geology hosting the brine deposit is of Cenozoic age (C. <0.66 Ma), leaving a vast period of

weathering and erosion of the Pre-Cambrian surface to derive the palaeo-geomorphology.



One of the key events to impact upon the palaeo-landscape was the Late Carboniferous – Early

Permian glaciation. The period stripped the ancient topography through glacial advance, depositing

glacial sediments hundreds of kilometres north and west of the Project region. The residual “scoured”

landscape following glacial retreat produced during those Palaeozoic times is the palaeo-drainage

network. This network has been subject to sedimentation comprising palaeovalley fill of Cenozoic

sediments which is the primary host for aquifers containing hypersaline brines. Three phases of

Cenozoic sedimentation that make up the palaeovalley sequence are recognised within the project

area include:

1. Palaeochannel sand – mid to upper Eocene aged

2. Lacustrine clay – late Oligocene to mid Miocene aged

3. Mixed alluvial and colluvium – Pliocene aged

Derived from palynological aged dating methods, the palaeovalley sedimentary sequence described

above is remarkably uniform across the Australian continent (J. Magee 2009 [8]). The basal

palaeochannel unit is dominated by high energy fluvial sands which formed in braided river

depositional environments under wet climatic conditions, typically located in the deepest parts of the

palaeovalley. Unconformably overlying the basal sands horizon, are the fine grained, low energy

lacustrine clay horizons interpreted as forming within valley lakes and wetlands. More discrete fluvial

fine sand sequences are present within the lower clay deposits, associated with lower energy palaeo-

stream and channel depositional environments during the drying climate. Finally, the upper alluvial

and colluvial sequence is derived from tectonic adjustments. It is varied in nature, and texturally

further modified by ferricrete and silcrete weathering and regolith processes.

All three sediment sequences have been intersected in drilling across the BSOPP, and as described

by Magee [8], occur with remarkable regularity. The extent of Cenozoic sediments within the project

area is presented in Figure 12.



Figure 10: Beyondie Project Area Tectonic and Orogenic Regions

Figure 11: Interpreted Bedrock Geology



Figure 12: Extent of Cenozoic Geology

6.3 Geological Structure

Two key regional structural events, the Edmundian Orogeny and the Blake Movement, are

identified as having major impact upon basement rocks of the BSOPP. A third event, the Capricorn

Orogeny which pre-dates the deposition of basement Bangemall sediments, impacted to some

extent on the oldest sediments in the Region, the Tooloo Group units; deposited apparently coeval

with the deformation event.

The Edmundian Orogeny was responsible for metamorphism and deformation of sedimentary

successions of the Scorpion, Collier and Salvation Basins; though metamorphic grade was

considered very low. Fold and fault structures generally trend east-west to northwest-southeast,

(Cutten et al, 2011).

The Blake Movement produced faulting and folding called the Blake Fault and Fold Belt

(Figure 10). The fault and fold belt is typified by approximately parallel northeast-trending fold axes,

and numerous north-northeast to east-northeast trending faults that present a range of normal,

steep reverse and strike slip movements (Figure 10). Folds are broad and open with shallow to

moderate dips. Overall, fold axes have a shallow plunge to the northeast. Local steepening of

bedding is apparent adjacent to faulting (Williams, 1992).

The Blake Fault and Fold Belt is a brittle fracture domain. Shear and breccia zones appear

confined to mainly the marginal fault systems. Most faults in the belt have sharp contacts, often

with well-formed slickensides. Terminal Fault, which transects Beyondie Lakes and lies adjacent to



10 Mile Lake (Figures 3, 4 & 5) has slickensides indicating sinistral strike slip movement. Kelly

Fault, which marks the eastern boundary of the Blake Fault and Fold Belt, and separates the

tectonic units of the Blake Sub-basin and Salvation Basin, is a major strike slip fault. The SW

margin of the Blake Sub-basin, which marks the unconformable contact between Glass Spring

Formation sandstones (Salvation Basin), and Backdoor Formation (Collier Basin) shales and

siltstones is punctuated by numerous northeast-trending steep dipping faults which have apparent

multiple major offsets; some are strike slip faults, though the unconformity offset may be attributed

in part to erosion of normal and reverse faults (Williams, 1992). Major faults are labelled on

Figure 11.

6.3.1 Hydrogeology

Two regional aquifer units have been identified within the Cenozoic sediments, the palaeochannel

sand aquifer of Eocene age that is located at the base of the palaeo-drainage system, and the

shallow surficial aquifer comprising Pliocene and Quaternary evaporites, calcrete and silt. These

aquifers are considered to be hydrogeologically separated from one another by a thick sequence of

stiff lacustrine clays that form an aquitard.

The regional bedrock is considered to be on the whole of low aquifer potential; however regional

structural features described above enhance aquifer transmissivity as linear features due to

extensional faulting and fracturing.

Groundwater within the surficial aquifer is generally between 0.2 m and 11 m below ground level,

with depth to the ground water table determined by location within the catchment and local

topographic changes. Groundwater flow within the surficial aquifer is generally driven by rainfall and

creek flow recharge to the aquifer system. The groundwater flow direction generally follows the

surface topography, with recharge and groundwater mounding dominant in the ephemeral creek

systems and discharge via evaporation occurring in the playa lakes through evaporation.

Groundwater within the palaeochannel sand aquifer is confined in nature and has a piezometric head

that is independent to groundwater flow in the surficial groundwater table. Piezometric head is a

pressure response of regional scale that flows at a very low gradient (0.00008) from southwest to

northeast across the 10 Mile and Sunshine Lake areas. The piezometric head is generally between

0.1 m and 0.5 m below the elevation of the water table near the centre of the palaeochannel. This

head difference becomes up to 1 m lower at the margins of the palaeovalley. These differences

indicate a degree of vertical downward drainage through the profile and potential mode of recharge

from the surficial aquifer to the palaeochannel sand aquifer, this maybe directly through the clay

zones or, more likely, at the margins of the palaeovalley through weathered and fractured bedrock.

More regional, distal recharge occurs up-hydraulic gradient of the palaeo-drainage systems where

the clays thin and meteoric water can enter the system, at the head-waters of the catchment.



Where bedrock aquifers are encountered below lacustrine clays the groundwater system is confined

in nature. However, where bedrock is exposed outside of the palaeovalley groundwater is unconfined

and would flow according to local groundwater table flow patterns.

6.4 Aquifer Conditions

The surficial aquifer conditions have been demonstrated on lake by construction and test pumping

of trenches dug in the surface of the playa lakes, and off lake via drilling. The construction of the

trenches on lake has indicated a highly layered sequence of silts and evaporites (gypsum) displaying

high transmissivity associated with secondary porosity within evaporite zones and lower

transmissivity in more silty porous flow dominated zones.

When trenches were pumped steady state was achieved in monitoring pits located at varying

distances away from the pumping trench after between 5 days and 20 days of pumping. A typical

unconfined aquifer response with no boundary conditions was evident during test pumping of all

trenches indicating a laterally extensive aquifer.

Off lake the surficial aquifer generally comprises of low transmissivity silt and soft clay unless calcrete

is encountered. Calcrete is characterised by secondary porosity with very high transmissivity, but

low storage.

The palaeochannel sand aquifer is a confined porous system, laterally bounded by the edges of the

palaeochannel system and the poddy nature of the sand sequences. The aquifer can be

characterised as behaving as a strip aquifer system where multiple “no-flow” (or reduced hydraulic

conductivity) boundaries are evident in pumping data.

Across the project, silcrete is encountered within the sand sequence; silcrete has a secondary

porosity which locally increases transmissivity and can enhance bore yields.

The confined nature of the aquifer means that pumped water abstracted during practical long-term

aquifer testing will originate from confined storage, a pressure response to pumping. Specific yield

will not be obtained from test pumping, therefore estimates of specific yield was determined from

laboratory testing and empirical equations derived from grain size analysis.

Magee (2009) presents pumping records of the Roe Palaeochannel located near Kalgoorlie. These

records indicate that longer term pumping yields are typically between 3 L/s and 11 L/s from the

palaeochannel sand aquifer, but decrease as drawdown hits aquifer boundaries and unconfined

conditions became prominent. The 10 years of pumping data presented in Magee (2009) has shown

that pumping water levels can stabilise once the piezometric head has reached the base of the

lacustrine clay and leakage becomes dominant in the aquifer system. The Roe Palaeochannel and

other Goldfields palaeochannel systems are considered to be of a similar age and depositional

environment as the Beyondie Palaeochannel.



Medium term pumping rates during the depletion of confined storage stage of production will be

calibrated to the test pumping data. However, longer term production rates require six to twelve

months’ worth of pumping data to determine the rate of leakage that influence longer term pumping

rates. Numerical modelling will be utilised to determine the rate of leakage and longer term

sustainable pumping rates of production bores based on known aquifer geometry and clay

properties.

The conceptual understanding of the system is presented in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13: Interpreted Bedrock Geology

7 Deposit Type and Mineralisation

The BSOPP deposit is a brine, containing the target potassium and sulphate ions required to form a

potassium sulphate salt. The brine is contained within saturated sediments in at least four separate

horizons below the lake surface.

The lake bed alluvial sediments form the upper surficial aquifer and host the first brine horizon. The

second brine horizon is hydraulically connected to the upper aquifer and comprises the lacustrine

clay. The basal sand of the palaeochannel and the fractured bedrock form the third and fourth brine

horizons and are considered to be hydraulically disconnected from the shallow aquifer.

Exploration for potassium and sulphate rich brines has concentrated on the more permeable

horizons of the upper surficial aquifer and the basal sand of the palaeochannel. The lacustrine clays

are considered to be of low permeability and will not yield brine at economic flow rates, however they

may contribute to leakage under long term pumping conditions.



8 Exploration

In August 2015, the Competent Persons of K-UTEC visited the Beyondie Lakes area. During this

visit, K-UTEC staff could observe mud rotary drilling at bore WB 11_TB and could inspect the

geophysical traversing being undertaken. The site visit report by K-UTEC staff for the 2015

exploration is included at reference [13].

In June 2017, the Competent Persons of K-UTEC visited the Beyondie Lakes area again. During

this visit K-UTEC staff could inspect the current drilling sites, trenches and production bores as well

as the trial evaporation ponds near the camp site. Meetings with KLL’s consultants Advisian and

Western Geophysics were held to discuss the progress of the recent exploration and the

interpretation of current data. The 2017 site visit report by K-UTEC staff is included at reference [20].

Recent Exploration has involved a complex data collection programme being undertaken, covering

augering, geophysics, drilling, water and soil sampling and aquifer testing. It comprised the following

[16], [20]:

• 9 boreholes (diamond core) to collect representative geological samples;

• 67 reverse circulation (RC) and aircore exploration holes;

• Augering at 400 locations across all the lakes up to depths of between 1.5 and 2m, to collect

information on the lake surface geology to collect of groundwater samples;

• 1,130 km of geophysical traverses between Ten Mile Lake and White Lake;

• Installation of 51 monitoring boreholes;

• Installation of 11 test production boreholes using mud rotary techniques;

• Grain size analysis of 61 sand samples from 12 boreholes, 2 clay samples from 2 boreholes

and 49 lake bed alluvium samples from 18 different lakes;

• 13 mini aquifer tests (1 hr pumping / 1 hr recovery);

• 10 constant rate / recovery aquifer pumping tests; and

• Laboratory analysis of water samples collected from augering (427), drilling (107) and during

the aquifer testing and bore development (147).

8.1 Drilling

During 2015 nine HQ (60mm diameter) diamond core holes were drilled, to obtain core samples for

laboratory analysis.

Brine samples were collected during the diamond drilling, by pumping from within the casing. Each

brine sample was collected after pumping had removed all possible drilling mud from the hole. With

casing installed to the base of the hole, the sample collected was expected to be representative of

the aquifer at the base of the hole, although flow down the outside of the casing from shallow aquifers

cannot be discounted. It is possible that mixed waters from multiple aquifer zones were collected

and analysed.



The 2015 drilling included a number of different methods, such as air percussion (to install surface

casing), rotary mud drilling (with tricone and/or blade bit), as well as blade/tricone bit drilling with

brine as drilling fluid; all with 165 mm diameter bits. In September 2015, it was decided to use the

diamond core drilling method and a casing advancer for further exploration drilling. Where casing

was installed, brine samples were collected during the pump testing programme. Where basal sands

were encountered, the diamond holes were reamed out to 300 mm and 200 mm gravel packed

casing was installed. This technique was employed on bores WB09, WB10, WB11, and WB12.

During the 2017 field program a further 22 RC and aircore drilled holes were completed at 10 Mile

and 25 at Lake Sunshine to explore the palaeovalley aquifer targets, obtain lithological and brine

samples and install monitoring bores. Twenty-eight monitoring bores were installed within

exploration holes at 10 Mile lake and 22 monitoring bores were installed within exploration holes at

Lake Sunshine. A number of the exploration holes had dual monitoring bores installed to monitor

shallow and deep aquifer units.

All geological samples collected during all forms of drilling have been qualitatively logged at 1 m

intervals to gain an understanding of the variability in the aquifer materials hosting the brine. During

rotary mud and brine fluid drilling, samples were collected, washed and stored in chip trays for future

reference. A geological core description with detailed documentation (drill log, soil profile) has been

prepared for each borehole and is stored within the geological database.

There are no drilling, sampling or recovery factors noted to date that could materially impact the

accuracy and reliability of the results. Drill data are included in Appendix 1.

All drillhole locations are presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15.



Figure 14: Drillhole locations at 10 Mile and Beyondie

Figure 15: Drillhole Locations at Lake Sunshine



8.2 Augering

An auger hole drilling program was completed in 2015 and a follow up program was completed in

2017. Auger hole depths in the 2015 program were up to 1.5 m depth on an approximate 1 km

sample grid on all lake surfaces. The 2017 program resampled approximately 10% of the 2015

sample locations to obtain brine samples and lithological samples for laboratory testing; this program

was drilled to 2 m depth. The auger holes were installed using a motorized, hand held auger. After

the hole was allowed to fill with brine (generally within 5 minutes), samples were collected. When

the sediment had settled in the bottle, a clean sample was decanted to a 250 ml bottle, which was

then kept cool until delivery to the laboratory for analysis.

Figure 16: Hand Held Auger Drilling

The potassium concentrations for all auger-hole samples obtained to date are shown in Appendix 2,

and the locations are presented in Figure 17 and Figure 18.



Figure 17: Initial Auger Holes

Figure 18: Most Recent Auger Holes



8.3 Trenching

Trial trenches have been used to investigate the lithology of the top 5 m of lake sediments and test

the ability of these sediments to supply brine. Six trial trenches were completed: three at 10 Mile and

three at Sunshine. The details of these trenches are provided in Table 6. Figure 19 shows the

trenches being excavated.

Table 6: Trench Details

Trench ID Easting Northing Width (m) Depth (m) Length (m)

TMT01 230586 7258398 1.5 2 500

TMT02 231362 7258232 1.5 2 300

TMT06 233130 7254077 1.5 2 80

SSTENE 257359 7271673 1.2 5 44

SSTESE 254765 7270417 4 5 42

SSTNE 260729 7276167 4 5 12

Shallow 2 m deep trenches were constructed at 10 Mile using a small traditionally tracked excavator,

whilst 5m deep trenches were constructed at Sunshine with the use of a 12 tonne amphibious

excavator. The deeper trenches had slopes at approximate 1 in 2 angles to maintain wall stability.

Water level monitoring pits were dug with the excavator at a number of locations between 5 m and

50 m from the trench to facilitate monitoring of the test pumping.

Figure 19: Trench SST02 in construction

Trenching provided an opportunity to log the bulk geology of the top 5 m of the lake sediments in

profile instead of relying on point samples from drill holes. The layered nature of the sediments was

evident with lithological zone evident related to different flooding events and subsequent evaporite

deposits. Notable brine inflows were evident in the trench walls where coarse gypsum crystals were

present as shown in Figure 20.



Figure 20: Gypsum crystals in a 2m long trench profile at SST01 (left) and 2 to 4 cm sized gypsum (left)

8.4 Aquifer Tests

In December 2015, several pumping tests were conducted [16] in test production bores to obtain

information on aquifer parameters such as permeability and specific yield. In 2017 longer duration

constant rate tests were carried out at seven test production bores and six trial trenches. The

durations of these longer tests ranged from three to twenty days.

Other small-scale aquifer tests that have been undertaken include Mini constant rate tests (1 hr

pumping / 1 hr recovery) and slug testing was performed at cased bores.

The palaeochannel test pumping results have concluded the basal sand is extensive and performs

as a confined strip aquifer with leakage. Leakage was observed in bore SSPB19 as a flattening of

the drawdown curve during later pumping time’s shows. Aquifer properties from the palaeochannel

bores have been remarkably consistent, with permeability ranging from 2.1 m/d to 3.4 m/d and

confined storage from 0.0002 to 0.0008. These results are typical of regional palaeochannel aquifers.

Surficial aquifer trial trench pumping produced reasonably consistent results. The aquifer performed

as unconfined and unbounded under the pumping durations completed, with steady state conditions

achieved in monitoring pits surrounding the trenches. Aquifer properties were surprisingly high, with

permeability ranging from 7.5 m/d to 24 m/d and Sy ranging from 11% to 25%. These test results

indicated the flow into the trenches is dominated by gypsum zones, but these zones are generally

found throughout the lake sediments. The trenches have performed better than expected and will

contribute a large proportion of the abstract-able resources. Aquifer testing results are presented in

Appendix 5.

Water samples during test pumping were collected, when possible, at generally daily intervals of

1/day, to assess changes in brine chemistry under pumping conditions. The test pumping brine

chemistry for all longer-term test pumping’s is plotted in Appendix 5. The sampling during test



pumping has produced some fluctuating results in bores TMPB23 and SSPB15, and in trenches

TMT02 and SSTENE. However, a general rising average trend was generally observed in most tests.

8.5 Sampling

All drill holes were sampled for lithology and where possible brine quality during drilling. Lithological

samples of aquifer zones in the surficial aquifer and palaeochannel sand aquifer were obtained from

drill samples and selected for laboratory testing. Brine samples were obtained during air drilling from

the cyclone during extended airlift testing at 6 m intervals. These samples are interpreted to be

indicative of the depth at which the airlift is taking place from, though some contamination from the

surficial aquifer cannot be ruled out. Samples obtained from test pumping are considered to be the

most representative of the target aquifers, where the aquifer zone is cased and sealed with bentonite

to stop any inter-bore flow.

Auger samples are considered representative of the upper surficial aquifer at each of the lake

surfaces, and all samples were taken up to a maximum depth of 1.5 m for the 2015 holes and up to

2 m below surface level in the 2017 sampling. A sufficient quantity and density of auger samples

was obtained. Wherever possible, auger samples were typically taken at 1 km grid spacing.

Average drill hole spacing in the Beyondie, 10 Mile and Lake Sunshine areas has been closed to the

following:

• Beyondie and 10 Mile Surficial Sediments = 880 m

• Beyondie and 10 Mile Palaeochannel and Bedrock = 750 m

• Sunshine Surficial Sediments = 1200 m

• Sunshine Palaeochannel and Bedrock = 1600 m

8.6 Geophysical Surface Exploration

Geophysical gravity and passive H/V seismic measurements were undertaken during 2015 and

2017; 1,130 line km of traverse was completed from solid bedrock on one side of the palaeovalley

to solid bedrock on the other side. The location of the gravity and passive seismic traverses are

shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22. These measurements provide information about the location and

extension of the palaeovalley and the location of the deepest sections where the palaeochannel is

expected to be located.

With gravity and passive H/V seismic measurements it is not possible to measure an absolute depth

of the palaeochannel, though this was not the intended task. These methods can give an indication

to the deepest part of the palaeovalley (minimum) as well as the highest point of the surrounding

bedrock (maximum). The results were used to plan the exploration drill hole locations to encounter

brine within the basal sands of the palaeochannel.



Following drilling, the gravity and passive H/V seismic data has been integrated and calibrated to

the drilling results which have been used to map the basement surface topography. Figure 13 shows

where the interpreted the palaeochannel is located by integrating the calibrated geophysical data.

Resistivity/conductivity surveys have also been completed using the NanoTEM system to resolve

some ambiguity in the gravity data at a number of key locations.

The calibrated integrated geophysical methods used have enabled a more robust geophysical model

to be constructed which has used two independent methods to locate and map the palaeochannel

aquifer.

Figure 21: Gravity and Passive Seismic traverses, Western Area



Figure 22: Gravity traverses, Eastern Area

Figure 23: Integrated bedrock topography



9 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

Brine samples collected from drilling or from augering were hand delivered by KLL personnel back

to Perth, then handed over to Bureau-Veritas Minerals (BV) for analysis of various parameters. All

brine samples collected were kept cool (<20 ºC), until delivery to the laboratory in Perth. Sample pH

was measured in the field. Soil samples (sands) were sent to Soil Water Group Laboratories for grain

size analysis.

Elemental analyses of brine samples have been performed by a reputable laboratory, BV at Canning

Vale. The relationship between KLL and BV is strictly concerned with chemical analysis of samples

and cost estimates for an on-site laboratory. Bureau-Veritas is certified to the Quality Management

Systems standard ISO 9001. Additionally, it has internal standards and procedures for the regular

calibration of equipment and quality control methods. The laboratory equipment is calibrated with

standard solutions.

Duplicate samples (~10 %) were assayed at ALS’ Laboratory in Malaga during the 2015

investigations. ALS are certified to ISO 17025, the standard for testing and calibration in laboratories.

The relationship between KLL and ALS is strictly for the analysis of duplicate samples for the

BSOPP. Following the 2015 laboratory analysis it was determined that BV provided the most

conservative results and was used for the 2017 laboratory testing.

Analyses of the brine samples were undertaken using Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission

Spectrometry (ICP-OES), Ion Selective Electrode (ISE), and Inductive Coupled Plasma Mass

Spectroscopy (ICP-MS). All samples were analysed for Ca, K, Mg, Na, SO4, and Cl. Selected

samples were analysed for a suite of 62 elements: Au, Ag ,As ,Ba, Be, Bi, Br, Cd, Ce, Co, Cs, Cu,

Dy, Er, Eu, Ga, Gd, Ge, Hf, Hg, Ho, In, La, Li, Lu, Mo, Nb, Ni, Pb, Pd, Pr, Pt, Rd, Re, Sb, Sc, Se,

Sm, Sn, Sr, Ta, Tb, Te, Th, Tl, Tm, U, W, Y, Yb, Zn, Zr, Al, B, Ca, Cr, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P, S, Si,

Ti, V.

The sample preparation and security (no mixed samples, origin of each sample is transparent) as

well as analytical procedures are aligned with international standards to ensure reliable results.

10 Data Verification

As outlined above, duplicate samples (~10 %) from the augering program were assayed at ALS’

Laboratory in Malaga in order to verify the assay results performed by BV. ALS is certified to ISO

17025, the standard for testing and calibration in laboratories.

The results showed a good correlation amongst major ions (less than 10 %) at both laboratories

except for Sulphur (BV’s values on average about 21 % lower; see [16]). Upon review of this

discrepancy, BV conducted an internal check and found no reason to suggest the Sulphur assay

was incorrect. BV analysed Sulphur by ICP-OES, then converted to SO4 by molecular weight



calculation (this method assumes all S exists as SO4, which may be incorrect). ALS used the method

APHA 4500 to analyse the SO4.

For resource assessment, the lower sulphate results were considered as the worst-case scenario.

The data is judged to be adequate for all calculations made for resource estimates in the following

Chapter 12. With further exploration and sample analysis the chemical results will be refined. For a

Feasibility Study variabilities of less than 10 % should be achieved, or a third independent laboratory

should be consulted. Without this the results can only be used for stating an Inferred Resource

classification.

Laboratory repeat assays were completed at BV on approximately 10% of the samples submitted.

The relative percent difference of all assays indicates an average error of less than 5%.

11 Metallurgical Testing

To date, four discrete phases of metallurgical test work have been undertaken.

1. During the Concept Study, KLL engaged Australian consultants CQG to assist with conducting

bench-scale evaporation testing.

2. A small pilot scale evaporation trial was conducted during 2015 with 26,000 litres of brine to

determine seasonal effects on evaporation rates, provide a concentrated brine sample for raw

salt preparation and purification test work in Germany, as well as confirm the brine’s ability to

evaporate to dryness (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Small Scale Pilot Evaporation Ponds

3. KLL engaged K-UTEC () to carry out test work and engineering studies to verify the evaporation

pond and purification process design requirements to produce potential saleable products

including Sulphate of Potash (SOP), Epsomite, Bischofite and Magnesium Hydroxide. A two



cubic metre sample of partially evaporated brine at a density of 1.28 g/cm3 was sent to K-UTEC’s

facilities in Sondershausen, Germany, in order to perform a higher level of pilot evaporation and

processing including:

• Solar Evaporation of Beyondie Brine in a custom built evaporation chamber;

• Pre-Treatment of raw KTMSalt in order to separate NaCl and MgCl2;

• Decomposition of raw KTMSalt to primary Schoenite;

• Cooling crystallization of secondary Schoenite from the SOP mother liquor;

• Conversion of Schoenite to SOP;

• Cooling crystallization of Epsomite from the bittern;

• Crystallization of Bischofite by further evaporation of the bittern.

Figure 25: K-UTEC Facilities in Sondershausen, Germany

The recent K-UTEC solar evaporation test works were performed over a period of 6 months.

Mineralogical investigation took place concurrently with chemical analysis of brines and harvested

salts. Test results essentially confirm K-UTEC’s assumptions, in particular for the solar evaporation

and processing of the Beyondie brine:

• Evaporation was completed at a specific gravity of approx. 1.350 g/cm³;



• Confirmation of the expected evaporation path and sequence of the crystallized salts;

• Confirmation of the evaporation rates;

• Confirmation of pre-treatment, decomposition, crystallisation and conversion to SOP.

4. KLL also carried out in- house evaporation tests of the brine to understand its evaporation

behaviour and determine critical points at which potassium and waste products are formed.

These tests were performed in accordance with a procedure supplied by Solar Pond

Consultant DSB International (DSB). DSB is a renowned world expert in the field of solar

evaporation pond systems. During the tests, a sample of brine was placed inside a small

container in the laboratory and exposed to alternating day and night temperature variations as

expected on site. Brine was periodically sampled and analysed for the major ions, (Mg, Na, K,

SO4 and Cl). Once the container was half-full, brine was transferred into another, smaller

container. This was repeated until all the brine evaporated. The concentration path of ions as a

function of magnesium was then determined from the tests and is shown in Figure 26 below.

Figure 26: Brine Concentration Path as a Function of % Mg

DSB’s considerable (50+ years) experience was again tapped, and after analysing all the results,

provided their interpretation of the concentration path the brine is most likely to follow; this is depicted

in Figure 27. The curve was fit to an equation and is used in KLL’s solar pond modelling. DSB also

provided a generic solar pond sizing model, which was further refined and updated by Kalium Lakes

with support from DRA to achieve the PFS outcomes.



Figure 27: David Butts Brine Concentration Path

12 Mineral Resource Estimates

The assessment will be limited to Inferred and Indicated Resource categories and will not include

Measured Resources due to the transient nature of a Brine orebody and drill spacing. An

assessment of the Ore Reserves is required for a PFS level of assessment. Numerical

hydrogeological modelling will be used to convert a portion of the BSOPP’s Indicated Resources

into a Probable Reserve. The Inferred Resources are the base level of Resource category and

cannot be converted to Mineral Reserves. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred

Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Resources with further exploration work.

Resource categories are linked to the types of data obtained, drill hole density and certainty; these

are listed below by category.

Indicated Resources have been calculated for areas where:

• Drilling and testing has confirmed local site geology and aquifer geometry;

• Aquifer hydraulic properties (hydraulic conductivity and specific yield) have been estimated;

and

• A number of brine samples have been collected from a selection of locations to confirm

brine concentrations.

Percent M g0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Perce

nt of

ion sh

own

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0Preliminary Adjusted Brine Concentration Curves

Chloride

Sulfate

Sodium

Potassium

DSB Apr.2016

Eutec

tic

haliteonly

haliteepsomiteLeonitelower grade

haliteepsomiteKainite

haliteepsomitekainitehigh grade

halitehexahyditecarnallitehigh grade

no salts



Inferred Resources have been calculated, based on a lesser amount of data and confidence,

where:

• Geological evidence exists to imply but not verify the existence of brine grade and aquifer

geometry;

• Proven geophysical techniques have been used to infer palaeochannel aquifers away from

the main drilling investigation areas;

• Surface sampling and testing has determined brine grade at shallow depths which has

been inferred to reasonably persist to deeper aquifers as per the existing conceptual

models; and

• Aquifer properties can be inferred from tests undertaken in other contiguous areas of the

same palaeovalley system.

Exploration Targets have been calculated where:

• No brine-chemistry data exists of any kind to confirm the brine quality, but some aquifer

continuity with known brine resources may be expected based on geophysics (for example

along the palaeochannel reaches between lakes);

• Shallow-augering has provided evidence of high potassium concentrations which may be

expected to occur throughout the sequence (based on potassium distribution with depth

observed elsewhere), but there is no drilling or geophysical data available to provide any

geological context to the brine occurrence, or infer what the sequence at depth may be.

Due to the considerable distances involved between defined brine deposit zones at the BSOPP,

Resources have been split into three separate areas: 10 Mile and Beyondie, Sunshine and

Regional Lakes. The aerial extents of these different Resource categories are presented in Figure

28, Figure 30, Figure 32, and Figure 33. Resources have been determined for the four dominant

aquifer types within the project area:

• Lake surface sediments;

• Palaeovalley clay;

• Palaeochannel sand; and

• Fractured and weathered bedrock.

12.1 Resource Estimation Methodology

• Potassium concentrations were selected from surveyed bore and trench locations for the

surficial aquifer and deep aquifers (palaeochannel and bedrock) from the project database.

• The points were separated by geographic area (10 Mile and Beyondie and Sunshine) and

gridded using an ordinary kriging point method utilising all data at 150m grid spacing with



no drift or search parameters. The grids were extended 1km in each direction to allow

sufficient coverage. Variograms are presented in Appendix 5.

• A cut-off grade of 3,500 mg/L (for potassium) was applied to the gridded data and all values

below this concentration were blanked from the data and excluded from the resource

estimate.

• Resource Zones for Indicated and Inferred categories were derived using the defined

aquifer geometry from drilling results and geophysical extrapolation.

• Spatially averaged potassium concentrations were extracted from the gridded data as a

mean from each of the Resource Zones.

• The resource thickness was calculated from the mean of drilled intercepts; three-

dimensional block modelling was not considered due to the large drill spacing.

• Specific yield was calculated for the surficial sediments using a weighted average of the

trench test-pumping analysis results. For the palaeovalley clay and palaeochannel sand the

geometric mean of the laboratory data was used. For the regional lakes, the minimum

recorded value determined from test pumping at 10 Mile and Sunshine has been adopted.

• SOP grade from potassium concentrations was calculated using a conversion of 2.23,

accounting for the atomic weight of sulphate (sulphur and oxygen) in the K2SO4 formula.

• The volumetric weighted average of SOP grade per Resource Zone was calculated where

multiple zones are present (i.e. upper sand and basal sand zones have been merged into a

Palaeochannel sand by volumetric weighted average to determine SOP grade).

• Resource tonnages were calculated by multiplying the volume of the Resource Zone by the

Sy, and SOP grade to obtain the drainable SOP volume.

The brine volumes listed below cover each of the individual categories, so the total volume would be

the summation of volumes calculated for each level of resource certainty listed below. Figure 32

shows the areas chosen for resource assessment.



Figure 28: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: 10 Mile Surficial Aquifer

(taken from [21])

Figure 29: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment:10 Mile Deep Aquifer (taken

from [21])



Figure 30: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Sunshine Surficial Aquifer

(taken from [21])

Figure 31: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment Sunshine Deep Aquifer

(taken from [21])



Figure 32: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Western Area Indicated

(taken from [21])

Figure 33: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Eastern Area Indicated

(taken from [21])



Figure 34: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Western Area Inferred and

Exploration Target (taken from [21])

Figure 35: Location of Areas Delineated for Resource Assessment: Eastern Area Inferred and

Exploration Target (taken from [21])



12.2 Measured Mineral Resource

No Measured Resources have been estimated.

12.3 Indicated Mineral Resource

Based on the criteria listed above, the brine Indicated Resource is provided in the following

Table 7.

12.4 Inferred Mineral Resource

Based on the criteria listed above, the brine Inferred Resource is provided in the following Table 8.

No Indicated Resource is part of the Inferred Resource

12.5 Exploration Target

Based on the criteria listed above the Exploration Target is provided as a range, below in Table 9.

The KLL BSOPP Exploration Target is based on a number of assumptions and limitations and is

conceptual in nature. It is not an indication of a Mineral Resource Estimate in accordance with the

JORC Code and it is uncertain if future exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral

Resource.



Table 7: Indicated Mineral Resources

Aquifer Type Coverage (km2)

Volume (106 m3)

Total Porosity (%)

Brine Volume (106 m3) Sy (-) Drainable Brine

Volume (106 m3) K (mg/L) K Mass (Mt) SO4 (mg/L) SO4 Mass

(Mt) Mg (mg/L) Mg Mass (mg/L)

SOP Grade (kg/m3)

K2SO4 Mass (Mt)

Lake Surface Sediments 288 1,066 0.46 492 0.14 150.59 6,685 1.01 18,710 2.82 5,617 0.85 14.91 2.24

Palaeovalley Clay 105 3,901 0.50 1,951 0.03 117.03 5,753 0.67 16,156 1.89 4,908 0.57 12.83 1.50

Palaeochannel Sand 19 146 0.39 57 0.27 38.64 6,004 0.23 18,453 0.71 5,745 0.22 13.39 0.52 Fractured/ Weathered Bedrock

7 113 0.10 11 0.05 5.63 8,200 0.05 25,070 0.14 7,230 0.04 18.29 0.10

Total Resources 5,225 1,558 311.88 6,278 1.96 17,834 5.56 5,396 1.68 14.00 4.37

Table 8: Inferred Mineral Resources

Aquifer Type Coverage (km2) Volume (106 m3) Total Porosity

(%) Brine Volume

(106 m3) Sy (-) Drainable Brine Volume (106 m3) K (mg/L) K Mass

(Mt) SO4 (mg/L) SO4 Mass (Mt) Mg (mg/L) Mg Mass

(mg/L) SOP Grade

(kg/m3) K2SO4 Mass

(Mt)

Lake Surface Sediments 260 1,559 0.45 701 0.12 182.43 6,344 1.16 18,646 3.40 6,834 1.25 14.15 2.58

Palaeovalley Clay 665 23,275 0.50 11,638 0.03 698.25 5,730 4.00 17,108 11.95 6,194 4.32 12.78 8.92

Palaeochannel Sand 97.2 682 0.39 266 0.28 188.95 5,101 0.96 15,304 2.89 5,342 1.01 11.38 2.15 Fractured/ Weathered Bedrock

9.7 97 0.10 10 0.05 4.85 8,170 0.04 26,410 0.13 7,310 0.04 18.22 0.09

Total Resources

25,612 12,615 1,074.48 5,735 6.16 17,094 18.37 6,158 6.62 12.79 13.74

Table 9: Exploration Target

Geological Layer

Maximum Thickness

(m) Coverage

(km2) Sediment Volume (106 m3)

Porosity (P)

Total Stored Brine

(106 m3) Specific Yield

(Sy) Drainable

Brine (106 m3)

K Grade (mg/L)

K Mass (Mt)

SO4 Grade (mg/L)

SO4 Mass (Mt) Mg (mg/L) Mg Mass

(mg/L) KsSO4

(Mt)

Alluvium 6 157 942 0.4 377 0.10 94 2,000 0.19 6,080 0.57 2,320 0.22 0.42

Clays 20 1,148 22,960 0.45 10,332 0.03 689 1,800 1.24 5,472 3.77 2,088 1.44 2.76

Basal Sands 7 108 756 0.35 265 0.20 151 1,650 0.25 5,016 0.76 1,914 0.29 0.56

Total 10,973 934 1,803 1.68 5,482 5.10 2,092 1.95 3.74

Alluvium 12 157 1,884 0.5 942 0.18 170 4,500 0.76 12,375 2.00 4,950 0.84 1.70

Clays 50 1148 57,400 0.55 31,570 0.05 1,579 4,275 6.75 11,756 18.56 4,703 7.42 15.05

Basal Sands 10 108 1,080 0.45 486 0.30 146 4,000 0.58 11,000 1.60 4,400 0.64 1.30

Total 32,998 1,894 4,277 8.09 11,763 22.26 4,705 8.90 18.05



12.6 Total Brine Volume

For comparative purposes, the following Table 10 has been provided to compare the above Indicated

and Inferred Resources, as well as the Exploration Target which have all been based on Drainable

Brine Volumes, against other Australian Listed Companies’ Mineral Resources which have been

quoting Resources based on Total Brine Volume. As can be seen the Total Brine Volume is

significantly higher than reporting against the CIM Guidelines of Drainable Brine. For production, the

drainable brine component is the most important volume because not all the total brine can be

extracted.

Table 10: Resources Summary

Level Total Brine Volume (106 m3)

K* (106 tonne)

SO4* (106 tonne)

Mg* (106 tonne)

SOP* (106 tonne)

Total In-Situ volume associated with the Indicated Mineral

Resource

2,511 15.76 44.78 13.55 35.15

Total In-Situ volume associated with the

Inferred Mineral Resource

12,615 72.34 215.63 77.68 161.32

Total In-Situ Volume associated with the Exploration Target*

10,973 – 32,998 19.79 – 141.14 60.15 – 388.15 22.95 – 155.26 44.13 – 314.75

* Tonnage for K, SO4, Mg and SOP was calculated from the average grades of K, SO4 and SOP and the Total Brine Volume for each resource.

13 Ore Reserve Estimation

The conversion of Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves has been limited to the Probable Reserve

category. The volume of convertible resources has been determined by detailed numerical

groundwater flow modelling. Modelling has been completed to the Australian Groundwater Modelling

Guidelines (Barnett et al. 2012) using an industry standard finite element modelling package. Two

separate models have been developed, one for 10 Mile and Beyondie, and one for Lake Sunshine.

The detailed modelling report [22] describes the construction, calibration and operation of the model

to reporting guidelines.

The Competent Persons have examined information provided by KLL that constitutes a Pre-

Feasibility Study as defined by Clause 39 of the JORC Code and satisfies the requirements of

Clauses 29 and 30 of the JORC Code. The Competent Persons are satisfied that the Modifying

Factors have been adequately addressed in this Study.



13.1 Ore Reserve Methodology

The modelling process and Mineral Reserve estimate have been completed as follows:

• Development of a conceptual model of the site and surrounding region using the latest

available datasets of geology and hydrogeology to form a basis for understanding of the

regional groundwater hydrodynamics;

• Construction of a numerical groundwater model as a finite element model based on

available data such as the selection of aquifer extent, stratigraphy, structure, tops and

bottoms of formation(s), initial aquifer parameters and boundary conditions;

• Calibration of the groundwater model to steady state and transient conditions (test pumping

data from trenches and bores) using an iterative process of manual adjustments and

automated calibration to reduce statistical residual error between observed data and

simulated data;

• Sensitivity analysis to “compare model outputs with different sets of reasonable parameter

estimates, both during the period of calibration (the past) and during predictions (in the

future)” (Barnett et al., 2012, p.57);

• Predictive modelling of the resource recovery by adding production bores within the

palaeochannel aquifer and extending trenches over the lake surface and simulating

pumping rates over the proposed life of mine (21 years);

• Analysis of predictive model flow paths to production bores and trenches using particle

traces in the model to determine the origin of the water flowing to the abstraction points;

• Determine Mineral Reserve grade over the simulation time from particle flow paths;

• Estimate the Mineral Reserve volume from the sum of the abstraction multiplied by the

average grade over the simulation period that correlates with the financial model.

13.2 Probable Ore Reserve

Based on the methodology outlined above the Probable Reserve estimate is detailed in Table 11.

Table 11: Probable Ore Reserves

Aquifer Type Brine

Volume (106 m3)

K (mg/L)

K Mass (Mt)

SO4 (mg/L)

SO4 Mass (Mt)

Mg (mg/L)

Mg Mass (mg/L)

SOP Grade

(kg/m3)

K2SO4 Mass (Mt)

Lake Surface Sediments 138.44 6,793 0.94 19,020 2.63 5,774 0.80 15.15 2.10

Production Bores 48.61 5,179 0.25 14,501 0.70 4,402 0.21 11.55 0.56

Total Reserve 187.06 6,373 1.19 17,845 3.34 5,417 1.01 14.21 2.66



The Probable Ore Reserves do not include 0.7Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources from the regional

lake sediments and 1.56Mt of indicated Mineral Resources from 10 Mile and Sunshine combined

indicated resources.

Reserve assumptions:

• All abstraction from trenches and bores was considered in the Reserve;

• Recharge to the surficial aquifer was managed by simulating infiltration of a 24 hr flooding

event after evaporation effects as presented in Table 5. This was applied annually to the lake

surface within the model and accounts for an average of 11% of the trench flows at 10 Mile

and 18% of the trench flows at Sunshine. Recharge became a greater component as

drawdown increased;

• Particle tracks indicate that up to 20% of trench flows from year 10 onwards originate on lake

but off tenement at 10 Mile;

• The Reserve estimate is an average of the annual transient conditions over the period of

simulation. Brine grades and yields typically drop off over time.

14 Mining Methods

There are two principal methods applicable to extract the brine:

• Pumping from production bores in the basal sands (lower aquifer) plus leakage from brine

bearing segments within the palaeovalley clay and fractured/ weathered bedrock;

• Pumping from trenches inside the alluvial sediments (upper aquifer) in trenches up to 8 m

depth.

It is likely that both methods will be used because of the properties of the different aquifers. The

design of the bore field and trenches will be based on the brine demand and aquifer conditions.

A mine plan has been developed to plan the sequence of bore and trench operations that will be

utilised over the mine life. This includes the Reserve, Indicated Resources outside of the Reserve

and Inferred Resources. The mine plan brings in all the Stage 2 resources to assess the mine life

scenarios. The deposit life at each lake area has been based on the modelled out puts from 10 Mile

and Sunshine and the percent of reserves and resources determined on an annual basis, along with

annual production rate and grade.



Three scenarios have been developed:

• 150,000 ktpa SOP (mine life of ~29 years at the production rate);

• 75,000 – 150,000 ktpa SOP (5 years production of 75,000 ktpa followed by ~29 years at

150,000 ktpa); and

• 75,000 ktpa SOP (mine life of ~70 years at the production rate

Figure 36: 150ktpa SOP Mine Plan (PFS Base Case)

Figure 37: 75ktpa to 150ktpa SOP Mine Plan (Alternative Case)

Figure 38: 75ktpa SOP Mine Plan (Alternative Case)



15 Recovery Methods

The general mineral processing concept is comprised of the following areas:

• Brine winning;

• Brine concentration and crystallization of solid raw materials for the processing plant;

• Processing plant; and

• Utilities.

According to the composition of the deposit brine the present process design considers the recovery

of SOP as the principle product, with the potential for producing the following by-products: Epsomite,

Magnesium Hydroxide, Bischofite, and Hydrated Magnesium Carbonate (HMC).

The process begins with brine entering the evaporation ponds whereby water is removed by solar

evaporation. This causes gypsum, halite and astrakainite to crystallise sequentially in the first two

sets of ponds. Unless determined economical to process, the calcium and sodium salts are left within

the ponds, to be harvested once full. The remaining brine crystallises producing a Kainite Type Mixed

Salt (KTMS) comprising leonitic, schoenitic and carnallitic mixed salts in the next set of ponds. These

salts are harvested and stored separately prior to mixing, pre-crushing and transferral to the SOP

plant. The resultant bittern from the solar evaporation process may be transferred to a magnesium

treatment plant.

The SOP plant converts the mixed salt into schoenite and halite through mixing with water and

internal recycling of the brines. The resultant slurry is processed through reverse flotation to remove

the halite, the resultant schoenite salts are decomposed into SOP. The halite is discarded to tailings

unless otherwise economical to recover.

The bitterns from the solar evaporation process contain a high magnesium sulphate content,

meaning it may be economical to process into epsomite for sale. This is performed through cooling

crystallisation of the slurry to produce epsomite. Left behind is a solution high in magnesium chloride.

This solution undergoes an evaporation step to remove carnallitic mixed salt (returned to the SOP

plant), and then undergoes de-sulphatisation by means of calcium chloride solution. This produces

gypsum, which is discharged as tailings, leaving behind a concentrated brine of magnesium chloride.

This stream is then split, magnesium hydroxide is precipitated from the solution by the addition of

quicklime (CaO) and bischofite is produced from simple evaporation concentration. There is also

potential to recover a magnesium carbonate product via addition of sodium carbonate and sodium

hydroxide to the waste bitterns.

K-UTEC’s simplified flowsheets are shown in Figure 16. K-UTEC AG Salt Technologies have also

provided typical layouts, block flow diagrams (BFD) and process flow diagrams (PFD) along with the

detailed crystalliser and processing report [18].



Figure 39: Simplified Process Scheme for Comprehensive Utilisation of Beyondie Brine



The major equipment used in the processing facility is summarised in Table 12.

Table 12: Major Equipment List

Area Process Description Main Equipment

120 Solar Evaporation Solar ponds, feed brine storage pond, bitterns storage ponds, harvesters

130 Salt Storage and Pre-Crushing Feeder breaker, separators, impact mill, screen, raw salt loader

210 Schoenite Conversion Schoenite reactors, thickener, hydrocyclone

220 Halite Separation Wet screen, hammer mill, floatation cells, belt filters

230 SOP Mother Liquor Cooling and Schoenite Crystallization

Cooling crystallizers, steam ejectors, stirred tanks, agitators, slurry pumps, solution pumps, hydrocyclones, pusher centrifuges, mixing condensers, vacuum pumps

240 Crystallization of Raw SOP

SOP reactor, slurry pumps, solution pumps, heat exchanger, belt conveyors, condensate and overflow vessel, hydrocyclones, centrifuges

250 Refining and Compaction of SOP

Hot Leaching reactor, slurry pumps, heat exchangers, belt filter, belt conveyors, condensate, overflow and filtrate vessels, complete six-stage flash cooling plant, thickener, hydrocyclones, centrifuges, drier, air fans, dust filter, screw conveyor

260 Storage and Packing of SOP

Bucket elevators, belt conveyors, screw conveyors, shovel loader, crusher, silos, star feeder, telescope tubes, product shed, truck balance, packing unit with silo, scale, filling device, big bag feeding and removing equipment

310 Removal of Magnesium Sulphate by Cooling Crystallization

Cooling crystallization reactors connected with heat exchangers and circulation pumps, hydrocyclone, centrifuge, filter press

320 Upgrading of MgCl2 Brine by Evaporation

Evaporators, tube bundle heat exchanger, circulation pumps, mixing condenser, auxiliary condenser, plate heat exchanger, steam ejector, vacuum pump, cooling vessel connected with heat exchanger and circulation pump, filter press

330 Desulphatisation Desulphatisation reactor, Filter press, pumps

410 Mg(OH)2 Precipitation Ca(OH)2 reactor, retention time reactor, precipitation reactors, sieve, pumps

420 Washing of Raw Mg(OH)2

Mg(OH)2 rotary drum filters (equipped with washing devices), filtrate separators, water ring pumps, screw conveyor, belt conveyor

430 Drying of Mg(OH)2 Filter Cake

Mixing device, swirl fluidizer including air/burner system and dusting removal, silo with peak floor, cooling screw conveyor, screw conveyors

440 Storage and Packing of Dry Mg(OH)2 Powder

Silos, screw conveyors, vibrating hopper, conveying air suction fan, big bag packing machine, paper bag packing machine, pallets

510 Bischofite Evaporation and Cooling

Evaporator, heat exchanger, circulation pump, mixing condenser, steam ejector, water ring pump, drum cooler respective cooling belts, impact jaw crusher

520 Storage and Packing of Bischofite Silo, breeches chute, screw conveyors, big bag packing machine



16 Project Infrastructure

16.1 Supporting Infrastructure

Supporting infrastructure will typically include offices, ancillary buildings, maintenance facilities,

accommodation, diesel fuel, water, power, communications and information technology systems.

Accommodation facilities will be required to house the workforce. It is the intention of the Company

that fuel for power generation will be sourced initially from diesel supplied by road train, then gas

supplied from a 78 km gas spur from the GGP. A Miscellaneous Licence

(L52-162) has been granted over the 78 km site access road, along which a gas pipeline,

communications and other infrastructure may be established or installed.

16.2 Site Access and Product Haulage

The Beyondie site is approximately 78 km east of the GNH. Road haulage for transporting product

from the Beyondie site to the various distribution centres via the public road network has been

selected as the optimum solution for the BSOPP. This is based on the close proximity to existing

public road infrastructure, the relatively low product haulage requirements and diversity of delivery

locations. Trucking options for the BSOPP includes a combination of bulk loaded trailers, bulk loaded

containers and break bulk cargo (i.e. bulk bags) loaded on flat top truck trailers and curtain sided

taut liners. Significant opportunities also exist for backloading of product on empty trucks returning

to Perth, passing the intersection of the site access road on the GNH.

16.3 Port

Kalium Lakes has investigated a number of port locations for export of product to the east coast of

Australia and into Asian markets.

Geraldton Port, which is run by the Mid-West Port Authority, has been determined as the preferred

port for bulk export due to the availability of existing port facilities, proximity to agricultural distribution

centres, wider availability of real estate for product storage and stockpiling, as well as the availability

of labour resources that will avoid fly in fly out operations for trucking and port operations. In

September 2015 Kalium Lakes signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mid West Ports

Authority, which sets out the investigation of a path to allow the Company to export potash products

from the Port.

Fremantle Port has been determined as the preferred container port, due to its container loading

facilities and status as a destination on regular shipping routes.



17 Market Studies and Contracts

Kalium Lakes has conducted a review of the potash market utilising leading industry market research

reports (CRU, Green Markets, Integer and Fertecon) and has formed the view that, although the

potassium chloride (KCl or MOP) is well supplied, the premium potassium sulphate (K2SO4 or SOP)

is undersupplied.

Global SOP demand was estimated at just over 6.1 million tonnes (3.015Mt K2O) in 2015/16, which

represents a significant rise in demand mainly due to a substantial rise in consumption in China. It

is notable that there is also no potash production in Australia, a nation which presently consumes

~230ktpa of MOP and ~70ktpa SOP.

Only five companies have capacity to produce greater than 350 ktpa of SOP and account for

approximately 60% of global supply. China accounts for the largest percentage of supply and has

seen a rapid increase in recent years.

The BSOPP Product will seek to exploit its competitive position within Australia associated with its

low production cost and low cost of freight when compared to overseas suppliers. The principal focus

is to supply the Australian market in the first instance whilst looking at opportunities to diversify

supply into South East Asia and other international locations.

Kalium Lakes has already commenced discussions with current Australian Fertiliser distributors to

gain interest with the view of signing a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which

would then be followed up with negotiating offtake agreements. Kalium Lakes has also commenced

non-binding MoU discussions with overseas distributors and has signed a number of confidential

non-binding MoU’s with industry recognised companies.

18 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact

18.1 Environmental Studies

KLL has initiated and substantially completed an extensive range of baseline environmental studies

and investigations which have been conducted in consultation with government agencies and

regulators including DMP, EPA, DPAW and DoW. The survey programme has been based on a

future requirement to refer the full scale project to the EPA for formal assessment.



To date the following biological surveys in support of the Project have been undertaken by Phoenix

Environmental Sciences:

Table 13: Survey Program Undertaken to Date

Survey Description Area of Coverage Field Dates Report Title

Baseline aquatic invertebrate fauna survey

Beyondie Lakes, Ten Mile Lake

9 Feb 2015; 16 April 2015, 23 July 2015

Waterbird and aquatic invertebrate survey for the Beyondie Potash Project

Waterbird census Beyondie Lakes, Ten Mile Lake

9 Feb 2015; 16 April 2015, 23 July 2015

Waterbird and aquatic invertebrate survey for the Beyondie Potash Project

Level 2 terrestrial fauna survey (incl. SREs)

Beyondie Lakes and proposed haul road to GNH

13-23 April 2015; 8 May 2015 Terrestrial fauna survey for the Beyondie Potash Project


Ten Mile Lake perimeter, evaporation trial pond area

13-23 April 2015; 22-24 July 2015

Terrestrial fauna survey for the Beyondie Potash Project


Lake Sunshine and transport corridor between LS and TM

6-9 November 2015 Terrestrial fauna survey for the Beyondie Potash Project

Level 2 flora and vegetation survey

Beyondie Lakes and proposed haul road to GNH, evaporation trial pond area

13-23 April 2015 and 22-23 July 2015 (Phase 1); 7-14 October 2015 (Phase 2)

Flora and vegetation survey for the Beyondie Potash Project

Riparian vegetation mapping

Ten Mile Lake perimeter 13-23 April; 16 August 2017 (samphire boundaries checked only


Level 2 flora and vegetation survey

Lake Sunshine and transport corridor between LS and TM

2-9 November 2015 (Phase 1); 16 August 2017 (checking samphire boundaries only)


Subterranean fauna Level 1 assessment

E69/3309, E69/3346, E69/3347, E69/3351 and E69/3352 and regional

29-31 March 2017 Level 1 subterranean fauna assessment of the Beyondie Potash Project

Work to characterise the environment is ongoing, but to date there have been no significant issues

identified that could not be managed through proper planning or appropriate environmental

management systems. The salt lake systems are reasonably common and extensive, however may

offer a unique habitat for some species.



18.2 Stakeholders

The KLL consultation strategy identifies key external stakeholders and determines how each will be

impacted by the BSOPP and what influence those stakeholders have over the BSOPP. The

consultation strategy has been developed to secure the approvals necessary for the construction

and operation of the mine, road and port facilities, which will require consultation with the following:

• Local Government;

• State Government;

• Commonwealth Government;

• Mining companies in the Western Pilbara;

• Aboriginal groups with a connection to the BSOPP lands;

• Other community stakeholders, e.g. pastoralists.

Commonwealth, State and Local Government authorities have or will be briefed on the BSOPP to

ensure any issues, concerns or suggestions are identified and, where appropriate, addressed or

responded to by the project team. The consultations may result in changes to BSOPP design;

however, in most cases it results in providing the Government authority with additional information

and clarity. The following regulatory departments and authorities have been consulted extensively

during the BSOPP.

• Department of the Environment (DSEWPC) (Commonwealth)

• Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) (State)

• Department of Environment Regulation (DER) (State)

• Department of State Development (DSD) (State)

• Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) (State)

• Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (State)

• Department of Water (DoW) Perth and Pilbara Regional Office (State)

• Department of Transport (DOT) (State)

• Main Roads WA (MRWA) (State)

• Mid-West Port Authority (MWPA) (State)

• Minister for Mines (State)

• Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (State)

• Shire of Wiluna (Local authority)

• Shire of Meekatharra (Local authority)

• Shire of Geraldton (Local authority)



The consultation strategy also recognises that individuals, companies and communities are

interested in the impact the BSOPP will have on them and can influence the approvals, licences and

agreements for the project. Kalium Lakes has contacted or will meet with the following stakeholders

to inform them of the BSOPP and discuss any opportunities or concerns that the stakeholders would

like to raise and resolve:

• Gingirana Native Title claim group

• Birriliburu (MNR) Native Title claim groups

• Kumarina Pastoral Station

• Marymia Pastoral Station

• Kumarina Road House

• APA (Goldfields Gas Pipeline)

• Cosmopolitan Minerals

• Drillabit

• Murchison Copper Mines

18.3 Native Title and Heritage

KLL has successfully negotiated two Land Access and Mineral Exploration Agreements with the

underlying Native Title groups, Birriliburu (MNR) people and the Gingirana people, which has

enabled KLL to undertake ground disturbing and non-ground disturbing exploration activities.

KLL and Gingirana have also executed a Mining Land Access Agreement for the Beyondie Potash

Project. This agreement notably consents to mining at the projects commencement areas of

Beyondie Lake and 10 Mile Lake. A similar agreement is being negotiated with MNR which will

consent to mining to the east of the Gingirana claim area extending from Lake Sunshine to Lake

Aerodrome.

A number of ethnographic and archaeological heritage surveys were completed during 2015 to 2017,

enabling access for exploration activities. Isolated heritage sites have been identified.



18.4 Permitting and Approvals

The Approvals Strategy is based on a staged approach to allow progressive and timely approvals

for each development phase of the base case for the BSOPP. The development phases are:

• Additional Mineral Reserve Estimation (Additional drilling, geophysics and numerical

hydrogeological modelling)

• Pilot Scale – Ponds and Test Pumping

• Pilot Scale - Purification Plant (Testing in Germany)

• Feasibility Studies

• Debt and Equity Funding

• Demonstration Scale Project Development – 75 ktpa SOP Production (Alternative phased

ramp-up approach)

• Full Scale Project Development – 150 ktpa SOP Production

Approvals for the Pilot Scale Development Ponds and test pumping are currently in place. Based on

a legislative review and consultation, the following is a list of approvals required for the full-scale

project (Table 14).

At the completion of mining operations, disturbed areas will be rehabilitated.



Table 14: List of Approvals

Approval Nature of Approval

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPBC Act approval – bilateral approval via EPA

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Heritage Surveys

Section 18 consent

Mining Act 1978 Miscellaneous Licence Access Road & Village Mining Lease Approval

Mining Proposal and Closure Plan

Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 Dangerous Goods licence for diesel storage facilities

Dangerous Goods Site licence

Security Risk Substance Storage Licence

RIWI Act 1914 5C licences for production (brine) and supply (fresh) – additional bores

26D Licence for bore construction – additional bores

Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 Project Management Plan

Equipment Registration

Registration of Principal Employer

Registration of Mine Manager and nominated site safety representatives

Environmental Protection Act 1986 - Part IV Part IV approval

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Part V) Works Approval Application – under several categories (if triggered): Cat 14 Solar Salt Manufacturing, Cat 85 Sewage Treatment Facility, Cat 80 Crushing and Screening.

Licence Application for all of above categories.

Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 Pipeline Licence to Construct Pipeline Licence to Operate

Health Regulation Act 1974 Approval to construct or install an apparatus for the treatment of sewage

Port Authorities Act 1999 MWPA Port Authority Leases and approval to export

Main Roads Act 1930 Heavy Haulage Approval

Building Approvals Shire Building Licence



19 Capital and Operating Costs

19.1 Capital Costs

The BSOPP capital cost estimate was developed to an AACE Class 4 estimate with and implied

accuracy of ±25 %. It includes the capital expenditure for extraction, evaporation, processing,

supporting infrastructure, road haulage, port facilities, utilities and services required for the

development of the BSOPP. Capital Costs were developed by area as defined in the Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS) for a range of SOP production scenarios between 50 ktpa and 300 ktpa

(Table 15).

Table 15: Capital Cost Estimates

Area Area Description 50 ktpa A$M

75 ktpa A$M

100 ktpa A$M

150 ktpa A$M

200 ktpa A$M

250 ktpa A$M

300 ktpa A$M

1000 Brine Supply & Ponds Evaporation 23.63 32.53 45.12 61.97 83.12 99.97 119.32

2000 Process Plant 37.95 48.88 57.65 75.87 90.42 104.59 116.93

3000 Supporting Infrastructure 7.85 9.79 27.98 31.11 34.38 37.41 40.17

4000 Accommodation Village 0.95 1.37 1.69 2.33 2.99 3.64 4.23

5000 Port, Road and Haulage 2.67 6.89 7.55 8.13 8.75 9.28 9.87

6000 Temporary Construction Facilities 1.73 2.11 3.64 3.93 5.14 5.46 6.69

7000 Project Management 5.18 5.73 6.58 8.79 10.27 11.78 13.58

8000 Owners Cost 4.38 5.08 6.00 7.55 9.50 11.26 13.17

9000 Contingency 8.43 11.24 15.62 19.97 24.46 28.34 32.40

Total Capital Cost 92.77 123.61 171.83 219.66 269.02 311.73 356.36



19.2 Operating Costs

An operating cost estimate (OPEX) with an implied accuracy better than ±25 % has been developed

for the BSOPP. The OPEX includes the operating expenditure required to extract, crystallise,

process and transport product to Geraldton Port and various off-take locations, including shipping to

the eastern states of Australia, China, Singapore, the USA and New Zealand. All costs are in 2017

Australian dollars. Cash Operating Costs were developed for production scenarios between 50 ktpa

and 300 ktpa as shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Operating Cost Estimates

Production Case 50 ktpa A$M

75 ktpa A$M

100 ktpa A$M

150 ktpa A$M

200 ktpa A$M

250 ktpa A$M

300 ktpa A$M

Ex-Works 249 216 207 176 166 162 163

Haulage 47 47 47 47 50 49 50

Port (FOB) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Cash Costs 316 284 274 244 237 232 233

Corporate Costs 51 39 37 31 26 23 22

Cash + Corporate Costs 367 323 311 275 263 256 255

Sustaining Capex 22 20 18 15 13 12 12

All In Sustaining Costs A$/t 389 342 329 290 275 268 267

AISC US$ (@ 0.75 USD:AUD) 292 257 247 217 206 201 200

It is noted that existing brine SOP producers are comparatively low cost when compared to secondary

Mannheim (derived from MOP) SOP producers as detailed in leading industry market research reports.

A global operating cost curve for existing SOP producers is presented in Figure 40, including the

BSOPP’s position based on the estimates presented in this PFS. This cost curve has been derived

from leading industry market research reports, company reports and other sources for various SOP

production methods in US$.



Figure 40: SOP Operating Cost Comparison

20 Economic Analysis

The PFS reviewed several production, product pricing and exchange rate scenarios and

recommends a preferred base case that balances a financially viable business case with low

operating cost and modest capital costs, whilst managing the various implementation risks. The base

case is a 150 ktpa SOP operation with an alternative to phase development commencing at a

demonstration scale of 75 ktpa SOP, then full scale development of 150ktpa SOP.

Key economic assumptions include an SOP price of US$500 per tonne of standard grade SOP, plus

a 10% premium for granular SOP and an exchange rate of A$1.00/US$0.75. It is anticipated that

half of the production will be granular SOP.



A summary of the financial evaluation is presented in Table 17. Table 17: Financial Summary

Production Case Constant (SOP ktpa) Phased (SOP ktpa)

Description Unit 75 100 150 75 - 150 100 - 200

Sales Price1 US$/t SOP 500 500 500 500 500

Exchange Rate A$:US$ 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Assumed Life of Mine2 years 40.0 31.0 21.0 23.0 17.8

Project NPV10 (Pre-tax, nom) 3 A$M 205 260 388 319 373

Project NPV10 (Post-tax, nom) 4 A$M 126 159 248 205 240

IRR (Pre-tax) % 23.5% 23.7% 28.7% 25.8% 26.9%

IRR (Post-tax) % 18.6% 18.7% 22.5% 20.9% 21.7%

LOM Revenue A$M 3,322 3,093 2,776 2,892 2,733

LOM OPEX Cash Cost FOB 5 A$M/t SOP 285 274 244 253 241

LOM OPEX A$M 1,349 1,212 969 1,024 941

Initial CAPEX A$M 124 172 220 124 172

LOM CAPEX (incl. sustaining) A$M 278 308 328 341 378

LOM Free Cash Flow (pre-tax) A$M 1,606 1,491 1,404 1,450 1,341

Free Cash Flow (pre-tax) A$M p.a. 45 55 80 78 97

LOM Free Cash Flow (post tax) A$M 1,174 1,089 1,022 1,061 979

Free Cash Flow (post tax) A$M p.a. 34 42 62 60 75

EBITDA (average) A$M p.a. 47 58 83 83 103

EBITDA Margin % 56.5% 57.8% 62.0% 61.5% 62.3%

CAPEX / EBITDA (average p.a.) x 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.22

Payback Period (pre-tax) 6 Years 4.8 4.8 3.7 4.8 4.8

Payback Period (post-tax) 7 Years 6.0 6.0 4.8 6.0 6.0

Expansion Payback (pre-tax) 8 Years N/A N/A N/A 2.5 1.8

Expansion Payback (post-tax) 9 Years N/A N/A N/A 3.3 2.8

1 US$500/t standard grade SOP, with a 10% premium for granular SOP, split 50/50 between standard grade and granular SOP. 2 For the 150 ktpa Scenario 57% of material in mine plan is classified as an Ore Reserve, 12% is in the Indicated Resource category and 31% is in the inferred category. 3 NPV as at construction start, Assumed Q3 CY2018. 4 NPV as at construction start, Assumed Q3 CY2018. 5 Cash Cost FOB includes all mining, processing, site administration, product haulage to port and ports costs, but excludes head office corporate costs, sustaining costs and royalties 6 Calculated from First Production date. For the phased expansion, the payback periods shown are for the initial operations only. 7 See Note 6. 8 Calculated from first expanded production date. 9 See Note 8.



Key sensitivities for the Base Case operation are illustrated in Figure 41.

Figure 41: Sensitivity Analysis

Table 18 includes the NPV, IRR and EBITDA metrics for the BSOPP under a range of product price

and exchange rate scenarios for the Base Case production case.

It is only under a low price, combined with high exchange rate scenario that BSOPP generates a

negative NPV. On the contrary, weaker AUD/USD exchange rate and SOP prices higher than the

Base Case with current spot of US$500/t, would provide additional valuation upside to BSOPP.

Table 18: Variable Price and Exchange Rate Scenario Analysis (Base Case 150ktpa)

NPV Post-Tax 150ktpa Long Term SOP Price (US$/t FOB) 10

A$:US$ Exchange Rate

US$350 US$400 US$450 US$500 US$525 US$550 US$600 US$650 US$700

0.60 128 214 300 386 428 471 557 643 728

0.65 82 161 240 320 359 399 478 557 636

0.70 42 116 190 263 300 337 410 483 557

0.75 8 77 145 214 248 283 351 420 488

0.80 (22) 42 107 171 203 236 300 364 428

0.85 (49) 12 73 133 164 194 254 315 375

IRR Post-Tax 150ktpa Long Term SOP Price (US$/t FOB) 11



0.60 16.9% 21.0% 24.8% 28.4% 30.1% 31.9% 35.3% 38.6% 41.8%

0.65 14.6% 18.5% 22.2% 25.6% 27.3% 28.9% 32.1% 35.3% 38.3%

0.70 12.5% 16.3% 19.9% 23.2% 24.8% 26.3% 29.4% 32.4% 35.3%

0.75 10.5% 14.3% 17.8% 21.0% 22.5% 24.0% 26.9% 29.8% 32.5%

0.80 8.6% 12.5% 15.9% 19.0% 20.5% 22.0% 24.8% 27.5% 30.1%

0.85 6.8% 10.7% 14.1% 17.2% 18.6% 20.1% 22.8% 25.4% 28.0%

10 US$/t FOB is shown as a combined standard grade and granular SOP price with a 50% product mix.( i.e. US$525/t is US$500/t standard grade SOP plus a 10% premium for granular SOP) 11 US$/t FOB is shown as a combined standard grade and granular SOP price with a 50% product mix.( i.e. US$525/t is US$500/t standard grade SOP plus a 10% premium for granular SOP)



EBITDA p.a. (average) 150ktpa Long Term SOP Price (US$/t FOB) 12



0.60 62 77 92 108 116 123 139 154 170

0.65 53 68 82 96 103 110 125 139 153

0.70 46 59 73 86 92 99 112 126 139

0.75 40 52 65 77 83 89 102 114 126

0.80 35 46 58 69 75 81 92 104 116

0.85 30 41 52 62 68 73 84 95 106

Preliminary investigations into production of magnesium by-products including Epsomite,

Magnesium hydroxide, Bischofite, and Hydrated Magnesium Carbonate reveal the potential for

significant value uplift to a standalone SOP project. It is recommended that investigations into the

addition of magnesium by-product capability be progressed to a level sufficient for incorporation into

the Feasibility Study (FS).

21 Adjacent Properties

The BSOPP tenements were chosen because of the outlines of geological formations and the brine

hosting sediments. Only two adjoining properties overlap with the area of the BSOPP. The tenement

E 69/3202 belongs to Kronos Gold LLC (fresh water feed points to Lake Yanneri) and E69/3247 is

owned by Cosmopolitan Minerals (fresh water feed to Beyondie Lake /Ten Mile Lake and half of Ten

Mile Lake). Neither companies are currently exploring for potash.

22 Other Relevant Data and Information

No other pertinent data or information.

23 Interpretation and Conclusions

As with all brine deposits, there is a risk that the brine grade is less than expected, highly variable or

is unable to be abstracted from subsurface aquifers at the required rates. This may be due to any of

the following:

• Variability in deposit could influence brine recovery;

• Brine volume and extraction assessment is inaccurate;

• Inability to abstract brine volumes due to low permeability of the aquifer material;

12 US$/t FOB is shown as a combined standard grade and granular SOP price with a 50% product mix.( i.e. US$525/t is US$500/t standard grade SOP plus a 10% premium for granular SOP)



• Weather conditions; and

• Aquifer lithology.

Kalium Lakes has developed existing and ongoing mitigation strategies to reduce technical risks, for

example:

• Planned pilot scale testing program, including long term test pumping and aquifer

monitoring;

• Porosity, permeability and specific yield testing;

• Duplicate assay results, cross-checked at different laboratories;

• Assess pumping options to develop best option for each area;

• Create a numerical model and brine extraction program to minimize variability;

• Conduct further hydrogeological drilling to understand sediment layers and connectivity;

and

• Benchmarking against other systems.

At the publication date of this PFS, a number of exploration works have been carried out. The results

of the deposit exploration reveal variations in brine chemistry both vertically e.g. downhole within

bores and laterally, e.g. from the auger holes. The results of the chemical analysis of the brine,

constant rate pumping tests, grain size analysis, borehole tests, and geophysical exploration, have

led to an updated Indicated and Inferred Resource for the BSOPP. Furthermore, an updated

Exploration Target has been determined, extrapolated from the existing data and knowledge of the

lake system within the underlying palaeochannel. As exploration work continues, the database as

well as the classification of the Mineral Resources and size of the Mineral Resource will be updated.

The conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves has been limited to the Probable Reserves

category. The volume of convertible resources has been determined by detailed numerical

groundwater flow modelling. Modelling has been completed to the Australian Groundwater

Modelling Guidelines (Barnett et al. 2012) using the FeFlow modelling package (DHI, 2015). Two

separate models have been developed, one for 10 Mile and Beyondie, and one for Lake Sunshine.

The detailed modelling report [22] describes the construction, calibration and operation of the model

to reporting guidelines.

Two mining methods have been demonstrated as brine sources to supply a production facility. The

recovery method shows the potential production of SOP. Based on the brine chemistry the current

process design considers the recovery of SOP as the principle product, with the potential to produce

the following by-products: Epsomite, Magnesium Hydroxide and Bischofite, and Hydrated

Magnesium Carbonate.



24 Recommendations

The recommended stages remaining to complete the BSOPP are as follows:

1. Additional Mineral Reserve Estimation

Additional drilling, geophysics and numerical hydrogeological modelling

2. Pilot Scale – Ponds and Test Pumping

Equipping of existing production bores

Development of trenches on the 10 Mile Lake surface

Installation of evaporation and crystalliser ponds

Installation of connecting pipework from bores and trenches to evaporation ponds

Install Basic Infrastructure – access road, accommodation, buildings, services and utilities

Pilot Scale - Purification Plant (Testing in Germany)

Harvesting and packaging of potassium salts

Export by sea or air freight to K-UTEC’s facilities in Sondershausen, Germany

3-4 months of test work at K-UTEC’s pilot facility to confirm the SOP production process

Allowance for KLL personnel to observe the purification process in Germany

3. Feasibility Studies

Basic engineering and design to refine project variables

Engineering developed to define each construction package, so that Requests For

Proposals (RFPs) and Requests For Quotations (RFQs) can be issued to the market and

preferred contactors selected

Engagement with preferred contractors and prepare for long lead and schedule critical

packages

Concluding of all required outstanding project approvals required for construction to

commence

4. Debt and Equity Funding

Commencement and finalisation of equity and debt funding arrangements. This is general a

4-6 month process with initial discussions able to be commenced prior to completion of the

FS.



5. Demonstration Scale Project Development – 75 ktpa SOP Production (Alternative phase ramp-

up approach):

• Installation of additional evaporation and crystalliser ponds at the Beyondie -10 Mile Area

• Installation of additional production bores and trenches at Beyondie, 10 Mile and Sunshine

Lakes

• Installation of demonstration scale purification facility and ramp up to nominated production

rate

• 78 km of access road widening, realignment and construction

• Expansion of accommodation, buildings, services and utilities as required

• Use of the Main Roads WA network from the Kumarina Road house located on the GNH to

the various WA depots and Fremantle Port for product delivery

• 90-110 t payload road haulage trucks

• Use of Fremantle Port Facilities to access export markets to Asia and the Eastern States of

Australia

6. Full Scale Base Case Project Development – 150 ktpa SOP Production:

• Items as per Demonstration Scale Project Development

• Installation of additional evaporation and crystalliser ponds at western and eastern lakes.

• Installation of additional production bores and trenches at western and eastern lakes

• Installation of road and Potassium Brine pipeline between western and eastern lakes

• Expansion of buildings, services and utilities as required

• 78 km Natural Gas pipeline installed to purification facility (Potential to defer to expansion

stage)

• Expansion of port export facilities

7. Project Expansion and Enhancement – subject to future investment decisions:

• Installation of additional evaporation and crystalliser ponds at western and eastern lakes.

• Installation of additional production bores and trenches at western and eastern lakes

• Installation of road and Potassium Brine pipeline between western and eastern lakes

• Expansion of buildings, services and utilities as required

• Expansion of port export facilities



25 References

[1] JORC, 2012: Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves – The

JORC Code 2012 Edition.- The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and the Minerals Council of

Australia. 20 December 2012.

[2] CIM Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines, Prepared

by the Sub-Committee on Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for

Lithium Brines.

[3] Kalium Lakes Pty Ltd, 2015: Beyondie Potash Project - Concept Study. April 2015.

[4] Bureau of Meteorology (BOM): Meteorological Data

[5] BULLEN Geological Survey of Western Australia, 1995: Australia 1:250.000 Geological Series.

Sheet SG 51 – 1. Second Edition. 1995.

[6] Kalium Lakes Pty Ltd, 2015: unpublished charts, figures or pictures

[7] English PE, Bastrakov EN, Bell JG, Woltmann M, Kilgour PL and Stewart G., 2012: ‘Paterson

demonstration site report – Palaeovalley groundwater project’, record 2012/07, Geoscience

Australia, Canberra.

[8] Magee JW, 2009: Palaeovalley groundwater resources in arid and semi-arid Australia – A

literature review, record 2009/03, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 224p.

[9] Johnson, S. L., Commander, D. P. & O’Boy, C. A., 1999: Groundwater resources of the Northern

Goldfields

[10] Berry, K., 1994: Groundwater exploration at Albion Downs and South Lake Way Basin. Update

of numeric flow model: Western Mining Corporation, Exploration Division, Report No. HYD T036

(unpublished).

[11] Heath, R.C., 1983: Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper

2220

[12] Reward Minerals, 2014b: Dora West Potash Project Drilling Results, ASX Release, 10

November 2014.

[13] Schicht, T., Penndorf, A., 2015: Report of the site visit to the Salt Lakes of the Beyondie Potash

Project and the visit to the company AQ2 from August 17 to August 21, 2015, unpublished, 31

August 2015.

[14] Grey, K. et al, 2005: Lithostratigraphic nomenclature of the Officer Basin and correlative parts

of the Paterson Orogen. Western Australia Geological Survey of Western Australia. Report 93,

95p.

[15] Kalium Lakes Pty Ltd, 2016: unpublished charts, figures or pictures.



[16] AQ2, 2016: Assessment of the hydrogeology of Beyondie Project Saline Lake System, Pre-

Feasibility Study Report. February 2016.

[17] Kalium Lakes Pty Ltd, 2015: Beyondie Potash Project – Draft Pre-Feasibility Study. March 2016.

[18] K-UTEC AG, 2016: Pre-Feasibility Study for the Beyondie lakes potash project, Australia; Part

Crystallisers, Processing. unpublished draft, April 2016

[19] K-UTEC AG, 2016: TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE BEYONDIE POTASH PROJECT,

AUSTRALIA, JORC (2012) and NI 43-101 Technical Report – Short Report

[20] Schicht, T., Penndorf, A., 2017: Report of the site visit to the Salt Lakes of the Beyondie Potash

Project and the visit to the companies Advisian and Western Geophysics from June 06 to June

11, 2017, unpublished, 11. September 2017

[21] Advisian, 2017: PFS and Resource Report for the Beyondie Sulphate of Potash Project:

September 2017.

[22] Wingate, M.T. D., Pirajno, F., Morris, P. A., 2004, Warakurna Large Igneous Province: A new

Mesoproterozoic Large Igneous Province in West-Central Australia, Geology: v. 32, no. 2. p.

105-108.

[23] Cutten, H. N., Thorne, A. M., Johnson, S. P., 2011, Geology of the Edmund and Collier Groups,

in Capricorn Orogen Seismic and Magnetotelluric workshop 2011, Geological Survey of Western

Australia, Record 2011/25.

[24] Williams, I. R., 1992, Geology of the Savory Basin Western Australia, Geological Survey of

Western Australia, Bulletin 141.

[25] Barnett, B., Townley, L.R., Post, V., Evans, R.E., Hunt, R.J., Peeters, L., Richardson, S.,

Werner, A.D., Knapton, A., and Boronkay, A. 2012. Australian groundwater modelling guidelines.

Waterlines Report Series No 82, June 2012, National Water Commission, Australian

Government, 191pp.

[26] DHI-WASY GmbH, 2015. FEFLOW 7.0 User Guide, Berlin, Germany, 220pp.

[27] DRA Global: Beyondie Potash Project, Infrastructure Pre-Feasibility Study, Document DRA-

CP1237-PM-RP-001, Dated 23/08/2017.

Beyondie Lakes Potash JORC (2012) and Project NI 43-101 Technical Report – 2017


APPENDIX 1: JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1 REPORT TEMPLATE Section 1 – Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Sampling techniques

• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialisedindustry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such asdownhole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not betaken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.

• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriatecalibration 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 toproduce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, suchas where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities ormineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

• The sampling program involved the collection of brine samples and lithological samples of the aquifer material.• Brine samples were obtained during drilling from prolonged airlift yields and collected at the cyclone. These samples are interpreted to come

from the zone above the drilling depth, although the possibility of downhole flow outside of the drill rods from shallower zones cannot beexcluded. These mixed samples were only used for estimation the inferred resource calculation.

• Brine samples during test production bore pumping were obtained from the end of the discharge line and represent an average composition ofgroundwater pumped from the screened section of the production bore.

• Brine samples from trench pumping were obtained from the end of the discharge line and are an average representation of the aquifer zone thetrench intercepts.

• Lithological samples at 1m intervals were obtained by a combination of methods including reverse circulation, aircore and auger.

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.).

• Reverse circulation (140mm diameter) and aircore (90mm diameter) drilling has been utilised for all exploration and monitoring bore holesdrilled during this report.

• HQ diamond tails were used on a number of deep reverse circulation holes to penetrate bedrock stratigraphy.• All shallow lake surface sediment holes were drilled with auger techniques.• All production bores were drilled using conventional mud rotary and casing advance techniques.• All holes were drilled vertically.

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.

• Geological sample recovery was high, in all lithologies, except fractured bedrock which had lost circulation of drill cuttings in the fracture zoneand only returned minor chip samples back to the surface.

• Brine recoveries were high for Reverse Circulation drilling in the productive aquifer zones (Surficial sediments, palaeochannel sand andbedrock). The low transmissivity clay yielded very low volumes with more sporadic sampling resulting, generally occurring near the base of theformation.

• Brine recoveries during aircore drilling were minimal due to the nature of the drilling technique.• Airlifts for sampling were generally of prolonged duration to obtain representative samples, however water flowing down from the surficial

aquifer during deeper airlift yields cannot be ruled out.

Geologic Logging

• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level ofdetail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgicalstudies.

• Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.)photography.

• The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

• All drill holes were geologically logged by a qualified geologist.• All geological samples collected during all forms of drilling are qualitatively logged at 1 m intervals, to gain an understanding of the variability in

aquifer materials hosting the brine.• Geological logging and other hydrogeological parameter data is recorded within a database and summarised into stratigraphic intervals.• Solid samples are collected and washed and stored in chip trays for future reference.

Subsampling 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.

• During drilling all brine was sampled directly from the cyclone during prolonged airlift yields. This provides the most representative samplerecovered from the inside return, i.e. from the bit face.

• Careful aircore drilling with low pressure air aims to collect a brine sample that is representative of the interval immediately above the bit face.However, this method does exclude the potential for downhole mixing of brine. The fact that the low transmissivity clays did not yield brine,whilst underlying permeable intervals did yield brine provides confidence that representative samples with depth have been obtained.

• Samples from the pumping tests were taken on approximately daily intervals.• All samples collected are kept cool until delivery to the laboratory in Perth.• Brine samples were collected in 500 ml bottles with little to no air.• Field brine duplicates have been taken at approximately 1 in 11 intervals

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used andwhether the technique is considered partial or total.

• For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used indetermining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrationsfactors applied and their derivation, etc.

• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, externallaboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precisionhave been established.

• Elemental analysis of brine samples are performed by Perth laboratory, the Bureau-Veritas (BV) (formerly Amdel/Ultrace) mineral processinglaboratories. BV is certified to the Quality Management Systems standard ISO 9001. Additionally, they have internal standards and proceduresfor the regular calibration of equipment and quality control methods.

• Laboratory equipment are calibrated with standard solutions.• Analysis methods for the brine samples used are inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES), Ion Selective Electrode

(ISE), Inductive coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS), volumetrically and colourimetrically.• The assay method and results are suitable for the calculation of a resource estimate.• Repeat assays and reference standards have been undertaken and indicate an average error of less than5%.

Verification of sampling and assaying

• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative companypersonnel.

• The use of twinned holes.• Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage

(physical and electronic) protocols.

• Multiple samples have also been taken from nearby locations during sampling to verify assay results and sampling methods.• Assays have been completed on samples taken up two years apart indicating consistent grade.• Assays have been completed on samples obtained from pumping of the aquifer units on a daily basis of up to 29 days at a single location to

determine variability of grade during pumping.• Field parameters of SG and total salinity have been taken.



Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. • Data concerning sample location was obtained out in the field, data entry then performed back in the Perth office to an electronic database and

verified by Advisian.• Assay data remains unadjusted.

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.

• Hole location coordinates obtained by a qualified mines surveyor using a Trimble RTK GPS with an accuracy of +/- 25mm in X,Y and +/- 50mmin Z.

• Regional auger holes have been surveyed using a hand held GPS.• The grid system used was MGA94, Zone 51.

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 estimationprocedure(s) and classifications applied.

• Whether sample compositing has been applied.

• Drilling has ensured a bore spacing of between 750 and 1600m over the 10 Mile and Sunshine area. The regional auger holes are onapproximate 1000m spacing.

• The drill holes are not on an exact grid due to the irregular spatial nature of the deep targets of the and access issues.• The project drill spacing is better than the recommendations by Houston et al (2011) of 5 km spacing for an Indicated Resource.

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures andthe extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.

• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralisedstructures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed andreported if material.

• Not applicable, considering the deposit type.• All drill holes are vertical given the estimated flat lying structure of a salt lake

Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Samples are labelled and transported by KLL personnel to Perth. They are then hand delivered to BV laboratories by KLL personnel.

Audits or reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • Advisian has conducted a review of works undertaken previously by AQ2 and K-UTEC.• Data review is summarised in the Mineralisation and Resource estimate.• No audits were undertaken.• Snowden peer review to confirm compliance with the JORC Code and ASIC Information Note 214

Section 2 – Reporting of Exploration Results


Mineral tenement and land tenure status

• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or materialissues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native titleinterests, 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 toobtaining a licence to operate in the area.

• The Beyondie Potash Project is 100% owned by Kalium Lakes Limited (KLL or Kalium Lakes) with project tenure held under granted explorationlicences: E69/3306, E69/3309, E69/3339, E69/3340, E69/3341, E69/3342, E69/3343, E69/3344, E69/3345, E69/3346, E69/3347, E69/3348,E69/3349, E69/3351, E69/3352. KLL also has a granted Miscellaneous Licence L52/162.

• KLL has a land access and mineral exploration agreement with the Mungarlu Ngurrarankatja Rirraunkaja Aboriginal Corporation over tenuresE69/3339, E69/3340, E69/3342, E69/3343, E69/3344, E69/3345, E69/3348, E69/3349 and E69/3351.

• KLL has an exploration and prospecting deed of agreement, and a Mining Land Access Agreement with the Gingirana Native Title Claim Groupover tenures E69/3341, E69/3346, E69/3347 and E69/3352.

Exploration done by other parties

• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. • There has been no previous exploration for SOP at the Beyondie Potash Project by third parties.

Geology • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. • The deposit is a brine containing potassium and sulphate ions that can form a potassium sulphate salt. The brine is contained within saturatedsediments below the lake surface and in sediments adjacent to the lake. The lake sits within a broader palaeochannel system that extends overhundreds of kilometres.

Drillhole Information

A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drillholes: • easting and northing of the drillhole collar• elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drillhole collar• dip and azimuth of the hole• downhole 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.

• Information has been included in drill collar tables and bore logs appended to this report or previously reported.• All holes are vertical.

Data aggregation methods

• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimumgrade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material andshould be stated.

• Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longerlengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated andsome 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 high grade cut-off grade has been implemented. A low grade cut-off of 3,500 kg/m3 was used.• Data aggregation comprised calculation of volume weighted average potassium concentration of all brine samples within a Resource area for a

given geological unit (i.e. All palaeochannel sand zones per area were aggregated and summarised as a volume weighted average).




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 drillhole 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 (e.g. ‘downhole length, true width not known’).

• Not applicable.

Diagrams • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be includedfor any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a planview of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.

• Refer to figures/tables in this announcement.

Balanced reporting

• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representativereporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleadingreporting of Exploration Results.

• All pertinent results have been reported.

Other substantive exploration data

• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but notlimited 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 contaminatingsubstances.

• Approximately 1,105 km of gravity and passive seismic geophysical surveys have been completed. The tests were performed to define thedeepest parts of the palaeochannel, with traverses undertaken across the channel, extending from 10 Mile Lake to T-Junction Lake.

• Additionally, NanoTEM geophysical surveys have been completed 2017 to distinguish between good conductive and less conductive areas.• Test pumping of production bores has been controlled by the use of accurate flow rate measurements using a Siemens calibrated magflow

meter.• Test pumping of trenches has been controlled by the use of accurate flow rate measurements using an impeller flow meter.• Trench pumping rates are derived from tests still in progress.• Eight sand samples, two clay samples and 12 lake alluvium samples were previously collected during drilling and submitted to a laboratory for

porosity and specific yield analysis.• Metallurgical and mineral processing test work has included bench scale solar evaporation tests, milling, floatation and conversion. The results of

the test work have enabled preliminary process plant design for the Beyondie brine.• Other companies have regionally performed exploration for similar brine deposits.

Further work • The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depthextensions or large-scale step-out drilling).

• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geologicalinterpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commerciallysensitive.

• More extensive drilling may confirm the occurrence of basal sands throughout the whole palaeodrainage system.• Further geophysical surface exploration of the paleo-channels will determine stratification as well as the exact vertical and horizontal extension of

the channels.• A long term hydrodynamic trial is planned, pumping a wellfield around the current test bores at Ten Mile Lake, with the aim of measuring the

aquifer response to pumping and to observe the operation of evaporation ponds.• Data from the hydrodynamic trial will be used to help calibrate the numerical model which can be used to predict long term abstraction potential,

wellfield design, drawdown impacts and changes to brine quality.• Lake recharge dynamics be studied to determine the lake sediment recharge characteristics

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)


Database integrity

• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription orkeying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimationpurposes.

• Data validation procedures used.

• Cross-check of laboratory assay reports and database;• QA/QC analysis and protocols as described in Section 10 Quality of assay data and laboratory tests.

Site visits • Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.

• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.

• Multiple site visits have been undertaken throughout the field program that has field verified the data obtained.

Geological interpretation

• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.

• 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.

• The resource is contained within Cenozoic Palaeovalley stratigraphy and the underlying fractured bedrock.• The geological model for the indicated resources is well constrained. Drillhole coverage is relatively consistent for the scale of the project, and

the deposit is not structurally complex; it is alluvial fill in a palaeovalley depo-centre.• The geological model for the fractured bedrock is less certain, the continuity and structural controls on rock fracturing are not well understood,

but can be mapped in geophysical responses and is considered to be associated with the unconformity between formations and structuralorientation.

• The geological interpretation informs the volume of the resource.• The nature of aquifer properties in different geologies does affect grade, where transmissivity appears to be a minor diluting factor in the highest

areas of the brine grade.• The paleo-topography is key to the determining the aquifers with the highest transmissivity and predicting their extent within the vicinity of the

surficial lakes.




Dimensions • The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike orotherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the MineralResource.

• The length of the mineral resource is defined by the company’s tenement boundaries which have been fit to the margins of the salt lake/riverinesystem. Where the tenement boundary is wider than the palaeochannel system, the palaeochannel boundaries have been defined bygeophysical surveys (gravity, passive seismic and TEM).

• The thickness of the hosting aquifer holding the brine mineral resources has been based on a groundwater elevation (measured as depth belowsurface) and a sediment thickness above the impermeable bedrock.

• The mineral resource extends laterally outside of KLL tenement boundaries in some cases, notable 10 Mile Lake.• The volume of brine that can be abstracted has been based on laboratory and aquifer pumping testing.• In addition, information on specific yield of similar palaeochannel deposits has been obtained from press releases of other potash exploration

companies working in the region and porosity tests conducted in the field and in laboratory tests (Soil Water Group).

Estimation and modelling techniques

• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and keyassumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolationparameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assistedestimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parametersused.

• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records andwhether 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

(e.g. 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.

• Potassium concentration point data were separated by project area (10 Mile and Sunshine) and gridded using ordinary kriging at 150m spacingin contouring software. The grids were extended 1km in each direction to allow sufficient coverage using data spaced at between 750m and1600m. The maximum spacing was 6100m at the western extremity of the Sunshine between SSAC01 and SSAC22. The correspondingVariograms are represented in appendix 5

• Resource Zones were derived in QGIS software using the defined aquifer geometry from drilling results and geophysical extrapolation.• Spatially averaged potassium concentrations were extracted from the gridded data as a mean from each of the Resource zones.• The resource thickness was calculated from the mean of drilled intercepts, three-dimensional block modelling was not considered due to the

large drill spacing.• Specific yield was calculated for the surficial sediments using a weighted average of the trench test pumping analysis. For the palaeovalley clay

and palaeochannel sand the geometric mean of the laboratory data was used. For the regional lakes the minimum recorded value determinedfrom test pumping at 10 Mile and Sunshine has been adopted.

• Volumetric weighted average of SOP grade per Resource Zone was calculated where multiple zones are determined (i.e. upper sand and basalsand zones have been merged into a Palaeochannel sand by volumetric weighted average to determine SOP grade)

• Selective mining units have not been considered.• There are no assumptions about correlation between variables.• The low-grade cut-off at 3,500 kg/m3 was selected based on the cost at which it becomes uneconomical to extract brine and produce SOP

Moisture • Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and themethod of determination of the moisture content.

• Tonnages of potassium have been estimated on a dry, weight volume basis (%w/v). For example, 10kg potassium per cubic metre of brine.

Cut-off parameters

• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. • The low grade cut-off at 3,500 kg/m3 was selected based on the cost at which it becomes uneconomical to extract brine and produce SOP

Mining factors or assumptions

• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions andinternal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of theprocess of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to considerpotential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods andparameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this isthe case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptionsmade.

• The mining method is likely to be recovery of brine from the underground salt lake by submersible bore pumps targeting the deeper aquifer andshallow trenches targeting the surficial aquifer.

• It is not possible to extract all the contained brine with these methods, due to the natural physical dynamics of abstraction from an aquifer.

Metallurgical factors or assumptions

• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is alwaysnecessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptionsregarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting MineralResources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported withan explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.

• Chemical assays of brine waters suggest a similar chemical composition to other sulphate of potash projects in Western Australia. Feasibilitystudies have demonstrated that SOP recovery is possible with conventional mineral processing techniques.

• Metallurgical test work on brine water has been carried out in both small scale lab benchtop trials and larger scale evaporation pilot ponds withpromising results to the efficacy of standard metallurgical recovery methods.

Environmental factors or assumptions

• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It isalways necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining andprocessing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmentalimpacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the statusof early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Wherethese aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of theenvironmental assumptions made.

• The project is expected to have a limited, localized environmental impact, with minor impacts on surface disturbance associated withexcavation, adjacent ”fresher” aquifer systems, stock piling of salt by-products, stygofauna and GDEs.

• The project is located in a very remote area and does not expect to contain significant quantities of waste tailings.• Acid mine drainage is not expected to be an issue.

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, sizeand representativeness of the samples.

• The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequatelyaccount for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock andalteration zones within the deposit.

• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of thedifferent materials.

• Tonnages of potassium have been estimated on a dry, weight volume basis(%w/v). For example, 10 kg potassium per cubic metre of brine.• As the resource is a brine, bulk density is not applicable.• The resource has been calculated off a Sy (drainable porosity) determined using a combination of aquifer testing, laboratory testing and

geophysical methods.




Classification • The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence

in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geologyand metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).

• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

• At this stage of the project an exploration target, indicated resource and inferred resource are defined. The CIM Best Practice Guidelines forResource and Reserve Estimation for Lithium Brines and JORC code were used to determine these confidence categories.

Audits or reviews

• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates. • A review has been undertaken by Snowden.

Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence

• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the CompetentPerson. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantifythe relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approachis not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect therelative 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 comparedwith production data, where available.

• The mineral resource contains aqueous potassium, sulphate and other ions, existing as a brine in a sub-surface salt lake. The current JORCcode deals predominantly with solid minerals, and does not deal with liquid solutions as a resource. The relative accuracy of the statedresource considers the geological uncertainties of dealing with a brine lake. See also: CIM Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and ReserveEstimation for Lithium Brines, Prepared by the Sub-Committee on Best Practice Guidelines for Resource and Reserve Estimation for LithiumBrines.

• Kalium Lakes is part of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) Potash Working Group which has developed guidelinesto define a brine Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve, in order to increase the certainty, clarity and transparency in reporting of these resources.

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2 and 3, also apply to this section.)

Criteria Explanation Comments Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves

• Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an OreReserve.

• Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of,the Ore Reserves.

• The modelling process and Mineral Reserve estimate are detailed above.• For transferring the Indicated Mineral Resource into the Ore Reserve a detailed groundwater (brine) flow modelling was carried out.• Indicated resources are reported inclusive of Ore Reserves• The Ore Reserve estimate is made up of 69% Indicated Mineral Resources. 2.26Mt of Indicated Mineral Resources were not included in

the Reserves. 1.56Mt from 10 Mile and Sunshine and 0.7Mt from the Regional lake sediments.

Site visits • Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of thosevisits.

• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.

• Two Site visits by the Competent Persons, the first during August 2015 and the second during June 2017. Details of site visit outcomesare described in the relevant site visit reports - Reference [13] and [20]

Study status • The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to OreReserves.

• The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level has been undertaken toconvert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been carried out and willhave determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and thatmaterial Modifying Factors have been considered.

• The conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves has been limited to the Probable Reserves category. The volume of convertibleresources has been determined by detailed numerical groundwater flow modelling. Modelling has been completed to the AustralianGroundwater Modelling Guidelines (Barnett et al. 2012) using the FeFlow modelling package (DHI, 2015).

• The Ore Reserve has been completed as a result of a pre-feasibility study with an implied +/-25% level of accuracy• A mine plan has been developed utilising all reserves and resources for three mine production scenarios to support the pre-feasibility

study.

Cut-off parameters

• The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. • The potassium grade of the Reserve has been derived from the mapped potassium concentration for the resource assessment.• Particle tracking has been used to determine where groundwater has travelled from during the mine plan to apply an average grade.• The low grade cut-off at 3,500 kg/m3 was selected based on the cost at which it becomes sub-economical to extract brine and produce

SOP during the initial payback period.

Mining factors or assumptions

• The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Study toconvert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factorsby optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design).

• The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s) and other mining

parameters including associated design issues such as pre-strip, access, etc.

• The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (e.g. pit slopes, stope sizes, etc.),grade control and pre-production drilling.

• The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation(if appropriate).

• The mining dilution factors used.• The mining recovery factors used.

• The volume of convertible Mineral Resources has been determined by detailed numerical groundwater flow modelling. Modelling hasbeen completed to the Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines (Barnett et al. 2012) using an industry standard finite elementmodelling package.

• Construction of a numerical groundwater model based on available data such as the selection of aquifer extent, stratigraphy, structure,tops and bottoms of formation(s), initial aquifer parameters and boundary conditions;

• Calibration of the groundwater model to steady state and transient conditions (test pumping data from trenches and bores) using aniterative process of manual and automated calibration to reduce statistical residual error between observed data and simulated data;

• Sensitivity analysis to “compare model outputs with different sets of reasonable parameter estimates, both during the period ofcalibration (the past) and during predictions (in the future)” (Barnett et al., 2012, p.57);

• Predictive modelling of the resource recovery by adding production bores within the palaeochannel aquifer and extending trenches overthe lake surface and simulating pumping rates over the life of mine (20 years);

• Analysis of predictive model flow paths to production bores and trenches using particle traces in the model to determine the origin of thewater flowing to the abstraction points;



Criteria Explanation Comments • Any minimum mining widths used.• The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the

sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.• The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.

• Determine a cut off time for each abstraction point for particle flow paths that originate outside of the indicated resource areas;• Recharge to the surficial aquifer was managed by simulating infiltration of a 24 hr flooding event after evaporation effects as presented in

Table 5. This was applied annually to the lake surface within the model and accounts for an average of 11% of the trench flows at 10Mile and 18% of the trench flows at Sunshine.

• Determine Reserve grade over the simulation time from particle flow paths;• Estimate the Reserve volume from the sum of the abstraction multiplied by the average grade over the simulation period.• Particle tracks indicate that up to 20% of trench flows from year 10 onwards originate on lake but off tenement at 10 Mile.• There are two principal methods applicable to extract the brine from the surrounding sediments. (1) Pumping from wells in the basal

sands (lower aquifer) plus leakage from potential brine bearing segments within the clays and fractured and weathered bedrock. (2)Pumping from trenches inside the alluvial sediments (upper aquifer).

• Trial lake surface trenches and deep production bores have been tested in the field and proved successful in abstraction of brine. Theconstruction methodology, design and cost determined from the field studies has been adopted for the feasibility study.

• Hydraulic models have been developed to ensure brine pumping can be undertaken with the selected pipes and pumps in the study

Metallurgical factors or assumptions

• The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style ofmineralisation.

• Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in nature.• The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work undertaken, the nature of

the metallurgical domaining applied and the corresponding metallurgical recovery factorsapplied.

• Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements.• The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples

are considered representative of the orebody as a whole.• For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on

the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?

• Four discrete metallurgical test phases were undertaken, utilising a three different industry recognised consultants. Test phases variedfrom small bench scale evaporation tests, to laboratory scale testing by K-UTEC.

• Metallurgical test work included the complete process from treatment of feed brine to final production of SOP.• A total volume of 2m3 of partially evaporated brine at a density of 1.28 g/cm3 has been sent to K-UTEC’s facilities in Sondershausen,

Germany, in order to perform a higher level of pilot evaporation and processing including:o Solar Evaporation of Beyondie Brine in custom built evaporation chambero Pre-Treatment of raw KTMSalt to separate NaCl and MgCl2o Decomposition of raw KTMSalt to primary Schoeniteo Cooling crystallization of secondary Schoenite from SOP mother liquoro Conversion of Schoenite to SOPo Cooling crystallization of Epsomite from the bitterno Crystallization of Bischofite by further evaporation of the bittern

Environmental • The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and processingoperation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the consideration of potential sites, statusof design options considered and, where applicable, the status of approvals for process residuestorage and waste dumps should be reported.

• KLL has engaged with key stakeholders such as the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) Terrestrial Branch, DPaWregional experts and Traditional Owners. The issues raised that may represent project constraints and the management actions havebeen identified and potential management actions are being implemented.

• A biological study programme during 2015, 2016 and 2017 enabled project planning and impact assessment to commence. The studyprogramme entailed a Level 2 survey for flora and vegetation, fauna and lake fringing vegetation. At this stage, subterranean fauna isnot a significant impact on the basis of a maximum allowable drawdown of 50% of the freshwater aquifer plus and adaptive managementplan to rotate the use of bores of the 4 fresh water areas. Desktop and pilot work has been completed to enable discussion withregulators about survey work and to plan the survey approach.

Infrastructure • The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant development, power,water, transportation (particularly for bulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or the easewith which the infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.

• Infrastructure at the mine area, including workshops, warehousing and power generation, will be located within finite footprints andgranted exploration tenements, adjacent to the processing plant, to enable control of access and easy operability and maintainability.Ancillary infrastructure is situated within the tenements at locations to provide suitable access and drainage, whilst preventing inundationduring or following a storm event.

• The central site administration area is located where the access road enters the site from the west. This area comprises the mainadministration building, emergency services, laboratory, communications hub, general workshops, stores and fuel farm.

• Diesel fuel will be delivered to the mine area by 110 kl road trains and off-loaded at the central fuel receival tank farm located adjacent tothe product haul road. Initial on-site storage capacity of 440 kl will provide for nominally one month’s operation with this capacityexpandable if required.

• The accommodation village site is located on a small hill, approximately 1 km by road to the south from the central site administrationarea. The village will include accommodation, recreational facilities, waste water treatment, a helipad, potable water supply and adedicated power station. An expanded exploration camp will be constructed as an early priority to provide accommodation for the pilotscale works and for scale construction workforce. The accommodation village will be designed to accommodate the operations workforcerequiring a total of 55 to 75 rooms, depending on the final roster adopted.

• Raw water will be pumped from water supply bores located within an area extending West and South of the process plant site.Approximately 1.5 GL/a of raw water will be required for the process plant and potable water for 150 ktpa SOP production. Each borepump will be powered from a combination of solar power and a local diesel generator through a local control panel with a wirelesstelemetry link to the central control system. Each system will be installed in a fenced compound with a self-bunded diesel storage tanksized to allow for sufficient buffer capacity. Above ground HDPE pipelines will transfer water to a central raw water tank located adjacentto the plant, which will be configured with a fire water reserve and will supply raw water to the workshops, process area, raw waterpumps and fire water pumps. A separate water storage tank / fire tank will be situated at the village. Fire and general purpose water willbe reticulated in a common system.

• Raw (bore) water will be treated to potable water standards at the village and workshop area, by packaged plants consisting of finefiltration followed by reverse osmosis, a chlorine dosing and UV treatment. The filtration will remove fine particles from the raw water,while the cal-hypo chlorine dosing system will disinfect the water to meet the requirements of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

• Communications systems are to be installed across all sites for business, village entertainment and voice communications. KLL havebeen in discussions with Telstra and other communication system providers to provide a review of options for the supply of an integratedand cost effective communications system for the project. The functional requirements of the system include Mobile Phone functionalityand Wideband Data Connectivity.

• Access to the Goldfield Gas Pipeline located approximately 78 km to the west of the proposed mine site is achievable and KLL havecommenced discussions with APA to confirm tie in and pipeline extension requirements and costs.



Criteria Explanation Comments Costs • The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs in the study.

• The methodology used to estimate operating costs.• Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements.• The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals

and co- products.• The source of exchange rates used in the study.• Derivation of transportation charges.• The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to

meet specification, etc.• The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.

• The Capital cost estimate was based on the following fundamentals:o Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)o Estimate base date of Q3 2017o Engineering design concepts and quantities for construction and fabricationo Plant, fixed equipment and mobile equipmento Direct labour hours and rates with allowances for distributable costso Freight allowanceso Benchmarked allowanceso Preferred contracting strategieso Use of estimates from key study contributorso Budget pricing from vendors and contractorso Use of existing knowledge from previous experience information where no other source was available

• The capital cost estimate was completed to an accuracy meeting the criteria of The Association for the Advancement of CostEngineering (AACE) Class 4 estimate accuracy of ±25%.

• The PFS has developed an operating cost estimate (OPEX) for the BSOPP with an accuracy better than ±25%. The OPEX includes theoperating expenditure required to crystallise, process and transport product to Fremantle and Geraldton Ports, and various off-takelocations, including shipping to the eastern states of Australia, China, Singapore, the USA and New Zealand. All costs are in 2017Australian dollars.

• The operating cost has been developed around cost elements with the primary activities and items included. The following assumptionshave been made associated with operating costs and the base case operating philosophy:o Overall management will be undertaken by KLLo Owner operated operations for ex-works productiono Predominantly owner operated product supply and delivery to depots utilising trucks and road trains, supplemented with contractor

owned and operated fleet when more economicalo Contractor owned and operated port and shipping operationso Accommodation villages will be owner operatedo FIFO flights for all personnel will be arranged and managed by KLLo Flights have been based on commercial services between Perth and Newmano Diesel fuel will be purchased in bulk and distributed by KLLo Gas will be supplied as Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) by a new lateral tie-in to the Goldfields Gas Pipeline (GGP) near Kumarina

roadhouse on the Great Northern Highway (GNH), or as LNG through a Build Own and Operate (BOO) contracto Carbon tax has been excludedo Allowances for maintenance down time have been considered by operating unito The estimate base date is Q3, 2017o Escalation of the estimate past the base date has been excludedo All costs are in Australian dollars (AUD)o An exchange rate of AU$1.00 = US$0.75 has been used during operations where necessaryo GST has been excludedo Contingency has been applied to the Ex-Works and FOB estimateso All tonnages are on a dry basis unless otherwise indicated

• See “Economic” section below for more details

Revenue factors • The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors including head grade, metalor commodity price(s) exchange rates, transportation and treatment charges, penalties, netsmelter returns, etc.

• The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals,minerals and co-products.

• Market studies to determine SOP price points and trends• Discussions with SOP traders and consumers• Product specifications identified and replicated with metallurgical test work• Market reports from CRU, Profercy, Greenmarkets, Fertecon and Integer have been utilised to derive the assumption for the SOP price.

Market assessment

• The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends andfactors likely to affect supply and demand into the future.

• A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely market windows for theproduct.

• Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.• For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to

a supply contract.

• Demand, supply and stock situation determined for SOP by studying recent market reports from CRU, Fertecon, Green Markets,Profercy and Integer. Reports covered consumptions trends and discussions with factors that can likely affect supply and demand intothe future. The reports also covered price and volume forecasts based on market trends.

• Non-Binding LOIs have are signed with potential customers• The proposed SOP product meets or exceeds current market accepted specifications



Criteria Explanation Comments Economic • The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the

source and confidence of these economic inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc.• NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and inputs.

• Discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) was used to calculate key project economic indicators for the project, in particular, the Net PresentValue (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), payback periods, and Earnings Before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation, and Amortisation(EBITDA). NPV, IRR, payback periods and EBITDA are measures of the return that the can generate based on the applied assumptions.A 10% discount rate (post–tax, nominal) was used for NPV calculations. The DCF were modelled on a quarterly basis in nominal terms,referenced to CAPEX and OPEX developed in Australian dollars (“A$”).

• The macro assumptions in the financial model are as follows:o Discount Rate (post-tax nominal) – 10%o Corporate Tax Rate - Step-down rate based on ATO guidanceo Depreciation – Straight lineo WA Royalty Rate – non-beneficiated - A$0.73/t SOPo Native Title Royaltyo Founders’ Royalty - 1.9% gross revenueo Mine Life - Variable, subject to production rateo LOM Exchange Rate A$:US$ - $0.75o LOM SOP (FOB) price - US$500/t standard grade SOP, plus 10% premium for granular product

• NPV ranges and sensitivities determined for key assumptions and inputs including, SOP price, production rate, capital cost, operatingcost, foreign exchange and construction delays.

Social • The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence tooperate.

• The BSOPP tenements were originally applied for by Rachlan Holdings Pty Ltd (Rachlan) with an agreement in place to transfer tenureto KLL as soon as practicable after grant, which has occurred for all granted tenements to date.

• All relevant regulatory departments and authorities have been consulted extensively.• Native Title exploration agreements are in place with the two relevant groups. A mining agreement has been signed with one group and

the other groups has in principal agreed to the terms of a mining agreement.• Access agreements are in place with all pastoralists and neighbours that will allow construction and development of the project.

Other • To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation andclassification of the Ore Reserves:

• Any identified material naturally occurring risks.• The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements.• The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such

as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must bereasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received withinthe timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss themateriality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which extraction of thereserve is contingent.

• Kalium Lakes has reviewed the legislative requirements and has compiled a register of the environmental, heritage and planningapprovals and permits necessary to scope, develop, construct and operate the BSOPP for each development phase. Each phase willrequire; new specific approvals, or utilise approvals granted in the prior phase, or seek to modify existing approvals. Approvals for thePilot Scale Development Ponds and Pump Testing are currently in place, inclusive of a 5C dewatering licence for 1.5 Gl/pa.

• The level of assessment being targeted is known as an Environmental Review, where an Environmental Review Document is preparedand submitted to the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act1986.

• Kalium Lakes has already undertaken preliminary consultation with leading agencies to confirm the approvals that will be required.Based on this consultation Kalium Lakes believes that there are reasonable grounds for Government approvals to be received within thetimeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility Study.

Classification • The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories.• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.• The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral

Resources (if any).

• The conversion of Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves has been limited to the Probable Reserves category.• The Ore Reserves includes only Mineral Resources in the “Indicated Resources” category.• The Ore Reserves estimate is appropriate to the Competent Persons’ view of the deposit.

Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates. • The Ore Reserve Estimates was reviewed and audited by the Competent Persons• The Ore Reserves and the Competent Persons’ report was reviewed by Snowden

Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence

• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore Reserveestimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. Forexample, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relativeaccuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate.

• The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, statethe relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation.Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.

• Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any appliedModifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which thereare remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage.

• It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all circumstances. Thesestatements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared withproduction data, where available.

• Model sensitivity and predictive uncertainty analysis has been completed on the numerical models to determine the most sensitiveparameters of the model and the reliability of the data used to gain an understanding of the relative accuracy of the model predictions.

• Highly sensitive uncertainties in the modelling include aquifer recharge and vertical leakage from the lacustrine clay. Modelling hastaken a conservative approach to these parameters to ensure the model is representative of the level of understanding of thehydrogeology.

• NPV ranges and sensitivities determined for key assumptions and inputs including, SOP price, production rate, capital cost, operatingcost, foreign exchange and construction delays.



APPENDIX 2: DRILL HOLE ASSAYS AND DETAILS

Sample ID Point Reference Location Easting Northing RL (m) Description Depth Representative Aquifer Dip Azimuth

Assay

Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

mg/L

SDHTM - 08 (48 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 48 Bedrock -90 0 745 5,585 53,350 7,850 89,150 23,397 SDHTM - 08 #1 (0 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 0 Surficial -90 0 737 5,450 51,250 7,780 88,000 23,367

SDHTM - 08 #10 (27 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 27 Bedrock -90 0 742 5,430 54,100 7,640 88,000 23,068 SDHTM - 08 #11 (30 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 30 Bedrock -90 0 763 5,600 54,800 7,900 88,000 23,936 SDHTM - 08 #12 (33 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 33 Bedrock -90 0 766 5,590 53,800 7,860 88,300 23,397 SDHTM - 08 #13 (36 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 36 Bedrock -90 0 745 5,585 51,500 7,670 88,150 22,993 SDHTM - 08 #14 (39 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 39 Bedrock -90 0 760 5,550 53,600 7,780 88,200 23,457 SDHTM - 08 #15 (42 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 42 Bedrock -90 0 748 5,570 53,300 7,820 87,800 23,217 SDHTM - 08 #16 (45 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 45 Bedrock -90 0 752 5,640 54,600 7,940 89,600 23,457 SDHTM - 08 #2 (3 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 3 Surficial -90 0 746 5,540 51,800 7,800 88,900 23,068 SDHTM - 08 #3 (6 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 6 Surficial -90 0 742 5,510 52,800 7,780 90,400 23,098 SDHTM - 08 #4 (9 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 9 Surficial -90 0 735 5,480 52,900 7,760 89,200 23,128

SDHTM - 08 #5 (12 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 12 Surficial -90 0 731 5,370 51,800 7,630 88,000 22,858 SDHTM - 08 #6 (15 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 15 Surficial -90 0 746 5,380 50,600 7,550 87,100 22,798 SDHTM - 08 #7 (18 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 18 Clay -90 0 758 5,430 51,900 7,670 86,900 22,858 SDHTM - 08 #8 (21 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 758 5,480 52,600 7,700 86,900 23,367 SDHTM - 08 #9 (24 m) SDHTM08 10 Mile 230359 7259357 560 Drilling 24 Bedrock -90 0 735 5,340 53,700 7,540 86,900 22,948

TMAC 06 2dm TMAC06 10 Mile 233139 7256566 538.147 Drilling 42 Surficial -90 0 737 6330 50100 6030 85900 21600 TMAC 06 75m Fx TMAC06 10 Mile 233139 7256566 538.147 Drilling 75 Basal Sand -90 0 453 9370 78300 9990 136000 30300

TMAC 06-62m TMAC06 10 Mile 233139 7256566 538.147 Drilling 62 Clay -90 0 762 6050 47900 6050 85100 21700 TMAC9-39 TMAC09 10 Mile 232951 7251176 538.147 Drilling 39 Surficial -90 0 831 2490 19300 2400 32000 31800

TMAC 11-77 TMAC11 10 Mile 230975 7253145 538.147 Drilling 77 Clay -90 0 427 9050 80900 11200 140000 32400 TMAC 11-79 TMAC11 10 Mile 230975 7253145 538.147 Drilling 79 Bedrock -90 0 416 9060 81900 11300 139000 25400 TMAC 12-72 TMAC11 10 Mile 233485 7256791 538.147 Drilling 72 Clay -90 0 519 7130 66900 9070 120000 27300 TMAC 12-84 TMAC12 10 Mile 233485 7256791 538.147 Drilling 84 Basal Sand -90 0 514 7630 70200 9290 121000 18800

TMAC 13 78m TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 78 Basal Sand -90 0 641 5560 47000 6200 82300 18700 TMAC 13 78m Rpt TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 78 Basal Sand -90 0 638 5560 47200 6200 82400 16300

TMAC 13 16m TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 16 Surficial -90 0 634 4640 40100 5120 68500 16200 TMAC 13 16m Rpt TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 16 Surficial -90 0 637 4600 40400 5130 68200 27000

TMAC 13-72 TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 72 Clay -90 0 518 7270 68400 9220 121000 27800 TMAC 13-84 TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 84 Bedrock -90 0 523 7820 70000 9260 123000 27600

TMAC 13-84 Rpt TMAC13 10 Mile 233486 7256939 538.147 Drilling 84 Bedrock -90 0 519 7780 69800 9200 123000 26300 TMAC 14A-72 TMAC14 10 Mile 233453 7257458 538.147 Drilling 72 Basal Sand -90 0 519 7180 68300 9200 118000 27300 TMAC 14A-75 TMAC14 10 Mile 233453 7257458 538.147 Drilling 75 Basal Sand -90 0 500 7590 68900 9200 121000 23500 TMAC15-17 TMAC15 10 Mile 235752 7257213 538.147 Drilling 17 Surficial -90 0 400 645 7500 1190 12950 12800

TMAC15-17 Rpt TMAC15 10 Mile 235752 7257213 538.147 Drilling 17 Surficial -90 0 410 640 7490 1190 12950 12600 TMAC15-71 TMAC15 10 Mile 235752 7257213 538.147 Drilling 71 Bedrock -90 0 519 6430 57600 7730 103400 2610 TMAC15-78 TMAC15 10 Mile 235752 7257213 538.147 Drilling 78 Bedrock -90 0 541 6600 61300 8340 108300 2640 TMAC16-71 TMAC16 10 Mile 232062 7254489 538.147 Drilling 71 Bedrock -90 0 493 7880 66800 7880 117500 23200 TMAC 21-59 TMAC21 10 Mile 233892 7253504 538.147 Drilling 59 Bedrock -90 0 589 6930 56600 7300 99300 23900




Assay

Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

mg/L

TMAC 21-61 TMAC21 10 Mile 233892 7253504 538.147 Drilling 61 Bedrock -90 0 890 3430 30000 3840 52700 28800 TMAC 21-61 Rpt TMAC21 10 Mile 233892 7253504 538.147 Drilling 61 Bedrock -90 0 883 3420 29400 3810 52800 30300

TMAC22-65 TMAC22 10 Mile 230516 7254836 538.147 Drilling 65 Clay -90 0 392 9160 81900 11300 144000 30300 TMAC22-65 Rpt TMAC22 10 Mile 230516 7254836 538.147 Drilling 65 Clay -90 0 393 9210 81700 11300 144000 30300

TMAC22-77 TMAC22 10 Mile 230516 7254836 538.147 Drilling 77 Bedrock -90 0 400 9050 82100 11400 144000 30000 TMAC22-79 TMAC22 10 Mile 230516 7254836 538.147 Drilling 79 Bedrock -90 0 391 9050 82400 11500 146000 630 TMAC23-29 TMAC23 10 Mile 230934 7253523 538.147 Drilling 29 Surficial -90 0 126 165 940 140 1500 21700 TMAC23-82 TMAC23 10 Mile 230934 7253523 538.147 Drilling 82 Bedrock -90 0 320 6180 55900 7550 96700 13100 TMAC24 M 1 TMAC24M1 10 Mile 231840 7251994 538.147 Re-development 58.7 Bedrock -90 0 751 3180 25300 2940 40300 18000 TMAC24 M 2 TMAC24M2 10 Mile 231840 7251994 538.147 Re-development 58.7 Surficial -90 0 745 4480 33100 3960 55450 18300 TMAC26-64 TMAC26 10 Mile 232825 7253032 538.147 Drilling 64 Bedrock -90 0 808 5070 39800 5390 72050 17900

TMAC26-64 Rpt TMAC26 10 Mile 232825 7253032 538.147 Drilling 64 Bedrock -90 0 813 5020 39800 5370 71700 24900 TMAC27-69 TMAC27 10 Mile 229050 7258970 538.147 Drilling 69 Bedrock -90 0 520 6360 61800 8810 104350 25200 TMAC28-74 TMAC28 10 Mile 231526 7258961 538.147 Drilling 74 Bedrock -90 0 469 6450 60300 8310 103800 25100

TMAC28-74 Rpt TMAC28 10 Mile 231526 7258961 538.147 Drilling 74 Bedrock -90 0 473 6430 60900 8380 104150 1020 TMAC30 at 24m TMAC30 10 Mile 236365 7258144 538.147 Drilling 24 Surficial -90 0 59 345 4450 770 7700 9780

WB10 WB10 10 Mile 233468 7257249 538.147 Airlift development 72 Basal Sand -90 0 700 4530 41900 5700 43800 13400

WB10 Air Lift 2 WB10 10 Mile 233468 7257249 538.147 Airlift development 72 Basal Sand -90 0 557 7200 64600 8630 72,000 134300

WB11 TB2 WB11 10 Mile 233540 7255533 538.147 Airlift development 91 Surficial -90 0 803 4560 37000 4480 108,000 25080

WB11 MB01 WB11MBI 10 Mile 233539 7255526 538.147 Re-development 91 Upper Sand -90 0 716 5900 43600 5100 61,200 20200 WB11 TB01 WB11TB01 10 Mile 233559 7255517 560.144 Re-development 91 Surficial -90 0 877 4880 39000 4560 72650 16800

WB12 1 hr WB12 10 Mile 233894 7253901 538.147 Airlift development Surficial -90 0 989 4300 37000 4540 64600 117900

WB12 3 hr WB12 10 Mile 233894 7253901 538.147 Airlift development Basal Sand -90 0 668 6805 51700 6205 61,500 116400

WB12 I WB12 10 Mile 233894 7253901 538.147 Airlift development Clay -90 0 940 4150 35700 4400 86,500 163100

WB13 WB13 10 Mile 236154 7257232 538.147 Airlift development Bedrock -90 0 686 7320 57100 7755 61,000 115400

SDHB - 3 #1 (1.5 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 1.5 Bedrock -90 0 530 6,440 69,400 11,000 400 176750 SDHB - 3 #16 (51 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 51 Bedrock -90 0 545 6,590 69,200 10,900 119,000 24,596 SDHB - 3 #19 (60 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 60 Bedrock -90 0 565 6,500 69,800 11,200 125,000 25,554 SDHB - 3 #3 (9 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 9 Bedrock -90 0 520 6,460 68,000 10,900 125,000 25,315 SDHB - 3 #4 (12 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 12 Bedrock -90 0 525 6,350 66,800 10,800 122,000 24,326 SDHB - 3 #5 (15 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 525 6,390 66,200 10,800 126,000 24,626 SDHB - 3 #6 (18 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 18 Bedrock -90 0 525 6,610 66,500 10,900 125,000 24,835 SDHB - 3 #7 (21 m) SDHB3 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 525 6,370 65,700 10,800 125,000 25,015 SDHB - 4 #1 (3 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 223400 7259044 559 Drilling 3 Surficial -90 0 860 4,650 45,200 6,300 123,000 24,566 SDHB - 4 #2 (2 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 2 Surficial -90 0 870 4,720 45,800 6,280 78,200 18,214 SDHB - 4 #3 (9 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 9 Surficial -90 0 845 4,520 44,400 6,170 78,700 18,963 SDHB - 4 #4 (12 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 12 Bedrock -90 0 858 4,590 43,400 6,210 78,700 17,675 SDHB - 4 #5 (15 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 835 4,590 44,800 6,080 79,050 18,005 SDHB - 4 #6 (18 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 18 Bedrock -90 0 840 4,810 45,900 6,270 79,400 17,885 SDHB - 4 #7 (21 m) SDHB4 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 820 4,540 44,600 6,130 80,400 18,724 SDHB - 5 #1 (1 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 225891 7260242 560 Drilling 1 Surficial -90 0 565 7,660 59,100 9,500 79,800 18,155




Assay

Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

mg/L

SDHB - 5 #2 (2 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 2 Surficial -90 0 580 7,890 58,800 9,600 109,000 28,880 SDHB - 5 #3 (9 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 9 Surficial -90 0 560 7,200 60,100 9,440 110,000 29,209 SDHB - 5 #4 (12 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 12 Surficial -90 0 560 7,600 61,800 9,440 112,000 26,962 SDHB - 5 #5 (15 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 565 7,780 63,000 9,740 112,000 29,898 SDHB - 5 #6 (15 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 575 7,940 65,600 10,000 110,000 30,857 SDHB - 5 #7 (18 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 18 Bedrock -90 0 535 7,710 64,100 9,900 114,000 30,557 SDHB - 5 #8 (21 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 545 8,220 65,200 10,100 115,000 29,658 SDHB - 5 #9 (27 m) SDHB5 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 27 Bedrock -90 0 545 7,760 62,400 9,950 115,000 31,156 SDHB - 6 #1 (3 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 224874 7259474 559 Drilling 3 Surficial -90 0 880 4,310 45,700 6,690 118,000 29,359 SDHB - 6 #2 (6 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 6 Surficial -90 0 870 4,240 45,200 6,590 79,100 17,645 SDHB - 6 #3 (9 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 9 Surficial -90 0 870 4,270 45,350 6,585 78,500 17,286 SDHB - 6 #4 (12 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 12 Surficial -90 0 855 4,250 43,400 6,560 79,400 17,406 SDHB - 6 #5 (15 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 860 4,360 44,600 6,710 78,000 17,046 SDHB - 6 #6 (18 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 18 Bedrock -90 0 850 4,290 45,800 6,610 79,900 17,166 SDHB - 6 #7 (21 m) SDHB6 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 860 4,580 46,600 7,010 79,500 17,525 SDHB - 7 #1 (3 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 3 Surficial -90 0 905 3,990 39,400 5,190 83,100 17,615

SDHB - 7 #10 (30 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 30 Bedrock -90 0 915 4,060 38,100 5,240 66,200 15,968 SDHB - 7 #11 (33 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 33 Bedrock -90 0 910 4,030 37,900 5,210 66,200 16,177 SDHB - 7 #2 (6 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 227305 7259097 560 Drilling 6 Surficial -90 0 915 4,020 38,900 5,190 66,200 15,608 SDHB - 7 #3 (9 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 9 Surficial -90 0 905 4,020 38,900 5,180 66,800 15,758 SDHB - 7 #4 (12 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 12 Surficial -90 0 915 4,020 39,000 5,170 64,600 15,548 SDHB - 7 #5 (15 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 15 Bedrock -90 0 930 3,990 38,100 5,200 65,900 15,938 SDHB - 7 #6 (18 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 18 Bedrock -90 0 940 4,020 39,200 5,300 66,900 16,058 SDHB - 7 #7 (21 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 21 Bedrock -90 0 940 4,030 38,600 5,260 65,700 15,998 SDHB - 7 #8 (24 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 24 Bedrock -90 0 940 4,100 38,700 5,330 65,800 16,117 SDHB - 7 #9 (27 m) SDHB7 Beyondie 228257 7260913 560 Drilling 27 Bedrock -90 0 950 4,140 39,300 5,360 66,400 16,177

SS01 140m SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 140 Bedrock -90 0 635 5790 57400 6780 80,650 16,327 SS01 90m SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 90 Bedrock -90 0 244 1610 15300 1800 96600 20700

SS01 90m Rpt SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 90 Bedrock -90 0 243 1590 15300 1800 25550 5250 SSAC01 at 18m SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 18 Surficial -90 0 86 405 4050 520 25400 5310

SSAC01 at 18m Rpt SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 18 Surficial -90 0 88 410 4090 540 6950 1320 SSAC01 at 36m SSAC01 Sunshine 242989 7266582 543.466 Drilling 36 Clay -90 0 55 200 2130 300 7000 1350 SSAC06 at 53m SSAC06 Sunshine 249574 7268965 545.419 Drilling 53 Bedrock -90 0 366 5030 48400 4780 3450 660

SSAC13_41 SSAC13 Sunshine 258504 7271068 540.269 Drilling 41 Clay -90 0 392 4390 43600 3580 83150 16900 SSAC13_59 SSAC13 Sunshine 258504 7271068 540.269 Drilling 59 Bedrock -90 0 392 4320 42600 3530 74050 11500

SSAC14 at 47m SSAC14 Sunshine 257922 7274721 535.675 Drilling 47 Bedrock -90 0 585 6480 73700 6990 73350 11500 SSAC15 at 24m SSAC15 Sunshine 257617 7275041 533.035 Drilling 24 Surficial -90 0 505 6050 69200 6290 123950 19200

SSAC15 at 24m Rpt SSAC15 Sunshine 257617 7275041 533.035 Drilling 24 Surficial -90 0 511 6130 68900 6300 114350 19400 SSAC15 at 59m SSAC15 Sunshine 257617 7275041 533.035 Drilling 59 Basal Sand -90 0 702 5610 65700 6030 114150 19500 SSAC18_101 SSAC18 Sunshine 261062 7276002 540.47 Drilling 101 Bedrock -90 0 755 5640 67100 6520 107000 17100 SSAC18_54 SSAC18 Sunshine 261062 7276002 540.47 Drilling 54 Basal Sand -90 0 766 5580 66000 6530 112900 16500

SSAC18_54 Rpt SSAC18 Sunshine 261062 7276002 540.47 Drilling 54 Clay -90 0 768 5550 66200 6530 111500 16200 SSAC18_77 SSAC18 Sunshine 261062 7276002 540.47 Drilling 77 Basal Sand -90 0 760 5590 66900 6550 111550 15900




Assay

Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

mg/L

SSAC19 at 47m SSAC19 Sunshine 264078 7276655 537.967 Drilling 47 Clay -90 0 652 4360 50200 4280 113450 16300 SSAC21-53 SSAC21 Sunshine 248414 7269423 541.115 Drilling 53 Basal Sand -90 0 640 6000 51600 5240 82100 14000 SSAC22-24 SSAC22 Sunshine 248258 7269820 539.745 Drilling 24 Surficial -90 0 1100 2780 23800 3270 88600 19300 SSAC22-37 SSAC22 Sunshine 248258 7269820 539.745 Drilling 37 Surficial -90 0 1080 2800 24300 3300 44500 9450 SSAC41-53 SSAC25 Sunshine 255111 7272747 539.628 Drilling 53 Bedrock -90 0 547 7560 76300 7470 43950 9360 SSAC42-37 SSAC42 Sunshine 249756 7269754 533.866 Drilling 37 Bedrock -90 0 448 3740 33700 3680 132200 21500

Beyondie Lakes Potash JORC (2012) and Project NI 43-101 Technical Report – September 2017


APPENDIX 3: AUGER HOLE ASSAYS AND DETAILS

Sample ID Point Reference Easting Northing RL (m) Data Source Aquifer Sample Date Drill Type Dip Azimuth

Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)

Assay Ca Mg Na K Cl SO4

mg/L

10 Mile B1 230925 7255738 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 699 7180 57800 7660 120000 21504

10 Mile B2 233648 7257946 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1080 2470 32100 5380 56100 11441

10 Mile 32 230000 7258500 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 785 4390 46700 7470 79500 19677














10 Mile TML1 223799 7259792 561 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 457 7967 73701 11392 132800 32850

10 Mile TMBH 1 226025 7255591 560 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 600 2660 21600 2910 35600 11084

10 Mile TMBH 2 228521 7257319 561 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 635 2660 21700 2930 34800 11714

10 Mile TME 233050 7252797 565 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 480 9300 75400 10400 147000 24026

10 Mile TMW 222778 7253100 565 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 415 8760 79500 12800 144000 36848

10 Mile H7 230375 7259340 564 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 903 2790 29400 4530 49300 13777

Aerodrome 1 Auger Aerodrome 1 380000 7272500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 544 6950 75300 8320 133500 22600



Aerodrome North 4 Auger Aerodrome North 4 370000 7285500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1150 7760 47800 6000 96550 12600 Aerodrome A1 378955 7276704 473 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 439 8610 82300 7960 138000 26326

Aerodrome A2 377806 7275416 474 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 480 8590 88200 8420 148000 23511

Aerodrome 506 375378 7279311 473 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 398 8270 76200 9075 136000 21923


Aerodrome 508 (1) 376000 7278500 473 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 459 8620 84300 9280 151000 22762












Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L
























Aerodrome A 381187 7273011 476 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 564 6690 71600 7880 133000 21660

Aerodrome (NW) A3 370281 7286454 483 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1290 5480 33200 3880 64800 10243

Aerodrome (NW) A4 370831 7286573 485 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1070 5800 37500 4530 72600 11531

Aerodrome (NW) 461 368000 7286500 485 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1100 6470 39100 4420 80800 11890


Aerodrome (NW) 467 (1) 369000 7285500 483 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1170 6640 43800 5320 89000 11531









Beyondie B3 226163 7260513 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 604 2070 20700 3140 33500 10662




Beyondie 11 225000 7259500 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 790 2510 25400 3700 32700 12010




Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

Beyondie 11 (1) 225000 7259500 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 747 2220 23100 3360 38800 10812

Beyondie 23 228000 7261500 566 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 862 3940 40100 6020 73600 16862

Beyondie BL2 223597 7258770 561 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 510 6740 69800 10100 123000 23966

Beyondie BL1 224311 7259754 561 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 567 7741 66291 8882 108300 29189

Beyondie Stream BS1 217112 7257953 565 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 880 2225 21950 3130 40050 7310

Beyondie/10 Mile N2 232811 7251800 563 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 959 2830 28200 4100 46600 12789




Central (E) EC1 357345 7270169 480 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 807 7070 39500 5400 73000 20785

Central (E) 425 354473 7281618 478 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 322 10500 79800 10900 141000 39534





Central (E) 430 (1) 354315 7277351 479 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 800 6290 37600 4500 67900 19018






Central (E) 443 (1) 359000 7270500 481 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 627 7350 47200 7630 87900 25038

Central (N) PC6 335180 7292778 475 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 463 12000 74400 10100 155000 25554

Central (S) PC8 336052 7281468 476 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 621 9710 82400 5400 163000 15518

Central (W) WC1 335403 7281884 476 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1220 4750 31700 2570 59100 10902







Central (W) 319 329000 7282500 477 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1010 1440 8590 1330 16200 5541

Central (W) 320 (1) 328811 7281847 476 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1040 1560 10700 1300 20000 5900













Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L














































Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

Central (W) 374(1) 337000 7285500 475 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 732 8790 60300 6500 115000 18210





































Central (W) PC7 333703 7284444 473 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 550 11000 65300 9900 139000 22229

Central 1 Auger Central 1 335000 7292500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 418 12700 82100 11600 161750 22900



Central 3 Auger Rpt Central 3 337000 7284500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 555 11000 75400 6500 149800 18700




Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

Central 3 Dup Auger Central 3 337000 7284500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 576 11000 78300 6750 149300 18900


Central 4 Dup Auger Central 4 333703 7284444 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 481 11500 71000 11500 141750 25600



Central North 1 Auger Central North 1 340333 7293548 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 412 12600 80900 11500 161050 22900

Diamond Pit 1 (10 mile South) Diamond Pit 2017_Auger Surficial Auger -90 0 0.25 2 60 115 360 230 650 -10

Lake Wilderness 1 Auger Lake Wilderness 1 310000 7312500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 746 9030 58400 7330 111250 18800

Lake Wilderness 1 Auger Rpt Lake Wilderness 1 310000 7312500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 737 8950 58000 7260 111250 18900

Lake Wilderness 2 Auger Lake Wilderness 2 312000 7311500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 776 8300 57000 7770 110200 16400 Lake Wilderness South 2

Auger Lake Wilderness South

2 305633 7310032 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1170 3660 28700 3740 53600 10200

North Sunshine Auger North Sunshine 265000 7276500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1130 4960 35400 3600 66250 11400

North Sunshine 3 Auger North Sunshine 3 272010 7280857 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1160 4890 36300 3510 64300 12400

North Sunshine East Auger North Sunshine East 271524 7278932 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1160 4930 36500 3610 66050 12200

North T-Junction 1 Auger North T-Junction 1 292000 7303500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 958 7860 55900 5880 108650 13000

North T-Junction 2 Auger North T-Junction 2 294658 7307222 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 927 7850 50900 6930 99350 14900 Northern 406 341252 7322626 501 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1150 2220 13400 1530 24900 6739

Northern 407 341000 7321500 501 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1140 7460 42700 5120 84600 12280





Northern 416 (1) 342000 7319500 501 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1560 4080 21500 2680 45900 6918



Northern 1 Auger Northern 1 341433 7321933 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 894 8740 57000 8320 109700 15200

Northern 1 Auger Rpt Northern 1 341433 7321933 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 893 8710 56900 8320 110400 15400

Northern 2 Auger Northern 2 342000 7317500 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 432 12700 81700 11600 160700 23000

Sunshine LS1 250567 7270569 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 465 8099 74071 7938 127700 19117

Sunshine SL5 250567 7270569 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 425 8920 79600 13000 140000 37448

Sunshine S1 251204 7271670 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 515 8510 82300 8350 144000 21474


Sunshine S2(1) 252058 7270801 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 621 6830 73700 8200 129000 20246









Sunshine S10(1) 257681 7275541 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1045 4255 51400 5325 91200 12324




Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

Sunshine 124 249558 7270017 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 786 5290 45500 5270 81900 13987

















Sunshine 158 (1) 256000 7270500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 671 6530 69200 6660 124000 17341








Sunshine (N) PC1 272010 7280857 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1130 5980 42500 4300 87400 11863

Sunshine (NE) TJ1 269298 7279748 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 978 5650 44500 3610 79200 15005

Sunshine (NE) TJ2 271524 7278932 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1050 5040 38900 3900 70900 13418

Sunshine (NE) 218 265000 7276500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1100 3100 22800 2340 40500 10273


Sunshine (NE) 224 (1) 267777 7276946 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1060 4320 34300 3610 60500 13388








Sunshine (NE) 243 (1) 273000 7280500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1160 4340 36700 3420 64500 12429



Sunshine (SW) 120 247000 7270500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1050 4770 37500 4140 66500 15095




Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

Sunshine (SW) 123 247405 7270132 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1100 3570 32300 4140 54600 11651

Terminal T1 258296 7291599 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 841 4810 40600 5350 73000 16952

Terminal 171 257000 7293500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 859 5350 44600 5890 82300 17221





Terminal 196 (1) 259000 7293500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 728 6290 51200 6920 92700 21115










Terminal IL2 255695 7294630 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 315 14100 80700 16400 153000 51228

Terminal 1 Auger Terminal 1 257000 7293500 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 939 5730 44900 5670 85000 14500

Terminal 2 Auger Terminal 2 260000 7291500 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 939 5810 47200 5860 86550 14800 TJ PC3 293407 7306315 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 822 7270 48400 6490 99200 14679

TJ TJ 295133 7307154 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1050 5070 41100 5650 76800 12849

TJ (N) 267 291000 7303500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1070 6440 46200 5350 85800 14346









TJ (N) 281 (1) 294000 7305500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 979 7350 50500 6090 96200 14975





TJ (N) PC4 294658 7307222 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 984 6500 48600 6580 96700 13960

TJ (S) 258 282000 7295500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1590 4220 32000 3440 59700 8296




TJ (S) PC2 290985 7302991 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1055 7635 51350 5600 108000 12448




Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L

T-Junction 1 Auger T-Junction 1 282000 7295500 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1430 4200 30700 3310 60300 8400

T-Junction 2 Auger T-Junction 2 284000 7296500 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1430 4190 31100 3230 58850 8430

T-Junction South Auger T-Junction South 277152 7290635 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 1510 4250 31000 3300 109150 8400 White Lake WL1 362764 7271645 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 602 4840 46200 5690 73500 20486

White Lake WL2 362828 7270349 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 380 9750 75800 9760 137000 34143





White Lake WL6(1) 368055 7268763 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 393 8070 80900 9530 143000 32047





White Lake WL10(1) 376247 7266387 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 842 4030 40400 3730 68000 17281

White Lake 446 362110 7271020 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 508 7830 58200 7640 106000 25278









White Lake 481 (1) 370748 7269059 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 391 8375 76050 8600 134000 28527





















Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L










White Lake WL 370802 7266910 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 511 6600 75200 9130 126000 30258

White Lake 1 Auger White Lake 1 357345 7270169 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 821 6640 34900 4700 66250 19400




White Lake W Auger White Lake W 354284 7281217 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 327 12900 84200 10800 158200 33900

White Lake W Dup Auger White Lake W 354284 7281217 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 324 12800 85200 10800 157850 33600 Wilderness PC5 309577 7311102 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 765 8340 56600 7390 121000 17885

Wilderness U1 320586 7310804 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 2570 2560 11200 1400 26200 3115

Wilderness 289 309000 7311500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 1030 4160 30800 3920 57600 11471










Wilderness 298 (1) 311000 7310500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 858 6710 51800 6930 96200 16323






Yanerie 1 2 Auger Yanerie 1 243334 7294635 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 429 11600 62700 10800 112650 40200

Yanerie 2 Auger Yanerie 2 247630 7297225 538.15 2017_Auger Surficial 2017 Auger -90 0 0.25 2 527 8160 55900 9160 96000 33300 Yanneri IL1 243334 7294635 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 425 9420 57100 10600 101000 38945

Yanneri IL3 241573 7298445 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 693 7200 52550 6535 97250 22963

Yanneri Y1 242442 7297381 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 613 10900 52700 9220 98500 37737







Down Hole

Width (m)

Depth (m)


mg/L





Yanneri Y8(1) 242840 7291276 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 835 6110 35200 5090 63100 19647


Yanneri 86 240441 7298445 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 861 3320 16100 2710 29200 11980


Yanneri 104 (1) 245000 7294500 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 798 6530 39900 6810 75550 19872









Yanneri 119 (1) 246811 7295721 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 755 5885 43100 6830 75100 20875



Yanneri Feed YLF1 235010 7295291 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 935 3860 17391 2768 30100 12478

Yanneri/Terminal YT1 254096 7296955 538.15 2015_Auger Surficial 2015 Auger -90 0 0.25 <1.5m 811 4910 37700 5440 67000 19827





APPENDIX 4: TEST PUMPING ASSAYS AND DETAILS

Point ID Description Location Easting Northing Representative Aquifer Date

Assay

Ca K Mg Na Cl SO4

mg/L SDHTM08 Test pump 10 Mile 230359 7259357 Bedrock 2015 731 5,480 53,300 7680 22918 88,600 SDHTM08 Test pump 10 Mile 230359 7259357 Bedrock 2015 759 5,460 53,500 7860 23667 89,300 SDHTM09 12v Pumping 10 Mile 235582 7257149 Whole profile 2015 156 600 6750 1110 12000 23360 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 12-Jun-17 489 7730 69000 8930 120550 25500 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 13-Jun-17 487 7770 70100 9000 119850 25100 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 14-Jun-17 481 7730 70200 8980 120550 25600 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 15-Jun-17 479 7880 69900 9130 120900 26300 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 16-Jun-17 474 7990 71500 9220 120700 26500 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 17-Jun-17 485 7800 67700 9000 121250 25200 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 18-Jun-17 493 7800 71400 9020 120900 25700 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 19-Jun-17 495 7840 70100 9000 121400 25600 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233490 7256785 Basal Sand 20-Jun-17 494 7860 70500 9150 121050 25800 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 04-Jun-17 496 9080 70100 7730 118500 27300 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 22-Jun-17 805 5410 49600 6620 86650 18600 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 23-Jun-17 512 8150 70400 9390 121650 27100 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 24-Jun-17 507 8070 71600 9380 123450 27200 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 25-Jun-17 505 8090 73000 9450 125900 27300 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 26-Jun-17 501 8060 71100 9400 127000 26600 TMPB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233486 7256791 Basal Sand 26-Jun-17 508 8100 71600 9480 127000 26700 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 01-May-17 403 10900 78500 8890 136350 32100 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 06-May-17 413 10800 75000 8610 129700 30600 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 07-May-17 398 10700 78100 8890 137050 31500 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 07-May-17 407 10600 78200 9070 137050 30900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 08-May-17 405 8840 77700 10600 137400 29900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 08-May-17 400 8860 78000 10700 137600 29600 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 09-May-17 400 10600 79000 9000 136350 31500 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 04-May-17 651 5780 66400 9990 114300 21000 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 05-May-17 411 8960 80100 10900 137950 29900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 05-May-17 413 8930 79700 10700 138450 29900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 06-May-17 410 8940 79400 10900 137950 29600 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 07-May-17 405 8800 79400 10800 138100 29900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 08-May-17 407 8970 78900 10700 138650 29900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 09-May-17 408 8990 80300 10700 137600 30000 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 09-May-17 405 8930 79100 10700 137750 30000 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 28-Apr-17 404 10700 77100 9000 133200 30900 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 02-May-17 391 10400 79300 8930 136700 31500 TMPB23 Test pumping 10 Mile 230918 7253522 Fractured Bedrock 28-Apr-17 413 10900 74900 8390 129200 30300 WB06D 12v Pumping 10 Mile 230190 7259422 Bedrock 2015 378 8360 94700 13300 152000 255500 WB07 12v Pumping 10 Mile 230475 7257584 Bedrock 2015 524 7660 70200 9600 124000 213100 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 19-Dec-15 594 6600 58100 7930 101000 22620 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 24-Apr-17 521 8440 65000 6990 109400 25600 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 25-Apr-17 517 8320 64200 6930 109250 24800 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 25-Apr-17 518 8290 64700 7180 108900 25100 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 26-Apr-17 516 8260 63500 7000 109400 25400 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 26-Apr-17 516 8260 64600 6940 109050 25400 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 24-Apr-17 523 8470 65200 7040 109050 24900 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand Dec-15 595 5590 49900 6790 86800 18870 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand Dec-15 587 6330 55700 7530 96500 21600 WB10 Test pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand Dec-15 560 6770 60700 7990 104000 23310

WB10MBD 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233468 7257249 Basal Sand 2015 707 4050 36800 5280 65300 117800 WB10MBI 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233487 7257251 Clay 2015 699 4550 41200 5690 72900 131900 WB11MBI 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233539 7255526 Surficial 2015 842 4510 35900 4550 62600 116900




Assay

Ca K Mg Na Cl SO4

mg/L WB11MBS 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233539 7255524 Surficial 2015 830 5100 39800 4990 67500 127200

WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand 15-Dec-15 648 6780 50800 6355 90450 23385 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand 14-Dec-15 651 6700 49800 6210 89800 22890 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 657 6650 49900 6080 85300 22590 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 689 7080 53000 6490 89100 23310 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 696 7050 51800 6480 88100 23580 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 672 6890 51000 6380 88600 22770 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 678 7140 54800 6660 92100 23940 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 646 6910 52000 6440 92600 23400 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 691 7205 53400 6700 89450 23475 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 676 6900 51800 6300 89600 23730 WB12 Test pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand Dec-15 660 7090 54200 6700 93800 23610

WB12MBD 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233894 7253901 Upper Sand 2015 729 5475 42800 5270 74200 139900 WB12MBI 12v Pumping 10 Mile 233888 7253923 Clay 2015 999 4470 38300 4840 64600 121700

WB19 12v Pumping 10 Mile 235565 7257151 Surficial 2015 230 1130 12400 1870 21900 42200 WB23 12v Pumping 10 Mile 235582 7257150 Surficial 2015 265 1590 16000 2290 27500 53460 WB25 12v Pumping 10 Mile 235579 7257152 Surficial 2015 476 560 6575 1120 10800 22540

ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 01-Aug-17 848 6080 65000 6480 115500 14800 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 27-Jul-17 828 5900 65600 6390 116200 14600 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 28-Jul-17 687 6890 73500 6990 130700 15700 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 29-Jul-17 695 6930 74700 7040 130700 16100 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 30-Jul-17 1000 4900 52700 5010 92500 13100 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 260414 7276115 Surficial 31-Jul-17 707 6980 73300 7040 131050 16400 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 01-Aug-17 630 7960 73200 7080 127150 19900 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 01-Aug-17 617 7850 73600 7000 127700 19400 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 27-Jul-17 673 8010 72900 7130 129100 20300 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 28-Jul-17 630 7850 70800 6960 127700 19500 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 29-Jul-17 631 7960 72800 7090 127500 19800 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 30-Jul-17 621 7850 72200 6980 128200 19200 ESE Trench Test Pumping Sunshine 257690 7271774 Surficial 31-Jul-17 623 7910 72200 7040 127500 19500 SSAC15M1 Slug test Sunshine 257617 7275041 Basal Sand 10-Jun-17 784 5830 60200 5860 103900 17900 SSAC15M2 Slug test Sunshine 257617 7275041 Surficial 10-Jun-17 837 5480 55200 5160 95050 16300 SSAC16M1 Slug test Sunshine 257301 7275361 Basal Sand 10-Jun-17 333 4670 41400 4250 73100 14000 SSAC16M2 Slug test Sunshine 257301 7275361 Surficial 10-Jun-17 798 5110 56400 5440 98600 14900 SSAC19M1 Slug test Sunshine 264078 7276655 Basal Sand 10-Jun-17 325 4630 41100 4210 72150 13000 SSAC19M2 Slug test Sunshine 264078 7276655 Surficial 10-Jun-17 201 880 8890 860 15050 2550 SSAC24M1 Slug test Sunshine 256660 7273834 Basal Sand 10-Jun-17 330 4650 41500 4240 73800 13500 SSAC24M2 Slug test Sunshine 256660 7273834 Surficial 10-Jun-17 472 5130 46800 4650 80150 14400

SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 08-Jul-17 747 6000 63000 7960 120200 17900 SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 08-Jul-17 794 5560 59200 6350 104600 16700 SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 15-Aug-17 707 5880 66700 6310 110250 17800 SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 15-Aug-17 707 5850 66200 6280 109550 17600 SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 18-Aug-17 660 6600 70000 7170 18700 SSPB15 Test pumping Sunshine 257634 7275045 Basal Sand 18-Aug-17 680 6700 71100 7250 19100 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 01-Aug-17 761 5720 65600 6760 113550 16000 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 17-Jul-17 765 5440 59500 6770 107600 15600 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 27-Jul-17 763 5890 65800 6870 114400 16300 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 28-Jul-17 757 5920 65700 6930 113550 16200 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 29-Jul-17 755 5820 64600 6830 113350 16100 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 29-Jul-17 784 5900 64900 6880 113550 16300 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 30-Jul-17 782 5930 65100 6900 114050 16200 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 31-Jul-17 768 5720 64400 6750 113550 16000 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 04-Aug-17 769 5880 65300 6840 113700 16300 SSPB18 Test pumping Sunshine 261022 7275999 Basal Sand 04-Aug-17 791 5880 64400 7040 16300 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 10-Aug-17 692 5000 54200 4880 90600 15400




Assay

Ca K Mg Na Cl SO4

mg/L SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 11-Aug-17 680 5100 55300 4890 93250 15500 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 12-Aug-17 692 5150 55700 4950 91850 15600 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 13-Aug-17 690 5210 54500 4960 93950 15800 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 13-Aug-17 684 5200 55000 4930 93250 15600 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 04-Aug-17 717 5410 56000 5250 16400 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 04-Aug-17 802 5930 64600 7050 16700 SSPB19 Test pumping Sunshine 264084 7276673 Basal Sand 04-Aug-17 698 5280 54200 5120 16100 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 20-Jul-17 529 6040 61800 5830 104150 16700 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 20-Jul-17 524 5960 61700 5800 103950 16700 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 08-Jul-17 607 5460 46800 5330 83950 17100 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 04-Jul-17 563 5260 44900 5040 80800 16400 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 04-Jul-17 580 4720 40300 4440 71500 15000 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 05-Jul-17 580 5370 47100 5220 82700 17300 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 06-Jul-17 565 4780 41200 4650 72350 15200 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 06-Jul-17 555 4720 41000 4630 72000 14900 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 11-Jul-17 604 5510 47900 5370 84100 17600 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 15-Jul-17 563 5150 45200 5010 79200 16300 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 16-Jul-17 565 5170 44500 5030 80050 16500 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 17-Jul-17 567 5210 45300 5040 80600 16500 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 18-Jul-17 572 5250 44600 5060 80250 16400 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 20-Jul-17 574 5290 45200 5070 79900 16700 SSPB21 Test pumping Sunshine 248431 7269419 Basal Sand 20-Jul-17 572 5300 45100 5040 80600 16400

Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 18-Jul-17 1070 4170 46700 5000 12500 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 19-Jul-17 1100 4170 46400 4950 12500 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 20-Jul-17 1050 4260 47900 5160 12600 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 21-Jul-17 1030 4190 48400 5080 12700 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 22-Jul-17 1060 4050 46000 4880 12200 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 23-Jul-17 1020 4600 51600 5550 13200 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 24-Jul-17 1060 4810 52100 5700 13300 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 25-Jul-17 1050 4810 52600 5710 13400 Trench NE Test pumping Sunshine 260451 7276110 Surficial 25-Jul-17 1060 4830 52600 5780 13400



APPENDIX 5: TEST PUMPING RESULTS AND SUMMARIES



10 Mile Test Pumping Summary

TEST MONITORING BORE TEST RATE DURATION AQUIFER

THICKNESS METHOD TRANSMISSIVITY (m2/d) HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY (K) (m/d)

CONFINED STORAGE (-) COMMENTS Current Potential

Yield

Bore Efficiency@

test rate

TMPB23 TMAC23M1

10 L/s 6.5 Days

24 Theis 34.3 1.4 1.88E-05 Boundary at 300 mins TMPB23 TMAC22M1 24 Theis 52.3 2.2 1.23E-04 Boundary at 2500 mins TMPB23 TMAC11M1 24 Theis 62.2 2.6 1.08E-04 Boundary at 600 mins TMPB23 24 Theis 40.5 1.7

TMPB23 46.1 1.9 6.29E-05

Needs another 15 to 20 days to determine more sustainable yield 5 - 8L/s 75%

WB10 TMAC12M1

32 - 24 L/s 5 Days

11 Cooper Jacob 168.0 15.3 3.67E-05

Boundary at 200 mins,

WB10 11 Theis 122.6 11.1 5.11E-05 WB10 TMAC13M1 11 Theis 124.1 11.3 8.83E-05 WB10 11 Cooper Jacob 158.5 14.4 6.51E-05 WB10 TMAC14M1 11 Theis 146.5 13.3 1.13E-04 Boundary at 300 mins WB10 11 Cooper Jacob 164.7 15.0 9.06E-05 Boundary at 300 mins

WB10

146.2 13.3 6.93E-05

Inter bore flow has artificially increased K. The bore does not have a seal between surficial aquifer and deep aquifer, resulting in flow in the gravel pack between aquifers 18 - 22 L/s 60%

TMPB26 TMAC26M1

3.5 L/s 17 Hours

13 Theis 9.0 0.7 4.75E-04 Needs 21 to 30 days to determine more sustainable yield

TMPB26 9.0 0.7 4.75E-04 2 - 3 L/s 35%

TMPB12 TMAC12M1 12 L/s 14 Days

11 Theis 25.4 2.3 7.79E-04

Some early time leakage observed between 15mins and 2.5 hours, follows Theis type curve from then on 8 - 10 L/s

Lake Sunshine Test Pumping Summary

TEST MONITORING BORE TEST RATE DURATION Aquifer

Thickness METHOD TRANSMISSIVITY (m2/d) HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY (m/d)

CONFINED STORAGE (-) Comments

SSAC 18 SSAC18M1

10 10 days 11

Theis - Recovery 20.48 1.86 - Boundary at 600 mins 6 - 10 L/s

SSPB 18 SSPB 18 Cooper Jacob 29.16 2.65 2.89E-04

SSPB 18 SSPB 18 Theis 27.94 2.54 5.24E-04

SSPB 18 Theis - Recovery 18.40 1.67 - Leaky response

SSAC18 M1 Theis 20.84 1.89 9.16E-04 Poor Fit

SSPB19 SSAC19 M1 8.00 10 days 9

Cooper Jacob 21.10 2.34 2.98E-04 Boundary at 200 minutes 6 – 10 L/s



TEST MONITORING BORE TEST RATE DURATION Aquifer

Thickness METHOD TRANSMISSIVITY (m2/d) HYDRAULIC

CONDUCTIVITY (m/d)

CONFINED STORAGE (-) Comments

SSPB19 SSAC19 M1 Theis 22.67 2.52 2.60E-04 Boundary at 200 mins

SSPB19 SSAC19 M1 Theis - Recovery 20.85 2.32 -

SSPB19 SSAC 19 Cooper Jacob 19.25 2.14 - Leaky response

SSPB19 SSAC 19 Theis 21.24 2.12 - Leaky response

SSPB19 SSAC 19 Theis - Recovery 27.97 3.11 - Boundary at 200 mins

SSPB15 SSAC15-M1 4 3 days 7

Theis 21.78 3.11 5.37E-04 Boundary at 200 mins

SSPB15 SPAC15-M1 Cooper Jacob 23.89 3.41 4.32E-04 SSPB15 SPAC15-M1 Theis Recovery 28.79 4.11 - SSPB15 SSPB 15 Theis Recovery 19.68 2.81 -

SSPB21 SPAC21-M1 9.50 12 days

10.00

Theis 23.25 2.33 2.33E-04 Boundaries not observable 6 – 8 L/s

SSPB21 SSPB 21 Theis Recovery 19.30 1.93



APPENDIX 5: VARIOGRAM ANALYSIS 10 Mile Deep Aquifer 10 Mile Surficial Aquifer Sunshine Deep Aquifer Sunshine Surficial Aquifer

Coefficient of Variance = 0.26 Coefficient of Variance = 0.58 Coefficient of Variance = 0.27 Coefficient of Variance = 0.38

Error Variance = 3.45E+006 Error Variance = 4.41E+006 Error Variance = 6.71E+005 Error Variance = 5.13E+005

Aerodrome Lake Sediments Central Lake Sediments Terminal and Yaneri Lake Sediments T Junction lake Sediments

Coefficient of Variance = 0.26 Coefficient of Variance = 0.43 Coefficient of Variance = 0.27 Coefficient of Variance = 0.28

Error Variance = 1.42E+006 Error Variance = 1.89E+006 Error Variance = 2.69E+006 Error Variance = 4.06E+005

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Lag Distance

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

Vario

gram

Direction: 0.0 Tolerance: 90.0Column C: k

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

Lag Distance

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

16000000

18000000

Vario

gram

Direction: 0.0 Tolerance: 90.0Column C: K

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Lag Distance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

5000000

5500000

Vario

gram


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

Lag Distance

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

Vario

gram


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Lag Distance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

Vario

gram


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Lag Distance

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

Vario

gram


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Lag Distance

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

10000000

11000000

Vario

gram


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Lag Distance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

Vario

gram




White Lake, Lake Sediments Wilderness Surficial Aquifer

Coefficient of Variance = 0.26 Coefficient of Variance = 0.33

Error Variance = 1.31E+006 Error Variance = 1.80E+006

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Lag Distance

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

5000000

5500000

Vario

gram


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Lag Distance

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

Vario

gram


Pre-Feasibility Study with Maiden Ore Reserve Confirms Low ... · phased ramp-up development...

Documents

Transcript of Pre-Feasibility Study with Maiden Ore Reserve Confirms Low ... · phased ramp-up development...